        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 91
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2021-0048; FXMB12330900000//212//FF09M13000]
        RIN 1018-BF62
        Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest (also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (Contest)). Our proposed amendments would remove the previously specified permanent theme and the mandatory inclusion of an appropriate hunting element within all Contest entries and revise the qualifications of the judging panel to reflect this change. This change would be scheduled to begin with the 2022 Contest.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments that we receive on or before July 23, 2021. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2021-0048.
          • U.S. Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2021-0048, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: JAO/3W, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We will not accept hand-delivered, emailed, or faxed comments. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. See Public Comments Procedures and Public Availability of Comments, below, for more information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, (202) 208-1050.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        History of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Program
        On March 16, 1934, Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, which was later amended to become the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452). Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, the law requires all waterfowl hunters who have attained the age of 16 to buy an annual stamp. Funds generated from Duck Stamp sales are used to protect waterfowl and wetland habitat that is incorporated into the National Wildlife Refuge System from willing sellers and those interested in obtaining conservation easements.
        Over 1.5 million stamps are sold each year, and, as of 2021, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $1.1 billion for the conservation of more than 6 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. In addition to waterfowl, numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians benefit from habitat protected by the Duck Stamp revenues, including an estimated one-third of the nation's endangered and threatened species. The healthy wetlands protected by Duck Stamp funding sequester carbon and contribute to addressing the impacts of climate change, including absorbing flood waters and storm surge. These wetlands purify water supplies and provide economic support to local communities as they attract outdoor recreationists from many different backgrounds.
        History of the Duck Stamp Contest

        The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed at President Roosevelt's request by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs for the stamp. The first Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter. Since then, the Contest has attracted large numbers of entrants, and it remains the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. The Secretary of the Interior appoints a panel of judges who have expertise in the area of art, waterfowl, or philately to select each year's winning design. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of Duck Stamps, based on their winning design, signed by the Secretary of the Interior. However, winners maintain the copyright to their artwork and may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.
        Waterfowl hunters have been the greatest contributors to the program, as they are required to purchase Duck Stamps in order to hunt waterfowl. Many individuals not engaged in hunting also purchase Duck Stamps to contribute to conservation or for the stamp's artistic value.
        The 2020 Final Rule and 2021 Contest
        On May 8, 2020, the Service published a final rule (85 FR 27313) revising the regulations at 50 CFR part 91 governing the annual Federal Duck Stamp Contest. The Contest regulations made permanent the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” for all future Contests. The regulations require the inclusion of a waterfowl hunting-related scene or accessory in every entry but do not specify what accessories to include. Requirements for the judging panel specified that all judges would have one or more prerequisite qualifications, which could include the ability to recognize waterfowl hunting accessories. An image of a drake lesser scaup with a lanyard and duck calls was chosen as the winner of the 2020 Contest, and this image will appear on the 2021-2022 Federal Duck Stamp when it is released for sale in July 2021.
        The 2021 Contest species and regulations, with the permanent theme and mandatory inclusion of waterfowl hunting-related accessories or scenes in all entries, have been widely publicized and remain in effect for the 2021 Contest with the entry period beginning on June 1, 2021. The Service encourages artists to continue with their entries for the 2021 Contest and to adhere to the theme, entry qualifications, and judging requirements as published in the current regulations. This proposed rule, even if finalized before the 2021 Contest, will be applicable beginning with the 2022 Contest and each Contest thereafter.
        Proposed Changes to the Regulations at 50 CFR Part 91
        With this proposed rule, we propose to remove the permanent “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” theme and the mandatory inclusion of an appropriate hunting-related element in Contest entries, and accordingly revise the qualifications for selection as a judge and the scoring criteria for the Contest, beginning with the 2022 Contest, as described below. Since the implementation of the 2020 rule requiring the inclusion of a mandatory hunting-related element, many Duck Stamp Contest artists have continued to express their dissatisfaction with this element being a requirement for all entries. The Service has proposed this change to allow artists more freedom of expression when designing their entries.

        Currently, § 91.14 explains that a live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible waterfowl species must be the dominant feature of the design. In the May 8, 2020, final rule, we added to § 91.14 a paragraph (b) containing an additional permanent requirement that all Contest entries must also include one or more elements that reflect the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.” We propose to remove this requirement. Removing this requirement would not preclude artists from including other appropriate elements (e.g., hunting dogs, decoys, and hunting scenes) in their artwork as long as an eligible waterfowl species is in the foreground, portrayed alive, and is clearly the focus of attention.
        Paragraph (b) of § 91.21 outlines the qualifications of the judging panel. In the May 8, 2020, final rule, we revised § 91.21(b) to add “an understanding and appreciation of the waterfowl hunting heritage and ability to recognize waterfowl hunting accessories” as a prerequisite for the judges, among the other qualifications. We propose to remove that prerequisite from the qualifications of Contest judges.
        Finally, § 91.23 sets forth the scoring criteria for the competition. In the May 8, 2020, final rule, we revised the criteria to include that Contest entries would also be judged on how well they illustrate the theme of “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.” We propose to remove that judging requirement.
        Public Comments Procedures

        To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. We will accept public comments we receive on or before the date listed above in DATES. We are striving to ensure that any final rule resulting from this proposed rule would allow sufficient time for artists to prepare their submissions by the June 1, 2022, opening of the 2022 Contest entry submission period. The comments that will be most useful are those supported by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

        You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments hand-delivered or those sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information, such as your address, telephone number, or email address—will be posted on the website. Please note that comments submitted to this website are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.

        If you mail a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        In addition, all comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection via http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-HQ-MB-2021-0048, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
        Public Availability of Comments
        As stated above in more detail, before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Required Determinations
        National Environmental Policy Act

        This proposed rule is categorically excluded. It reflects an administrative modification of procedures and the impacts are limited to administrative effects (516 DM 8.5(a)(3)). A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is therefore not required.
        Endangered Species Act Consideration

        Of the species on our List of Eligible Species, only two species are currently listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). No legal complications arise from the dual listing as the two lists are developed under separate authorities and for different purposes. Because this proposed rule is strictly administrative in nature, it has no effect on endangered or threatened species. Thus, it does not require consultation under section 7 of the ESA.
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
        Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
        Executive Order (E.O.) 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

        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal 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) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The changes we propose are intended primarily to clarify the requirements for the Contest. These changes would affect individuals, not businesses or other small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Currently, Duck Stamp sales average approximately 1.5 million each year. Active waterfowl hunters, the only people required to purchase an annual stamp, number approximately 1.1 million each year. Duck Stamps are also purchased by stamp and wildlife art collectors, bird watchers, and other conservationists, and a current stamp can be used for access at any national wildlife refuge that has an entry fee. Many hunters also purchase multiple stamps for different purposes. We are currently unable to quantify numbers of stamps purchased by each user group; we do not anticipate being able to attribute any variability in sales due to the proposed changes in the Contest. In recent years, when no theme is required, we have received an average of 200 entries per year to the Contest. We anticipate that the number of entries into the Federal Duck Stamp Contest will range between 140 and 250 in any given year.
        We therefore certify that, if adopted, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
        Clarity of This 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, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rulemaking, 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.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
        This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:
        (a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        (b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        (c) 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.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

        This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0172. You may view the information collection request(s) at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rulemaking does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

        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 that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. This proposed rule would revise the current regulations at 50 CFR part 91 that govern the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. This rule would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        Under 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. Individual Tribal members must meet the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who enter the Federal Duck Stamp Contest.
        Federalism
        These proposed revisions to part 91 do not contain significant Federalism implications. A federalism summary impact statement under Executive Order 13132 is not required.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91
          Hunting, Wildlife.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 91, subchapter G of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 91—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND CONSERVATION STAMP CONTEST

        1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 718j; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

        2. Revise § 91.14 to read as follows:

          § 91.14
           Restrictions on subject matter for entry.
          A live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible waterfowl species must be the dominant feature of the design. The design may depict more than one of the eligible species. The judges' overall mandate is to select the best design that will make an interesting, useful, and attractive duck stamp that will be accepted and prized by hunters, stamp collectors, conservationists, and others. The design must be the contestant's original hand-drawn creation. The entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs, or from images in any format published on the internet. Photographs, computer-generated art, or art produced from a computer printer or other computer/mechanical output device (airbrush method excepted) are not eligible to be entered into the contest and will be disqualified. An entry submitted in a prior contest that was not selected for a Federal or State stamp design may be submitted in the current contest if the entry meets the criteria set forth in this section.

        3. Amend § 91.21 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 91.21
           Selection and qualification of contest judges.

          (b) Qualifications. The panel of five judges will comprise individuals who have one or more of the following prerequisites: Recognized art credentials, knowledge of the anatomical makeup and the natural habitat of the eligible waterfowl species, an understanding of the wildlife sporting world in which the Duck Stamp is used, an awareness of philately and the role the Duck Stamp plays in stamp collecting, and demonstrated support for the conservation of waterfowl and wetlands through active involvement in the conservation community.

        4. Revise § 91.23 to read as follows:

          § 91.23
           Scoring criteria for contest.
          Entries will be judged on the basis of anatomical accuracy, artistic composition, and suitability for reduction in the production of a stamp.

          Shannon A. Estenoz,
          Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2021-13476 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 201
        RIN 0750-AF30
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Contracting Officers' Representatives (DFARS Case 2005-D022)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text pertaining to the designation of a contracting officer's representative. This proposed rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before July 11, 2006, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2005-D022, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2005-D022 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Robin Schulze, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Robin Schulze, (703) 602-0326.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background

        DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/transformation/index.htm.
        This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed DFARS changes—
        • Clarify the authority of a contracting officer's representative; and

        • Remove internal DoD procedures relating to the designation of a contracting officer's representative. Text on this subject will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). Additional information on PGI is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the proposed rule addresses internal DoD procedural matters, and makes no significant change to DoD contracting policy. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2005-D022.

        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 201
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 201 as follows:

          PART 201—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
          1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 201 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          2. Section 201.602-2 is revised to read as follows:

            201.602-2
             Responsibilities.
            (1) Follow the procedures at PGI 201.602-2 regarding designation of a contracting officer's representative (COR).
            (2) A COR-
            (i) Must be a Government employee, unless otherwise authorized in agency regulations.
            (ii) Must be qualified by training and experience commensurate with the responsibilities to be delegated in accordance with department/agency guidelines.
            (iii) May not be delegated responsibility to perform functions at a contractor's location that have been delegated under FAR 42.202(a) to a contract administration office.
            (iv) Has no authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract.
            (v) Must be designated in writing, and a copy furnished the contractor and the contract administration office—
            (A) Specifying the extent of the COR's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer;
            (B) Identifying the limitations on the COR's authority;
            (C) Specifying the period covered by the designation;
            (D) Stating the authority is not redelegable; and
            (E) Stating that the COR may be personally liable for unauthorized acts.

       [FR Doc. E6-7286 Filed 5-11-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Office of Inspector General
        42 CFR Part 1001
        Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts

          AGENCY:
          Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to develop regulations.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with section 205 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, this annual notice solicits proposals and recommendations for developing new and modifying existing safe harbor provisions under the anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act), as well as developing new OIG Special Fraud Alerts.

          DATES:
          To assure consideration, public comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on February 19, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Please mail or deliver your written comments to the following address: Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: OIG-61-N, Room 5246, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
          We do not accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer to file code OIG-61-N. Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 5541 of the Office of Inspector General at 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joel Schaer, (202) 619-0089, OIG Regulations Officer.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        A. The OIG Safe Harbor Provisions
        Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)) provides criminal penalties for individuals or entities that knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration in order to induce or reward business reimbursable under the Federal health care programs. The offense is classified as a felony and is punishable by fines of up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years. The OIG may also propose the imposition of civil money penalties, in accordance with section 1128A(a)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a), or exclusions from the Federal health care programs, in accordance with section 1128(b)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b)(7)).

        Since the statute on its face is so broad, concern has been expressed for many years that some relatively innocuous commercial arrangements may be subject to criminal prosecution or administrative sanction. In response to the above concern, the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, section 14 of Public Law 100-93, specifically required the development and promulgation of regulations, the so-called “safe harbor” provisions, specifying various payment and business practices which, although potentially capable of inducing referrals of business reimbursable under the Federal health care programs, would not be treated as criminal offenses under the anti-kickback statute and would not serve as a basis for administrative sanctions. The OIG safe harbor provisions have been developed “to limit the reach of the statute somewhat by permitting certain non-abusive arrangements, while encouraging beneficial and innocuous arrangements” (56 FR 35952, July 29, 1991). Health care providers and others may voluntarily seek to comply with these provisions so that they have the assurance that their business practices are not subject to any enforcement action under the anti-kickback statute or related administrative authorities.
        B. OIG Special Fraud Alerts
        The OIG has also periodically issued Special Fraud Alerts to give continuing guidance to health care providers with respect to practices the OIG finds potentially fraudulent or abusive. The Special Fraud Alerts encourage industry compliance by giving providers guidance that can be applied to their own businesses. The OIG Special Fraud Alerts are intended for extensive distribution directly to the health care provider community, as well as those charged with administering the Federal health care programs.
        C. Section 205 of Public Law 104-191

        Section 205 of Public Law 104-191 requires the Department to develop and publish an annual notice in the Federal Register formally soliciting proposals for modifying existing safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute and for developing new safe harbors and Special Fraud Alerts.
        In developing safe harbors for a criminal statute, the OIG is required to engage in a thorough review of the range of factual circumstances that may fall within the proposed safe harbor subject area so as to uncover potential opportunities for fraud and abuse. Only then can the OIG determine, in consultation with the Department of Justice, whether it can effectively develop regulatory limitations and controls that will permit beneficial and innocuous arrangements within a subject area while, at the same time, protecting the Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries from abusive practices.
        II. Solicitation of Additional New Recommendations and Proposals

        In accordance with the requirements of section 205 of Public Law 104-191, the OIG last published a Federal Register solicitation notice for developing new safe harbors and Special Fraud Alerts on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78124). As required under section 205, a status report of the public comments received in response to that notice is set forth in Appendix F to the OIG's Semiannual Report covering the period April 1, 2001 through September, 30, 2001.1
           The OIG is not seeking additional public comment on the proposals listed in Appendix F at this time. Rather, this notice seeks additional recommendations regarding the development of proposed or modified safe harbor regulations and new Special Fraud Alerts beyond those summarized in Appendix F to the OIG Semiannual Report referenced above.

            1 The OIG Semiannual Report can be accessed through the OIG Web site at http://www.dhhs.gov/oig/semann/index.htm.

        Criteria for Modifying and Establishing Safe Harbor Provisions
        In accordance with section 205, we will consider a number of factors in reviewing proposals for new or modified safe harbor provisions, such as the extent to which the proposals would effect an increase or decrease in—
        • Access to health care services;
        • The quality of care services;
        • Patient freedom of choice among health care providers;
        • Competition among health care providers;
        • The cost to Federal health care programs;
        • The potential overutilization of the health care services; and
        • The ability of health care facilities to provide services in medically underserved areas or to medically underserved populations.
        In addition, we will also take into consideration other factors, including, for example, the existence (or nonexistence) of any potential financial benefit to health care professionals or providers that may vary based on their decisions whether to (1) order a health care item or service, or (2) arrange for a referral of health care items or services to a particular practitioner or provider.
        Criteria for Developing Special Fraud Alerts
        In determining whether to issue additional Special Fraud Alerts, we will also consider whether, and to what extent, the practices that would be identified in a new Special Fraud Alert may result in any of the consequences set forth above, as well as the volume and frequency of the conduct that would be identified in the Special Fraud Alerts.
        A detailed explanation of justifications for, or empirical data supporting, a suggestion for a safe harbor or Special Fraud Alert would be helpful and should, if possible, be included in any response to this solicitation.

          Dated: December 4, 2001.
          Janet Rehnquist,
          Inspector General.

      [FR Doc. 01-31207 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4152-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [CA 071-0298; FRL-7123-8]
        Revision to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          We are proposing a full approval of a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California SIP concerning PM-10 emissions from industrial processes. We are proposing action on a local rule that regulates this emission source under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by January 30, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
          You can inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rule revisions at the following locations:

          Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
          California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
          San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

          Table of Contents
          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rule did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of this rule?
          C. What are the changes in the submitted rule?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
          B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. Previous proposed action and public comment
          D. Present proposed action and public comment
          III. Background information
          Why was this rule submitted?
          IV. Administrative Requirements

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
        Table 1 lists the rule proposed for full approval with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          Table 1.—Submitted Rules

            Local agency
            Rule #
            Rule title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            SJVUAPCD
            4201
            Particulate Matter Concentration
            12/17/92
            11/18/93

        On December 27, 1993, we determined that the submittal of Rule 4201 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
        B. Are there other versions of this rule?
        We approved the following versions of submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 into the portions of the California SIP applicable to each of the eight counties that were unified and now comprise the SJVUAPCD:
        • Fresno County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
        • Kern County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration—Valley Basin, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
        • Kings County Rule 404, Particulate Matter, approved on August 4, 1978 (43 FR 34468).
        • Madera County Rule 403, Particulate Matter Emissions from the Incineration of Combustible Refuse, approved on April 16, 1991 (56 FR 15286).
        • Merced County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, June 14, 1978 (43 FR 25689).
        • San Joaquin County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
        • Stanislaus County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
        • Tulare County Rule 404, Particulate Matter, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
        C. What Are The Changes In The Submitted Rule?
        Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 changes are as follows:
        • The rules of eight former indiviual county air districts that unified into SJVUAPCD are combined. The TSD has more information about this rule.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
        We evaluated the rule for consistency with the CAA as amended in 1990 and with 40 CFR part 51. The following guidance documents were used for reference:
        • PM-10 Guideline Document, EPA-452/R093-008).

        • Memorandum, Review of State Regulation Recodifications, OAQPS (February 12, 1990).

        Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT) for existing stationary sources of PM-10. Section 189(b) requires that serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/RACT requirements, implement best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT) for existing stationary sources of PM-10. SJVUAPCD is a serious PM-10 nonattainment areas and is required to implement BACM/BACT.
        However, we have not reviewed the substance of the rules relative to BACM/BACT requirements at this time. The rules were approved into the SIP in previous rulemakings. We are now merely approving the combining of the individual rules into a single equivalent rule submitted by the State. Our administrative approval at this time does not imply any position with respect to the approvablility of the substance of the rules. To the extent that we have issued any SIP calls to the State with respect to the adequacy of any of the rules subject to this action, we will continue to require the State to correct any such rule deficiencies despite our present approval.
        B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
        The rule is largely consistent with relevant policy and guidance. The adoption of SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 improves the SIP by simplifying the eight SIP rules into one rule in the unified District.
        C. Previous Proposed Action and Public Comment
        We previously proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval for Rule 4201 on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78434). The deficiencies were as follows:
        • The rule does not meet the requirements of BACM/BACT. Other serious PM-10 nonattainment areas have lower particulate matter emission limits.
        • The rule does not have periodic monitoring requirements.
        • The rule does not require recordkeeping for at least two years.
        EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received a comment from the following party:
        Mark Boese, SJVUAPCD; letter dated January 11, 2001 and received January 16, 2001.
        The comment and our response are summarized below.

          Comment I: SJVUAPCD notes the following points concerning the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4201, Particulate Matter Concentration, for not meeting the requirements of BACM/BACT and not having monitoring and recordkeeping requirements:
        • It is a holdover from an earlier regulatory era that regulated Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) instead of PM-10.
        • It is somewhat valuable for assuring that existing equipment maintains TSP emission controls.
        • It is a generic rule not intended to fulfill BACM/BACT requirements for regulating PM-10. Specific, focused BACM/BACT determinations are or will be made elsewhere.
        • Overall, Rule 4201 is of similar stringency to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 404.
        • No PM-10 reductions have been attributed to the rule in the current PM-10 Plan submittal.
        • Rule 4202, which covers sources similar to Rule 4201, does not have monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and was approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of RACM/RACT.
        • SJVUAPCD encourages EPA to either approve Rule 4201 as a BACM/BACT rule or approve Rule 4201 as a RACM/RACT rule as was done for Rule 4202.

          Response: We have evaluated these points and determined the following:
        • Rules 4201 and 4202 are old TSP rules from a past regulatory era, when similar rules did not have monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. We recommend such requirements for a future revision of these rules.
        • SJVUAPCD is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area and therefore must meet the requirements of BACM/BACT for source categories that are not insignificant or have major sources. We believe the source category for Rules 4201 and 4202 is not insignificant. Therefore, Rules 4201 and 4202 must meet the requirements of BACM/BACT. However, we will do an administrative approval of the eight individual county SIP rules without evaluating the substance of the rules at this time. Since our proposed action represents an administrative approval only, we may in the future require substantive changes to those SJVUAPCD rules, such as Rules 4201 and 4202, that regulate PM-10 emissions from existing stationary sources to address concerns related to BACM/BACT or to the attainment demonstration. Also, over the long-term, SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 may need to be revised to address deficiencies in enforceability prior to our approval of any redesignation to attainment.
        D. Present Proposed Action and Public Comment
        As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is proposing a full approval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 to improve the SIP. We will accept comments from the public on the proposed full approval for the next 30 days.
        III. Background Information
        Why Was This Rule Submitted?
        PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency PM-10 rules.

          Table 2.—PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones

            Date
            Event

            March 3, 1978
            EPA promulgated a list of total suspended particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.

            July 1, 1987
            EPA replaced the TSP standards with new PM standards applying only up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672.

            November 15, 1990

            Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

            November 15, 1990
            PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA were designated nonattainment by operation of law and classified as moderate pursuant to section 188(a). States are required by section 110(a) to submit rules regulating PM-10 emissions in order to achieve the attainment dates specified in section 188(c).

        IV. Administrative Requirements

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

        This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

        In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

          Dated: November 23, 2001.
          Sally Seymour,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 01-32104 Filed 12-28-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 20
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2009-0003; 91200-1231-9BPP]
        RIN 1018-AW46
        Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer Shot Alloys as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots; Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose to approve tungsten-iron-fluoropolymer shot alloys for hunting waterfowl and coots. We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for this group of alloys in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009, under RIN 1018-AW46 (74 FR 9207). Having completed our review of the application materials, we have concluded that these alloys are very unlikely to adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats.

          DATES:
          Send comments on this proposal and/or the associated Draft Environmental Assessment by September 8, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:

            Draft Environmental Assessment: You may obtain a copy of the draft environmental assessment online at http://www.regulations.govor by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Written Comments: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket Number FWS-R9-MB-2009-0003.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AW46; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203-1610.

          We will not accept e-mails or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          George T. Allen, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 703-358-1825.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712) implement migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916, amended), Mexico (1936, amended), Japan (1972, amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted under the Acts. The Acts authorize the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
        Deposition of toxic shot and release of toxic shot components in waterfowl hunting locations are potentially harmful to many organisms. Research has shown that ingested spent lead shot causes significant mortality in migratory birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot types that do not pose significant toxicity hazards to migratory birds or other wildlife. We addressed lead poisoning in waterfowl in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1976, and again in a 1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 document provided the scientific justification for a ban on the use of lead shot and the subsequent approval of steel shot for hunting waterfowl and coots that began that year, with a complete ban of lead for waterfowl and coot hunting in 1991. We have continued to consider other potential candidates for approval as nontoxic shot. We are obligated to review applications for approval of alternative shot types as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots.
        Tundra Composites, LLC, seeks approval of Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer (TIF) shot alloys of 41.5 to 95.2 percent tungsten, 1.5 to 52.0 percent steel, and 3.5 to 8.0 percent fluoropolymer by weight as nontoxic. The tungsten and iron in this shot type have already been approved in other nontoxic shot types. The applicant did a worst-case evaluation of the potential impacts of the fluoropolymer on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
        The data from the applicant indicate that the tungsten-iron-fluoropolymer alloys will be nontoxic when ingested by waterfowl, and should not pose a significant danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats. We conclude that they raise no particular concerns about deposition in the environment or about ingestion by waterfowl or predators.

        Many hunters believe that some nontoxic shot types do not compare favorably to lead and that they may damage some shotgun barrels, and a small percentage of hunters have not complied with nontoxic shot regulations. Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting increased after the ban on lead shot (Anderson et al. 2000), but we believe that compliance will continue to increase with the availability and approval of other nontoxic shot types. Increased use of nontoxic shot will enhance protection of migratory waterfowl and their habitats. More important, however, is that the Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated to consider all complete nontoxic shot submissions.
        We have reviewed the shot under the criteria in Tier 1 of the revised nontoxic shot approval procedures contained in 50 CFR 20.134 for permanent approval of shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. We propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21 (j) to add TIF shot to the list of the approved types of shot for waterfowl and coot hunting.
        Affected Environment
        Waterfowl Populations

        In 2008, in the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey traditional survey area (strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77), the total duck population estimate was 37.3 ± with a standard error of 0.6 million birds. This was 9% lower than last year's estimate of 41.2 ± 0.7 million birds, but 11% above the 1955-2007 long-term average. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance was 7.7 ± 0.3 million birds, similar to last year's estimate of 8.3 ± 0.3 million birds and to the long-term average. Blue-winged teal (A. discors) estimated abundance was 6.6 ± 0.3 million birds similar to last year's estimate of 6.7 ± 0.4 million birds, and 45% above the long-term average. Estimated abundances of gadwall (A. strepera; 2.7 ± 0.2 million) and northern shovelers (A. clypeata; 3.5 ± 0.2 million) were lower than those of last year (−19% and −23%, respectively), but both remained 56% above their long-term averages. Estimated abundance of American wigeon (A. americana; 2.5 ± 0.2 million) was similar to the 2007 estimate and the long-term average. Estimated abundances of green-winged teal (A. crecca; 3.0 ± 0.2 million) and redheads (Aythya americana; 1.1 ± 0.1 million) were similar to last year's, but were each more than 50% above their long-term averages. The redhead and green-winged teal estimates were the highest and the second highest ever for the traditional survey area. The canvasback (A. valisineria) estimate of 0.5 ± 0.05 million was down 44% relative to 2007's record high, and 14% below the long-term average. Northern pintails (Anas acuta; 2.6 ± 0.1 million) were 22% below last year's estimate and 36% below their long-term average. The estimate for scaup (Aythya affinis and A. marila combined), 3.7 ± 0.2 million, was similar to that of 2007 and 27% below the long-term average.
        Habitats

        Habitat conditions during the 2008 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey were characterized in many areas by a delayed spring compared to several preceding years. Drought in many parts of the traditional survey area contrasted sharply with record snow and rainfall in the eastern survey area. The total pond estimate for Prairie Canada and the United States combined was 4.4 ± 0.2 million ponds, 37% below last year's estimate of 7.0 ± 0.3 million ponds and 10% lower than the long-term average of 4.9 ± 0.03 million ponds. The 2008 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 3.1 ± 0.1 million. This was a 39% decrease from last year's estimate (5.0 ± 0.3 million), and 11% below the 1955-2007 average (3.4 ± 0.03 million). The 2008 pond estimate for the north-central United States (1.4 ± 0.1 million) was 30% lower than last year's estimate (2.0 ± 0.1 million) and 11% below the long-term average (1.5 ± 0.02 million). The projected mallard fall-flight index was 9.2 ± 0.8 million, similar to the 2007 estimate of 10.9 ± 1.0 million birds. The eastern survey area was restratified in 2005 and is now composed of strata 51-72. Estimates of mallards, scaup, scoters (black [Melanitta nigra], white-winged [M. fusca], and surf [M. perspicillata]), green-winged teal, American wigeon, bufflehead (B. albeola), American black duck (A. rubripes), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), mergansers (red-breasted [Mergus serrator], common [M. merganser], and hooded [Lophodytes cucullatus]), and goldeneye (common [Bucephala clangula] and Barrow's [B. islandica]) all were similar to their 2007 estimates and long-term averages.
        Characterization of the Shot Type
        Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer shot has a density ranging from 8.0 to 12.5 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3), and is corrosion resistant and magnetic. Tundra Composites estimates that the volume of TIF shot for use in hunting migratory birds in the United States will be approximately 330,000 pounds (150,000 kilograms, kg) per year.
        The 8.0 g/cm3 alloy is approximately the same density as steel. The other alloys are increasingly greater in sectional density. The steel in the alloys contains up to 1.3% manganese, 1.2% silicon, and 1.2% carbon by weight. The shot may have a very fine residual coating of mica from production. We expect the environmental and health effects of the mica to be negligible.

          Table 1—Composition of TIF Shot Alloys

            Alloy
            Density(g/cm3)

            Percenttungsten

            Percentsteel *

            Percentfluoropolymer

            1
            8.0
            41.5-50.6
            41.6-52.0
            6.1-8.0

            2
            9.5
            61.0-68.7
            24.8-34.0
            5.0-6.6

            3
            11.0
            75.2-81.8
            12.5-20.5
            4.3-5.7

            4
            12.5
            85.9-96.0
            1.0-10.3
            3.8-5.2

          * The steel contains no more than 0.25% chromium, 0.20% copper, and 0.20% nickel. In the alloys, these percentages are no more than 0.13%, 0.1%, and 0.1%, respectively.

        Environmental Fate of the Tungsten and Iron in TIF Shot
        The tungsten and the iron in these alloys have been approved in other nontoxic shot types (see “Impact of Approval of the Shot Type”), and the submitters asserted that the alloys pose no adverse toxicological risks to waterfowl or other forms of terrestrial or aquatic life. The metals in the alloys are insoluble under normal hot and cold. Neither manufacturing the shot nor firing shotshells containing the shot will alter the metals or the fluoropolymer, or change how they dissolve in the environment.
        Possible Environmental Concentrations for the Manganese and Silicon and Fluoropolymer in TIF Shot in Terrestrial Systems
        Calculation of the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of a candidate shot in a terrestrial ecosystem is based on 69,000 shot per hectare (ha) (50 CFR 20.134). These calculations assume that the shot dissolves promptly and completely after deposition. Because the tungsten and iron have been approved in other nontoxic shot types, we focus on the manganese and silicon in the alloys.
        The EEC for the manganese in TIF shot would be approximately 0.11 parts per million. The maximum increase in environmental concentration for manganese in terrestrial settings would be 23.1 micrograms per liter. If the shot were completely dissolved or eroded, the EEC in soil is much less than the 50th percentile of typical background concentrations for manganese in soils of the United States.
        If totally dissolved, the shot would produce a silicon concentration of 0.1082 parts per million (ppm), or 0.07 kg/ha/year. Silicon is not found free in nature, but combines with oxygen and other elements in nature to form silicates (LANL 2003; USGS 2009). Silicates constitute more than 25% of the Earth's crust (USGS 2009). Sand, quartz, rock crystal, amethyst, agate, flint, jasper, and opal are some of the forms in which the oxide appears (LANL 2003). Thus, the silicon from TIF shot would be insignificant.
        Possible Environmental Concentrations for the Manganese, Silicon, and Fluoropolymer in the TIF Shot in Aquatic Systems
        The EEC for water assumes that 69,000 number 4 shot are completely dissolved in 1 ha of water 30.48 centimeters deep. The submitter then calculates the concentration of each metal in the shot if the shot pellets dissolve completely. The analyses assume complete dissolution of the shot type containing the highest proportion of each metal in the range of alloys submitted.

        The maximum EEC for manganese is 23.1 ppm. There are no U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acute or chronic quality criteria available for manganese for freshwater or saltwater. However, the State of Colorado has acute and chronic freshwater quality criteria for manganese of 2,986 ppm and 1,650 ppm, respectively (assuming a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3). The manganese from TIF shot would lead to a fraction of these concentrations, so we believe that the manganese from TIF shot will not pose a threat to the environment.
        The EEC for silicon from TIF shot would be 21.4 ppm. The EPA has set no acute or chronic criteria for silicon in freshwater or saltwater. Furthermore, silicates are commonly present in many soils and sediments.
        For the fluoropolymer in the shot, the EEC in aquatic systems would be 273.1 ppm. We believe this value has little meaning, given the insolubility of the fluoropolymer.
        In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of TIF Shot
        When nontoxic shot is ingested by waterfowl, both physical breakup of the shot and dissolution of the metals that comprise the shot may occur in the highly acidic environment of the gizzard. In addition to the standard Tier 1 application information (50 CFR 20.134), Tundra Composites provided the results of an in vitro gizzard simulation test conducted to quantify the release of metals in solution under the prevailing pH conditions of the avian gizzard. The metal concentrations released during the simulation test were, in turn, compared to known levels of metals that cause toxicity in waterfowl. The evaluation followed the methodology of Kimball and Munir (1971) as closely as possible.

        The test solution pH averaged 2.01 over the 14-day test period and the average temperature of the digestion solution averaged 41.8 °C. In the test, the average amount of nickel, copper, and chromium released from 8 TIF shot/day was 0.037 mg, 0.017 mg, and 0.024 mg, respectively.
        It is reasonable to expect that if the in vitro gizzard simulation test conditions had degraded the fluoropolymer in the TIF shot, fluoride would be present in the digestion solution. However, the fluoropolymer present in TIF shot is extremely resistant to degradation. The formation of hazardous decomposition by-products from the fluoropolymer occurs only at temperatures over 300 °C. A representative fluoropolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene, will endure 260 °C for more than 2 years until failure due to degradation (Imbalzano 1991). The applicant concluded that the fluoride concentrations in the solution were background levels of fluoride in the digestion solution, rather than a decomposition by-product of the fluoropolymer. This conclusion was supported by the variability and lack of a trend in the estimated fluoride concentrations (Day 0 concentrations were greater than Day 14 concentrations). Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is not used in the manufacture or formulation of the fluoropolymer present in TIF shot because it has been identified as a persistent global contaminant (EPA 2003).
        The testing completed by the applicant indicates that TIF shot is highly resistant to degradation, and poses little risk to waterfowl or other biota if ingested in the field. The slow breakdown of the shot only permits metals to be released at concentrations that are substantially below toxic levels of concern in waterfowl. Furthermore, the fluoropolymer present in TIF shot will not degrade if ingested by waterfowl.
        Impacts of Approval of the Shot Type
        Effects of the Metals

        We have previously assessed and approved various alloys containing tungsten, and/or iron as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl (e.g. 66 FR 737, January 4, 2001; 68 FR 1388, January 10, 2003; 69 FR 48163, August 9, 2004; 70 FR 49194, August 23, 2005; and 71 FR 4294, January 26, 2006). We have approved alloys of almost 100% of both tungsten and iron. Approval of TIF alloys raises no new concerns about approval of the tungsten or the iron in TIF shot.
        Manganese
        Manganese is an essential nutrient for both plants and animals. In animals, manganese is associated with growth, normal functioning of the central nervous system, and reproductive function. In plants, manganese is essential for the oxidation-reduction process (EPA 2007). Manganese compounds are important soil constituents, and the 50th percentile of typical background concentrations for manganese range from 400 kg dry weight in eastern U.S. soils to 600 kg dry weight in western U.S. soils.
        One number 4 TIF shot contains approximately 0.001 gram of manganese. The geometric mean of avian No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) values for reproduction and growth that were identified by the EPA in its derivation of an Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) for manganese was 179 kg of body weight per day (EPA 2007). Based upon the avian NOAEL of 179 milligrams of manganese per kilogram of body weight per day, a 2-kg bird could safely consume about 352 TIF shot per day without suffering from the consumption of the shot. Similarly for mammals, the geometric mean of mammalian NOAEL values for reproduction and growth that were identified by the EPA in its derivation of an Eco-SSL for manganese was 51.5 milligrams of manganese per kilogram of body weight per day (EPA 2007). Based upon the mammalian NOAEL of 51.5 milligrams of manganese per kilogram of body weight per day, a 1-kg mammal could safely consume approximately 50 TIF shot per day without suffering manganese toxicosis.

        There are no EPA acute or chronic or freshwater saltwater criteria for manganese. However, Colorado acute and chronic freshwater criteria are 2,986 micrograms per liter and 1,650 micrograms per liter, respectively (assuming a hardness of 100 milligrams per liter as CaCO3) (5 CCR 1002-31). The aquatic EEC for manganese is 23.1 micrograms per liter when we assume complete dissolution of the 69,000 shot in 1 ha of water 30.48 cm deep. Therefore, the manganese from TIF shot should not pose an environmental problem in aquatic environments.
        Based upon available NOAEL values, birds and mammals would have to ingest in excess of 50 TIF shot per day before manganese toxicosis could occur. Assuming complete erosion of all shot, the EEC of manganese in soil is much less than the 50th percentile of typical background concentrations for manganese in soils of the United States. The EEC for manganese is well below both the acute and chronic criteria for freshwater from the State of Colorado, assuming complete dissolution of the shot. In sum, the manganese in TIF shot will result in very minimal estimated exposure concentrations to wetland biota.
        Nickel
        No reproductive or other effects were observed in mallards consuming the equivalent of 102 milligrams of nickel as nickel sulfate each day for 90 days (Eastin and O'Shea 1981). Therefore, the 0.037 milligram of nickel released from 8 TIF shot per day will pose no risk of adverse effects to waterfowl. In addition, metallic nickel likely is absorbed less from the gastrointestinal tract than is the nickel sulfate used in the mallard reproduction study.
        Copper
        The maximum tolerable level of dietary copper during the long-term growth of chickens and turkeys has been reported to be 300 kg (CMTA 1980). At the maximum tolerable level for chronic exposure of 300 kg for poultry, a 1.8-kg chicken consuming 100 g of food per day (Morck and Austic 1981) would consume 30 mg copper per day (16.7 milligrams of copper per kilogram of body weight per day). Since the average amount of copper released from 8 TIF shot per day would be 0.017 mg, a bird would have to ingest in excess of 1000 TIF shot to exceed the maximum tolerable level.

        Dietary levels of 10.0 mg chromium(III)/kilogram for 10 weeks depressed survival in young black ducks (Haseltine et al. 1985), but no adverse effects were observed in chickens exposed to 100 ppm dietary chromium(VI) in a 32-day study (Rosomer et al. 1961). Therefore, the average amount of chromium released from 8 TIF shot/day of 0.024 mg will pose no risk of adverse effects to waterfowl.
        Effects of Silicon
        We found no data for assessing acute or chronic toxicity of the silicon present in TIF shot. EPA has not set acute or chronic criteria for silicon in aquatic systems. However, silicon compounds are so widespread in nature, and we think it highly likely that sediments consumed incidentally by waterfowl contain silicates.
        Silicon is not found free in nature, but silicates constitute more than 25% of the Earth's crust (USGS 2009), in sand, quartz, rock crystal, amethyst, agate, flint, jasper, and opal, among other rocks. Granite, hornblende, asbestos, feldspar, clay, and mica are among the numerous silicate minerals.
        Effects of the Fluoropolymer

        No data are available on acute or chronic toxicity of the fluoropolymer used in the TIF alloys. However, fluorinated organic polymers are very stable and resistant to hydrolysis (Danish Ministry of the Environment 2004). An in vitro gizzard simulation test conducted with 8.0 g/cm3 TIF shot showed that the fluoropolymer used in the alloys will not degrade if ingested by waterfowl. Exposure to stable fluoropolymers does not give rise to increased free fluoride concentration in the blood in humans (Danish Ministry of the Environment 2004).
        Based on the information provided by the applicant and our assessment, we have little concern for problems due to organisms ingesting TIF shot or from dissolution of the shot in aquatic settings.
        Effects of the Approval on Migratory Waterfowl
        Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. Furnishing additional approved nontoxic shot types will likely further reduce the use of lead shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot types will likely result in a minor positive long-term impact on waterfowl and wetland habitats.
        Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
        The impact on endangered and threatened species of approval of the TIF alloys would be very small, but positive. The metals in TIF alloys have been approved in other nontoxic shot types, and we believe that the fluoropolymer is highly unlikely to adversely affect animals that consume the shot or habitats in which the shot might be used. We see no potential effects on threatened or endangered species due to approval of these alloys.
        We obtained a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the ESA prior to establishing the seasonal hunting regulations. The hunting regulations promulgated as a result of this consultation remove and alleviate chances of conflict between migratory bird hunting and endangered and threatened species.
        Effects on Ecosystems
        Previously approved shot types have been shown in test results to be nontoxic to the migratory bird resource, and we believe that they cause no adverse impact on ecosystems. There is concern, however, about noncompliance and potential ecosystem effects. The use of lead shot has a negative impact on wetland ecosystems due to the erosion of shot, causing sediment/soil and water contamination and the direct ingestion of shot by aquatic and predatory animals. Though we believe noncompliance is of concern, approval of the TIF alloys will have little impact on the resource.
        Cumulative Impacts
        We foresee no negative cumulative impacts of approval of the TIF alloys for waterfowl hunting. Their approval may help to further reduce the negative impacts of the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots. We believe the impacts of approval of TIF shot for waterfowl hunting in the United States should be positive.
        Summary
        Previous assessments of nontoxic shot types indicated that the iron and the tungsten from shot alloys should not harm aquatic or terrestrial systems. The solubility testing of TIF shot indicated that the negligible release of the metals from TIF shot (including the trace amounts of chromium, copper, and nickel released at low pH) will not be a hazard to aquatic systems or to biota. For these reasons, and in accordance with 50 CFR 20.134, we propose to approve TIF shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots, and propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) accordingly. Our approval is based on the toxicological report, acute toxicity studies, reproductive/chronic toxicity studies, and other published research. The available information indicates that the TIF alloys should be nontoxic when ingested by waterfowl and that they pose no significant danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats.
        Literature Cited

        For a complete list of the literature cited in this proposed rule, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        Public Comments

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
        a. Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
        b. Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
        c. Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        d. Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).

        SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would allow small entities to continue actions they have been able to take under the regulations—actions specifically designed to improve the economic viability of those entities—and, therefore, will not significantly affect them economically. We certify that because this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

        This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
        a. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
        c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following:
        a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions under the regulation will not affect small government activities in any significant way.
        b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It will not be a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
        Federalism
        This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It will not interfere with the ability of States to manage themselves or their funds.
        Civil Justice Reform
        In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved our collection of information associated with applications for approval of nontoxic shot (50 CFR 20.134) and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0067, which expires April 30, 2012.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        Our Draft Environmental Assessment is part of the administrative record for this proposed regulations change. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and Part 516 of the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM), approval of TIF alloys will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, nor would it involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule will not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.
        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule change will not be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor would it significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action will not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements

        Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). We have concluded that the regulation change will not affect listed species.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 20—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Public Law 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

          2. Amend § 20.21 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

            § 20.21
            What hunting methods are illegal?

            (j)(1) While possessing loose shot for muzzle loading or shotshells containing other than the following approved shot types.

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

                Bismuth-tin
                97 bismuth, and 3 tin
                Hot Shot.®***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              * Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, and zinc chrome on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved.
              ** The information in the “Field Testing Device” column is strictly informational, not regulatory.
              *** The “HOT*SHOT” field testing device is from Stream Systems of Concord, CA.

            (2) Each approved shot type must contain less than 1 percent residual lead (see § 20.134).

            (3) This shot type restriction applies to the taking of ducks, geese (including brant), swans, coots (Fulica
              americana), and any other species that make up aggregate bag limits with these migratory game birds during concurrent seasons in areas described in § 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.

            Dated: July 30, 2009.
            Will Shafroth,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E9-18985 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P