[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59158-59162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23657]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Dockets No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028 and FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038; FF09M21200-
123-FXMB1231099BPP0L2]
RINs 1018-AY61, 1018-AY66
Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Copper-Clad
Iron Shot and Fluoropolymer Shot Coatings as Nontoxic for Waterfowl
Hunting
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to approve
copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings for hunting waterfowl
and coots. We published a notice of application for nontoxic shot
approval for copper-clad iron shot in the Federal Register on June 20,
2012 (77 FR 36980), and one for the fluoropolymer shot coatings on July
6, 2012 (77 FR 39983). Having completed our review of the application
materials for both, we have concluded that neither the shot nor the
coatings are likely to adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their
habitats.
DATES: Electronic comments on this proposal via http://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on
October 26, 2012. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked no
later than October 26, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability. You may view the application and our
draft environmental assessments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028 for
[[Page 59159]]
copper-clad iron shot, or Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038 for
fluoropolymer shot coatings.
Request a copy by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Written Comments: You may submit comments by either one of the
following two methods:
Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on either or both of
the dockets.
U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attention: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
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: Dr. George Allen, at 703-358-1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and
16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the
United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as amended),
Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as amended),
and Russia (then the Soviet Union 1978). These treaties protect 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 in 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 added them to the migratory bird hunting
regulations in 50 CFR 20.21(j). We continue to review all shot types
submitted for approval as nontoxic.
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.
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is obligated to consider all complete nontoxic shot
submissions.
Applications
Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, Oregon, seeks approval of
copper-clad iron shot as nontoxic. We evaluated the impact of approval
of this shot type in a draft environmental assessment, which we are
making available for public review (see ADDRESSES). The iron core of
the shot has long been approved, so our concern with this shot is the
copper cladding on the iron core. The data from Environ-Metal indicate
that the copper will not be toxic when ingested by waterfowl, and
should not pose a significant danger to migratory birds, other
wildlife, or their habitats. We conclude that the shot should not be of
concern if deposited in the environment or if ingested by waterfowl or
predators.
Spectra Shot, LLC, of Lafayette, Louisiana, seeks approval of
fluoropolymer coatings as evaluated in a draft environmental
assessment, which we are making available for public review (see
ADDRESSES). Information from Spectra Shot indicates that the
fluoropolymer coatings 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 the information raises no
particular concerns about deposition in the environment or about
ingestion by waterfowl or predators.
We have reviewed the shot and the shot coatings under the criteria
in Tier 1 of the revised 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 and the coatings to the list of those approved for waterfowl
and coot hunting. Details on the evaluations of the shot and the
coatings can be found in the draft environmental assessments.
Copper-Clad Iron Shot
Copper-clad iron shot is a composite in which copper is thermo-
mechanically bonded to centerless-ground steel rod, then mechanically
worked to final wire and shot configurations. Copper-clad iron shot may
be produced with a variety of different proportions of copper and iron,
ranging from 16 to 44.41% by weight copper, with a density of
approximately 8.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Environ-Metal asserts
that ``there is little variability in composition to be expected'' in
production of the shot. Environ-Metal expects to produce about 50,000
pounds of copper-clad iron shot per year.
Fluoropolymer Coatings
Spectra Shot is cut wire shotgun shot (steel shot) with a
proprietary shot coating. Four different colors of the coated shot will
be marketed as Spectra ShotTM Blue, Spectra
ShotTM Green, Spectra ShotTM Orange, and Spectra
ShotTM Yellow. The thickness of the coating will be 3 to 10
microns, with a corresponding weight per shot as follows: Spectra
ShotTM Blue--0.209 milligram per shot; Spectra
ShotTM Green--0.732 milligram per shot; Spectra
ShotTM Orange--0.942 milligram per shot; and Spectra
ShotTM Yellow--1.779 milligrams per shot. Spectra Shot
expects annual use of the coated shot in hunting migratory birds in the
United States to be 98,000 pounds.
Polyamide-imide copolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene, amorphous fumed
silica, and methylphenyl polysiloxane are common to all Spectra
ShotTM colors and make up the bulk of the coating. The
pigments vary between coatings, and comprise 13.8% to 20.5% by weight
of the dry film.
[[Page 59160]]
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 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.
Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
The impact on endangered and threatened species of approval of
copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings alloys would be very
small, but positive. Copper-clad iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings
are 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 the shot
type or the coatings.
We obtained 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 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 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 and the coatings would have little impact on the resource,
unless it has the small positive impact of reducing the rate of
noncompliance.
Cumulative Impacts
We foresee no negative cumulative impacts if we approve the shot
type and the coatings for waterfowl hunting. Their 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 approvals
for waterfowl hunting in the United States should be positive.
Required Determinations
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 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 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.
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 regulation 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 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 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 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
[[Page 59161]]
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 May 31, 2015.
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 copper-clad iron 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 (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 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)
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 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 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 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 the ADDRESSES section. 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.
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; Pub. L.
106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
2. Amend Sec. 20.21(j)(1) by revising the table and footnotes to
read as follows.
Sec. 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
* * * * *
(j)(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent composition by
Approved shot type * weight Field testing device **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bismuth-tin........................ 97 bismuth, and 3 tin...... Hot Shot[supreg] ***.
Iron (steel)....................... iron and carbon............ Magnet or Hot Shot[supreg].
Iron-tungsten...................... any proportion of tungsten, Magnet or Hot Shot[supreg].
and >=1 iron.
Iron-tungsten-nickel............... >=1 iron, any proportion of Magnet or Hot Shot[supreg].
tungsten, and up to 40
nickel.
Copper-clad iron................... 84 to 56.59 iron core, with Magnet or Hot Shot \7\.
copper cladding up to 44.1
of the shot mass.
Tungsten-bronze.................... 51.1 tungsten, 44.4 copper, Rare Earth Magnet.
3.9 tin, and 0.6 iron, or
60 tungsten, 35.1 copper,
3.9 tin, and 1 iron.
Tungsten-iron-copper-nickel........ 40-76 tungsten, 10-37 iron, Hot Shot[supreg] or Rare Earth Magnet.
9-16 copper, and 5-7
nickel.
Tungsten-matrix.................... 95.9 tungsten, 4.1 polymer. Hot Shot[supreg].
Tungsten-polymer................... 95.5 tungsten, 4.5 Nylon 6 Hot Shot[supreg].
or 11.
Tungsten-tin-iron.................. any proportions of tungsten Magnet or Hot Shot[supreg].
and tin, and >=1 iron.
Tungsten-tin-bismuth............... any proportions of Rare Earth Magnet.
tungsten, tin, and bismuth.
Tungsten-tin-iron-nickel........... 65 tungsten, 21.8 tin, 10.4 Magnet.
iron, and 2.8 nickel.
Tungsten-iron-polymer.............. 41.5-95.2 tungsten, 1.5- Rare Earth Magnet or Hot Shot[supreg].
52.0 iron, and 3.5-8.0
fluoropolymer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, and fluoropolymers 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.
[[Page 59162]]
* * * * *
Dated: September 12, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-23657 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P