[Federal Register: August 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49541-49553]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24au05-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AU04; 1018-AU 09; 1018-AU13; 1018-AU28
Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Iron-Copper-Nickel,
Iron-Tungsten-Nickel Alloy, and Tungsten-Bronze (Additional
Formulation), and Tungsten-Tin-Iron Shot Types as Nontoxic for Hunting
Waterfowl and Coots; Availability of Environmental Assessments
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we, us, or USFWS) proposes
to approve four shot types or alloys for hunting waterfowl and coots
and to change the listing of approved nontoxic shot types in 50 CFR
20.21(j) to reflect the cumulative approvals of nontoxic shot types and
alloys.
These four shot types or alloys were submitted to us separately,
and we published advance notices of proposed rulemakings for these shot
types under RINs 1018-AU04, 1018-AU09, 1018-AU13, and 1018-AU28,
respectively. We now combine all these actions under RIN 1018-AU04.
In addition, we propose to approve alloys of several metals because
we have approved the metals individually at or near 100% in nontoxic
shot.
DATES: Send comments on this proposal by September 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1018-AU04, by any
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web Site: http://migratorybirds.fws.gov. Follow the
links to submit a comment.
E-mail address for comments: George_T_Allen@fws.gov.
Include ``RIN 1018-AU04'' in the subject line of the message. Please
submit electronic comments as text files; do not use file compression
or any special formatting.
Fax: 703-358-2217.
Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-
4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
Hand Delivery: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4091,
Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
For specific instructions on submitting or inspecting public
comments, inspecting the complete file for this rule, or requesting a
copy of the draft environmental assessment, see Public Comments in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, 703-358-1714.
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, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service controls the 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 the issue of lead
poisoning in waterfowl in an Environmental Impact Statement 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.
We have received applications for approval of four shot types as
nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. Those shot types are:
1. Tungsten-Iron-Copper-Nickel (TICN) shot, of 40-76 percent
tungsten, 10-37 percent iron, 9-16 percent copper, and 5-7 percent
nickel (70 FR 3180, January 21, 2005);
2. Iron-Tungsten-Nickel (ITN) alloys composed of 20-70 percent
tungsten, 10-40 percent nickel, and 10-70 percent iron (70 FR 22625,
May 2, 2005);
3. Tungsten-Bronze (TB) shot made of 60 percent tungsten, 35.1
percent copper, 3.9 percent tin, and 1 percent iron (70 FR 22624, May
2, 2005, Note: This formulation differs from the Tungsten-Bronze
nontoxic shot formulation approved in 2004.); and
4. Tungsten-Tin-Iron (TTI) shot composed of 58 percent tungsten, 38
percent tin, and 4 percent iron.
The metals in these shot types have already been approved in other
nontoxic shot types. In considering approval of these shot types, we
were particularly concerned about the solubility and bioavailability of
the nickel and copper in them. In addition, because tungsten, tin, and
iron have already been approved at very high proportions of other
nontoxic shot types with no known negative effects of the metals, we
will propose approval of all alloys of these four metals.
The data provided to us indicate that the shot types are 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.
The process for submission and evaluation of new shot types for
approval as nontoxic is given at 50 CFR 20.134. The list of shot types
approved as nontoxic for use in hunting migratory birds is provided in
the table at 50 CFR 20.21(j). With this proposed rule, we also propose
to revise the listing of approved nontoxic shot types in Sec. 20.21(j)
to include the cumulative approvals of the shot types considered in
this proposed rule with the other nontoxic shot types already in the
table.
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 has increased in recent years
(Anderson et al. 2000), but we believe that compliance will continue to
increase with the availability and approval of other
[[Page 49542]]
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 also propose to add a column to the table of approved shot types
that lists the field testing device suitable for each shot type. The
information in this column is strictly informational, not regulatory.
Because these regulations are used by both waterfowl hunters and law
enforcement officers, we believe that information on suitable testing
devices is a useful addition to the table.
Affected Environment
Waterfowl Populations
The taxonomic family Anatidae, principally subfamily Anatinae
(ducks) and their habitats, comprise the affected environment.
Waterfowl habitats and populations in North America in 2004 were
described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Garrettson et al.
2004). In the Breeding Population and Habitat Survey traditional survey
area (strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77), the total-duck population
estimate was 32.2 0.6 ( 1 standard error)
million birds, 11 percent below the 2003 estimate of 36.2
0.7 million birds, and 3 percent below the 1955-2003 long-term average.
Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were estimated at 7.4 0.3
million, similar to last year's estimate of 7.9 0.3
million birds and to the long-term average. Blue-winged teal (A.
discors) numbered 4.1 0.2 million, 26 percent below last
year's estimate of 5.5 0.3 million and 10 percent below
the long-term average. Among other duck species, only northern
shovelers (A. clypeata, 2.8 0.2 million) and American
wigeon (A. americana, 2.0 0.1 million) were both 22
percent below their 2003 estimates. As in 2003, gadwall (A. strepera,
2.6 0.2 million, +56 percent), green-winged teal (A.
crecca, 2.5 0.1 million, +33 percent), and northern
shovelers (+32 percent) were above their long-term averages. Northern
pintails (A. acuta, 2.2 0.2 million, -48 percent), scaup
(Aythya affinis and A. marila, 3.8 0.2 million, -27
percent), and American wigeon (-25 percent) were well below their long-
term averages in 2004.
Habitats
Waterfowl hunting occurs in habitats used by many taxa of migratory
birds, as well as by aquatic invertebrates, amphibians and some
mammals. Fish also may be found in many hunting locations. In 2004,
total May ponds in Prairie Canada, and the north-central United States
combined were estimated at 3.9 0.2 million, which was 24
percent lower than the figure for 2003 and 19 percent below the long-
term average. Pond numbers in both Canada (2.5 0.1
million) and the U. S. (1.4 0.1 million) were below 2003
estimates (-29 percent in Canada, and -16 percent in the United
States), and pond numbers in Canada were 25 percent below the long-term
average for the region.
Fall Flight Forecasts
The projected mallard fall flight index was 9.4 0.1
million birds, similar to the 2003 estimate of 10.3 0.1
million. The 2004 total duck population estimate for the eastern survey
area (strata 51-56 and 62-69) was 3.9 0.3 million birds.
This estimate was similar to the 2003 estimate of 3.6 0.3
million birds, and to the 1996-2003 average. Individual species
estimates for this area were similar to 2003 estimates and to 1996-2003
averages, with the exception of American wigeon (0.1 0.1
million) and goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula and B. islandica, 0.4
0.1 million), which were 61 percent and 42 percent below
their 1996-2003 averages, respectively, and ring-necked ducks (Aythya
collaris, 0.7 0.2 million), which increased by 67 percent
relative to the 2003 estimate of their numbers.
Characterization of the Four Shot Types
TICN Alloys
Spherical Precision, Inc. of Tustin, CA, submitted Tungsten-Iron-
Copper-Nickel (TICN) shot for approval. The advance notice of proposed
rulemaking for this group of alloys was published in the Federal
Register on January 21, 2005, under RIN 1018-AU04 (70 FR 3180). This is
an array of layered alloys or metals of 40-76 percent tungsten, 10-37
percent iron, 9-16 percent copper, and 5-7 percent nickel. TICN shot
has a density ranging from 10.0 to 14.0 grams per cubic centimeter (g/
cm3), is noncorrosive, and is magnetic. Spherical Precision
estimates that the volume of TICN shot for use in hunting migratory
birds in the United States will be approximately 50,000 pounds (lb)
(22,700 kilograms (kg)) during the first year of sale, and perhaps
100,000 lb (45,400 kg) per year thereafter.
ITN Alloys
ENVIRON-Metal of Sweet Home, OR, submitted Iron-Tungsten-Nickel
(ITN) alloys, which are cast alloys containing 10-70 percent iron, 20-
70 percent tungsten, and 10-40 percent nickel. The advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for this group of alloys published in the Federal
Register on May 2, 2005, under RIN 1018-AU09 (70 FR 22625). The
proposed shot types have densities ranging from about 8.5 to about 13.5
g/cm3. The compositions of the alloys are shown in table 1.
Table 1.--Composition of ITN Shot Alloys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Tungsten Nickel
Density (g/ Shot weight -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloy cm\3\) \1\ (mg) \2\ Weight Weight Weight
Percent (mg) Percent (mg) Percent (mg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 8.8 165.89 70 116.12 20 33.18 10 16.59
2............................................... 9.0 169.65 40 67.86 20 67.86 40 33.93
3............................................... 9.8 184.73 44 81.28 33 60.96 23 42.49
4............................................... 11.3 213.00 10 21.30 50 106.50 40 85.20
5............................................... 13.3 250.71 20 50.14 70 175.49 10 25.07
6............................................... 13.55 255.42 10 25.54 70 178.79 20 51.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Weights are based on one number 4 shot.
ENVIRON-Metal estimated that the yearly volume of ITN shot types
with densities between those of steel (7.86 g/cm3) and lead
(11.3 g/cm3) expected for use in hunting migratory birds in
the United States is approximately 200,000 lb (113,500 kg) during the
first year of sale. In the second year and beyond, sales upwards of
500,000 lb (227,000 kg) per year are anticipated. ITN shot types with
densities greater than that of lead may ultimately attain sales levels
of 1,000,000 lb (454,000 kg) per year.
[[Page 49543]]
TB Shot
The Olin Corporation of East Alton, IL, submitted Tungsten-Bronze
(TB) shot for approval. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking for
this shot type was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005,
under RIN 1018-AU13 (70 FR 22624). This is a sintered composite with an
average composition of 60 percent tungsten, 35.1 percent copper, 3.9
percent tin, and 1 percent iron. The copper and tin make up 39 percent
of the shot as a 90:10 ratio, respectively, in the form of a bronze
alloy. The shot has a density of 12.0 g/cm3, compared to
11.1-11.3 g/cm3 for lead, and 7.9 g/cm3 for
steel. Olin estimated that the yearly volume of the TB shot in hunting
migratory birds in North America will be approximately 300,000 lb
(136,200 kg).
TTI Shot
Tungsten-Tin-Iron (TTI) shot, submitted by Nice Shot, Inc., of
Albion, PA, is a cast alloy composed of 58 percent tungsten, 38 percent
tin, and 4 percent iron. This shot type has a density of 11.0 g/
cm3. Nice Shot, Inc. estimated that approximately 5,000 lb
(2,270 kg) of TTI shot are expected to be sold for use in hunting
migratory birds in the United States during the first year of sale. TTI
shot contains less than 1 percent lead, and will not be coated.
Each of the four shot types has a residual lead level of less than
1 percent. To inhibit corrosion, TICN shot may be coated with tin, and
ITN shot may be surface-coated with thin petroleum-based films. Neither
TB nor TTI shot will be coated.
Environmental Fate of the Metals in the Four Shot Types
All of the metals in these shot types have been approved in other
nontoxic shot types, and the submitters asserted that the four shot
types pose no adverse toxicological risks to waterfowl or other forms
of terrestrial or aquatic life. Our particular concern in considering
approval of these shot types is the solubility and bioavailability of
the nickel and copper in them.
The metals in the four shot types are insoluble under hot and cold
(Weast 1986). Neither manufacturing the shot nor firing shotshells
containing the shot will alter the metals or change how they dissolve
in the environment. The shot types are not chemically or physically
altered by firing from a shotgun.
Iron is naturally widespread. It comprises approximately 2 percent
of the composition of soils and sediments in the United States. The
iron in the shot types is not soluble.
Elemental tungsten and iron are virtually insoluble in water, and
therefore do not weather and degrade in the environment. Tungsten is
stable in acids and does not easily form compounds with other
substances. Preferential uptake by plants in acidic soil suggests
uptake of tungsten when it has formed compounds with other substances
rather than when it is in its elemental form (Kabata-Pendias and
Pendias 1984).
Elemental copper can be oxidized by organic and mineral acids that
contain an oxidizing agent. Elemental copper is not oxidized in water
(Aaseth and Norseth 1986).
Nickel is common in fresh waters, though usually at concentrations
of less than 1 part per billion (p/b) in locations unaffected by human
activities. Pure nickel is not soluble in water, and resists corrosion
at temperatures between -20 [deg]C and 30 [deg]C (Chau and Kulikovsky-
Cordeiro 1995). Free nickel may be part of chemical reactions, such as
sorption, precipitation, and complexation. ``Under anaerobic
conditions, typical of deep groundwater, precipitation of nickel
sulfide keeps nickel concentrations low'' (Eisler 1998). Reactions of
nickel with anions are unlikely. Complexation with organic agents is
poorly understood (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1986).
Water hardness is the dominant factor governing nickel effects on biota
(Stokes 1988).
Tin is only very slightly soluble at pH values from 4 to 11, as
found in natural settings. Tin occurs naturally in soils at 2 to 200
mg/g (parts per thousand or ppt) with areas of enrichment at
concentrations up to 1,000 mg/g (WHO 1980). In general, however, soil
concentrations in the United States are between 1 and 5 parts per
million (p/m) (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
Possible Environmental Concentrations for Metals in the Four Shot Types
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 (50 CFR 20.134). These calculations assume that the shot
dissolves promptly and completely after deposition.
TICN Alloys
The maximum EEC for TICN shot for tungsten in soil is 21.3 p/m.
This is below the EEC for several other tungsten-based shot types that
we have previously approved. We are not aware of any problems
associated with those shot types. The U.S. EPA does not have a
biosolids application limit for tungsten.
For TICN shot, if the shot are completely dissolved in dry, porous
soil, the maximum EEC for iron is 7.40 p/m. Iron is naturally
widespread, comprising approximately 2 percent of the composition of
soils and sediments in the United States. The EEC for iron from TICN
shot is much lower than that level.
For copper in TICN shot, the maximum EEC in soils is 3.36 p/m. In
comparison, the ceiling concentration limit for biosolids application
for copper is 4,300 p/m (EPA 2000).
The maximum EEC for nickel in TICN shot in soils is 1.62 p/m. This
concentration is a small fraction of the EPA biosolids application
limit of 420 p/m (EPA 2000).
If TICN shot is coated with tin, the EEC for tin in dry soils is
1.31 p/m. There is no EPA biosolids application limit for tin, but it
occurs naturally in soils at 2 to 200 p/m, with areas of enrichment at
concentrations up to 1,000 p/m (WHO 1980). In general, soil
concentrations in the United States are between 1 and 5 p/m; the
suggested maximum concentration in surface soil tolerated by plants is
50 p/m dry weight (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
ITN Alloys
The terrestrial EECs for the iron and tungsten from any ITN alloy
(table 2) are below those from approved shot types, and we do not
believe they are a problem in soils. Though data on iron concentrations
in biosolids are unavailable, natural soil background concentrations
range from 5,000 to 50,000 p/m. This is equivalent to 32,500 to 325,000
kg per hectare (kg/h). We do not believe that the worst-case additional
8.01 kg of iron per hectare (about 0.025 percent of natural background
concentrations) would have any effect on plants or animals, especially
since the iron in the shot is not in a soluble form.
[[Page 49544]]
Table 2.--Expected Terrestrial Environmental Concentrations of the Metals in ITN Alloys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deposition (kg) Terrestrial EEC (p/m)
Alloy (% I/T/N) Shot weight -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(kg) Iron Tungsten Nickel Iron Tungsten Nickel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (70/20/10)................................................. 11.446 8.01 2.29 1.15 12.33 3.52 1.76
2 (40/20/40)................................................. 11.706 4.68 2.34 4.68 7.20 3.60 7.20
3 (44/33/23)................................................. 12.746 5.61 4.21 2.93 8.63 6.47 4.51
4 (10/50/40)................................................. 14.700 1.47 7.35 5.88 2.26 11.31 9.05
5 (20/70/10)................................................. 17.299 3.46 12.11 1.73 5.32 18.63 2.66
6 (10/70/20)................................................. 17.624 1.76 12.34 3.52 2.71 18.98 5.42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from biosolid studies indicate that tungsten generally is
present at 40 to 180 p/m, about four times the worst EEC for tungsten
from ITN shot. Therefore, it is unlikely that tungsten from the shot
would exceed concentrations obtained from biosolid applications.
The estimated soil concentration (p/m soil) of nickel for ITN alloy
4 (the highest in nickel) is a very small fraction of the 420 p/m
maximum concentration allowed for terrestrial application of biosolids
and is two orders of magnitude less than the maximum cumulative loading
rate for nickel of 420 kg/h per year (http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/claritgw
). We do not believe that nickel from ITN shot would pose an
environmental problem in soils.
TB Shot
Based on the maximum concentration of each metal in any formulation
of TB shot, the increased concentrations in soils for the metals are
14.4 p/m for tungsten, 8.43 p/m for copper, 0.94 p/m for tin, and 0.24
p/m for iron. The EEC for tungsten is lower than the value for ITN
shot, and considerably lower than the values for previously approved
shot types. As noted earlier, the ceiling concentration limit for
biosolids application for copper is 4,300 p/m (EPA 2000). The EEC for
iron from TB shot is extremely small.
TTI Shot
The EEC for tungsten in TTI shot in soil (the increase in soil
concentration) is 12.77 mg/kg or p/m. This is below the EEC for several
other tungsten-based shot types that we have previously approved. We
are not aware of any problems associated with those shot types. The EPA
does not have a biosolids application limit for tungsten. Data from
biosolid studies indicate that tungsten generally is present at 40 to
180 p/m, about four times the worst EEC for tungsten from ITN shot.
Therefore, it is unlikely that tungsten from the shot would exceed
concentrations obtained from biosolid applications.
The EEC for tin in dry soils is 8.37 p/m. In general, soil
concentrations in the United States are between 1 and 5 p/m; the
suggested maximum concentration in surface soil tolerated by plants is
50 p/m dry weight (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984), about six times
the worst-case concentration to be expected from TTI shot.
If the shot are completely dissolved in dry, porous soil, the
maximum EEC for iron is 0.88 p/m. Iron is naturally widespread,
comprising approximately 2 percent of the composition of soils and
sediments in the United States. The EEC for iron from TTI shot is much
lower than that level.
Though data on iron concentrations in biosolids are unavailable,
natural soil background concentrations range from 5,000 to 50,000 p/m.
This is equivalent to 32,500 to 325,000 kg per hectare. We do not
believe that the extremely small addition of the insoluble iron from
TTI shot would have any effect on plants or animals, especially because
the iron in the shot is not in a soluble form.
Possible Environmental Concentrations for Metals in the Four Shot Types
in Aquatic Systems
The EEC for water assumes that 69,000 number 4 shot are completely
dissolved in 1 hectare of water 1 foot (ft) (30.48 cm) deep. The
submitter then calculates the concentration of each metal in the shot
if the shot pellets dissolve completely. For our analyses, we assume
complete dissolution of the shot type containing the highest proportion
of each metal in the range of alloys submitted.
TICN Alloys
For TICN shot, the EEC for tungsten is 4.541 milligrams per liter
(mg/l). The EPA has set no acute or chronic criteria for tungsten in
aquatic systems.
The EEC for iron from TICN shot in water is 1.579 mg/l. The chronic
water quality criterion for iron in fresh water is 1 mg/l (EPA 1986).
EPA has no criterion for salt water.
For copper, the aquatic EEC is 0.717 mg/l. This value is above both
the acute and chronic criteria for freshwater and saltwater. This issue
is discussed in the ``In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of TICN Shot''
section.
The aquatic EEC for nickel from TICN shot is 0.346 mg/l. The EPA
(1986) acute criterion for nickel in fresh water is 1,400 micrograms
per liter ([mu]g/l); the chronic criterion is 160 [mu]g/l. The acute
and chronic criteria for salt water are 75 and 8.3 [mu]g/l,
respectively. Based on the EEC, the maximum release of nickel from TICN
shot would be well below the fresh water acute criterion for protection
of aquatic life.
For the tin in TICN shot, the aquatic EEC is 0.280 mg/l. The lowest
published standard for tin in water is the 4 mg/l water quality
standard for the state of Minnesota. Even in the worst case, the tin
concentration from dissolved TICN shot would be well below this
standard.
ITN Alloys
The aquatic EECs for the metals in ITN shot are shown in table 3.
The EEC for nickel exceeds aquatic water quality criteria (table 4).
However, corrosion studies demonstrated that corrosion rates for all
types of ITN shot are relatively low in both fresh water and seawater.
This corrosion is discussed under ``In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of
ITN Shot.''
[[Page 49545]]
Table 3.--Expected Aquatic Environmental Concentrations of the Metals in ITN Alloys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deposition (kg) Aquatic EEC (p/m)
Alloy (% I/T/N) Shot weight -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(kg) Iron Tungsten Nickel Iron Tungsten Nickel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (70/20/10)................................................. 11.446 8.01 2.29 1.15 2,629 751 376
2 (40/20/40)................................................. 11.706 4.68 2.34 4.68 1,536 768 1,536
3 (44/33/23)................................................. 12.746 5.61 4.21 2.93 1,840 1,380 962
4 (10/50/40)................................................. 14.700 1.47 7.35 5.88 482 2,411 1,929
5 (20/70/10)................................................. 17.299 3.46 12.11 1.73 1,135 3,973 568
6 (10/70/20)................................................. 17.624 1.76 12.34 3.52 578 4,048 1,156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Aquatic Life Criteria and Worst-Case Concentrations of Metals in ITN Shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute water quality Chronic water quality
Metal criterion for aquatic criterion for aquatic Maximum EEC from ITN alloys
life ([mu]g/l) life ([mu]g/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron.............................. No Criterion......... 1,000................ 2,629 (Alloy 1).
Tungsten.......................... No Criterion......... No Criterion......... 4,048 (Alloy 6).
Nickel (fresh water).............. 1,400................ 160.................. 1,929 (Alloy 4).
Nickel (salt water)............... 75................... 8.3.................. 1,929 (Alloy 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TB Shot
The aquatic EECs for metals in TB shot are shown in table 5. The
EEC for copper is considerably above the criteria for protection of
fresh water and salt water life. However, a solubility study for this
shot type demonstrated that corrosion of TB shot is low. This is
discussed under ``In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of TB Shot.''
Table 5.--Aquatic Life Criteria and Concentrations of Metals in TB Shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute water quality Chronic water quality
Metal criterion for aquatic life criterion for aquatic life Maximum EEC
([mu]g/l) ([mu]g/l) from TB shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tungsten................................ No Criterion.............. No Criterion.............. 3,073
Copper (Fresh Water).................... 13.0...................... 9.0....................... 1,797
Copper (Salt Water)..................... 4.8....................... 3.1....................... 1,797
Tin..................................... 4,0001 \1\................ No Criterion.............. 199.7
Iron.................................... No Criterion.............. 1,000..................... 51.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Minnesota water quality standard, no federal standard for comparison.
TTI Shot
The EEC for tungsten is 2.72 milligrams per liter (mg/1). The EPA
has set no acute or chronic criteria for tungsten in aquatic systems.
The aquatic EEC for tin is 1.78 mg/1. The lowest published standard
for tin in water is the 4 mg/1 water quality standard for the state of
Minnesota. Tin concentration from dissolved TTI shot would be well
below this standard.
The EEC for iron from TTI shot in water is 0.19 mg/1. The chronic
water quality criterion for iron in fresh water is 1 mg/1 (EPA 1986).
EPA has no criterion for salt water.
In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of TICN 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, Spherical Precision
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
average amount of copper and nickel released from eight TICN shot per
day are 1.87 mg and 1.77 mg, respectively.
The maximum tolerable level of dietary copper during the long-term
growth of chickens (Gallus domesticus) and turkeys (Meleagris species)
has been reported to be 300 p/b (Committee on Mineral Toxicity in
Animals (CMTA) 1980). At the maximum tolerable level for chronic
exposure of 300 ppb 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 mg of copper per kg of body weight per day). The average amount
of copper released from eight TICN shot is 1.87 mg per day, which is
well below concentrations that cause copper toxicosis in waterfowl. A
bird would have to ingest 129 TICN shot to exceed the maximum tolerable
level.
No reproductive or other effects were observed in mallards that
consumed the equivalent of 102 mg of nickel as nickel sulfate each day
for 90 days (Eastin and O'Shea 1981). Therefore, the average amount of
nickel released from eight TICN shot/day of 1.77 mg will pose no risk
of adverse effects to waterfowl. Additionally, metallic nickel likely
has a lower absorption from the gastrointestinal tract than does the
nickel sulfate used in the mallard reproduction study, further
decreasing the absorbed dose of TICN shot compared to the published
toxicity study described above.
We concluded that TICN shot is very resistant to degradation, and
that it poses no risk to waterfowl if ingested in the field. The slow
breakdown rate of
[[Page 49546]]
1.53 mg per shot per day only permits the release of 0.233 mg of copper
and 0.221 mg of nickel per shot per day, both of which are
concentrations that are orders of magnitude below toxic levels of
concern for copper and nickel in waterfowl.
In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of ITN Shot
Fresh water, seawater, and an ``artificial gizzard'' environment
(Kimball and Munir, 1971) were evaluated to determine their corrosion
rates on each of the six alloys, plus steel as a standard. The
``artificial gizzard'' test, although developed for lead alloy
evaluation, proved to reliably simulate the mallard gizzard for both
steel and ITN alloys and constitutes a very conservative approach for
evaluation of nontoxic shot. This test resulted in corrosion/erosion
rates up to twice those measured in steel and Tungsten-Nickel-Iron
mallard in-vivo studies (January 4, 2001, 66 FR 737).
The ITN alloys with relatively low concentrations of tungsten and
nickel corrode in a manner similar to that of steels. Corrosion rates
of such steels are roughly linear over a wide range of exposure time.
This corrosion is in contrast with that of alloys such as stainless
steel, tungsten-nickel iron, or ``high-alloy'' varieties of ITN, which
readily form passivating oxide layers that impede further corrosion.
Assuming that the short-term rate of shot weight loss would continue
for one month in a static aqueous environment (a conservative
assumption, because natural fresh water and seawater environments are
dynamic, and because corrosion products forming on metal surfaces tend
to progressively retard corrosion rates), the actual EECs are presented
in table 6. These data show that the nickel concentration from ITN shot
actually will be well below both the acute and chronic criteria for
nickel in aquatic settings.
Table 6.--Environmental Concentrations of Metals in ITN Shot Based on Solubility Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Water EEC ([mu]g/l) Salt Water EEC ([mu]g/l)
Alloy (% I/T/N) -----------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Tungsten Nickel Iron Tungsten Nickel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (70/20/10).................................. 27.16 7.76 3.87 3.36 0.97 0.23
2 (40/20/40).................................. 1.95 0.97 1.95 0 0 0
3 (44/33/23).................................. 12.61 9.69 6.70 10.66 7.99 2.60
4 (10/50/40).................................. 1.45 7.27 5.82 0 0 0
5 (20/70/10).................................. 6.79 23.77 3.40 2.72 20.37 2.90
6 (10/70/20).................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRON-Metal also 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 (table 7).
These data also demonstrate that the hazards from these alloys to
wildlife would be very minimal.
Table 7.--Metal Loss From ITN Alloys in a Simulated Gizzard Over a 14-Day Period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Weight Loss (mg)
weight of --------------------------------------- Percent
Alloy (% I/T/N) 10 number weight loss
4 shot (g) Iron Tungsten Nickel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (70/20/10)................................... 1.994 179.90 51.40 25.70 12.9
2 (40/20/40)................................... 2.687 64.00 32.00 64.00 5.9
3 (44/33/23)................................... 2.766 72.60 54.45 37.95 5.9
4 (10/50/40)................................... 3.479 13.10 65.50 52.40 3.7
5 (20/70/10)................................... 3.462 18.80 65.80 9.40 2.7
6 (10/70/20)................................... 3.418 19.40 135.80 38.8 5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of TB Shot
The EEC for copper EEC was over 138 times the freshwater acute
criterion of 13 g/l, and 200 times the freshwater chronic criterion of
9.0 g/l. However, Olin noted that the very conservative assumptions
used to calculate the copper EEC are only an indication of the likely
effect of deposition of TB shot in an aquatic setting. Therefore, as an
addendum to the application for TB shot, Olin had an in-vitro
dissolution test in water conducted. The test was conducted to quantify
the release of metals from TB shot at pH values of 5.6, 6.6, and 7.6 in
synthetic buffered waters. The highest EEC for copper from the
dissolution evaluations was 0.15 [mu]g/l at pH 5.6. The hardness-
adjusted chronic water quality criterion for copper was 9.7 [mu]g/l,
approximately 65 times the worst-case EEC. Therefore, detrimental
effects in aquatic systems from dissolution of TB shot would be highly
unlikely.
Olin 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 simulation test
demonstrated that a number 4 TB shot would release about 0.67 mg of the
alloy per day. This, in turn, would mean release of approximately 0.24
mg of copper per day.
Olin pointed out that the theoretical availability of copper from
this in-vitro gizzard simulation test should be considered maximal when
compared to the Irby et al. (1967) study results or the CMTA (1980)
guideline. Unlike the in-vivo gizzard, which resembles an open
corrosion system in which the products of the corrosion process are
constantly being eliminated (Kimball and Munir 1971), the test design
for this in-vitro gizzard simulation was a closed corrosion system.
Therefore, fine pieces of shot that would be released, and normally
discarded from the gizzard, remained in the dissolution medium and
potentially yielded more copper. Additionally, the analytical samples
were analyzed for total metals with no
[[Page 49547]]
filtration or centrifugation prior to analysis. As a result, the fine
pieces of shot that were not fully dissolved and would normally be
excreted were included in the total copper concentrations reported.
Summary: Solubility Evaluations
We have previously approved as nontoxic other shot types that
contain tungsten, iron, and tin. Previous assessments of nontoxic shot
types indicated that the potential release of iron, tungsten, or tin
from TICN, ITN, or TB shot should not harm aquatic or terrestrial
systems and we believe the small amount of tin in TB shot is not likely
to harm waterfowl. The solubility testing further indicates that the
release of nickel from ITN shot and copper from TICN or TB shot is not
sufficient to present a hazard to aquatic systems or to biota. We
propose to approve the four shot types as nontoxic. 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 four shot types are
nontoxic when ingested by waterfowl and that they pose no significant
danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats.
Impacts of Approval of the Four Shot Types
Effects of the Metals
Iron
Iron is an essential nutrient. Iron toxicosis in mammals is
primarily a phenomenon of overdosing of livestock. Maximum recommended
dietary levels of iron range from 500 p/m for sheep to 3000 p/m for
pigs (National Research Council [NRC] 1980). The amount of iron in any
of the four shot types would not pose a hazard to mammals.
Chickens require at least 55 p/m iron in the diet (Morck and Austic
1981). There were no ill effects on chickens fed 1,600 p/m iron in an
adequate diet (McGhee et al. 1965), and chicks tolerated 1,600 p/m iron
in the diets that included adequate copper, although decreased weight
gains and increased mortality were observed in copper-deficient diets
(McGhee et al. 1965). At the maximum tolerable level for chronic
exposure of 1,000 p/m for poultry (NRC 1980), a 1.8 kg chicken
consuming 100 grams of food per day (Morck and Austic 1981) would
consume 100 mg iron per day (56 mg per kg of body weight per day).
Deobald and Elvehjem (1935) reported that 4,500 p/m iron in the
diet produced rickets in chicks. Adverse effects were not observed when
turkey poults were fed diets amended with 440 p/m iron (Woerpel and
Balloun 1964).
Turkey poults fed 440 p/m in the diet suffered no adverse effects.
The tests, in which eight number 4 tungsten-iron shot were administered
to each mallard in a toxicity study indicated that the 45 percent iron
content of the shot had no adverse effects on the test animals (Kelly
et al. 1998).
We are not aware of acute toxicity data for iron in waterfowl.
Zinc-coated iron shot appeared to have little or no effect on ducks
dosed with eight number 6 shot; mortality and weight loss for treated
ducks were comparable to those for control animals (Irby et al. 1967).
Game-farm mallards administered eight number 4 pellets of tungsten-
iron shot, indicated no adverse effects from either the tungsten or the
iron (Kelly et al. 1998). This shot formulation has a much greater iron
content (45 percent) than do the shot types considered here.
Tungsten
Tungsten salts are toxic to mammals. Lifetime exposure to 5 p/m
tungsten as sodium tungstate in drinking water produced no discernible
adverse effects in rats (Rattus species) (Schroeder and Mitchener
1975). However, with 100 p/m tungsten as sodium tungstate in drinking
water, rats had decreased enzyme activity after 21 days (Cohen et al.
1973).
Tungsten may be substituted for molybdenum in enzymes in mammals.
Ingested tungsten salts reduce growth, and can cause diarrhea, coma,
and death in mammals (e.g. Bursian et al. 1996, Cohen et al. 1973,
Karantassis 1924, Kinard and Van de Erve 1941, National Research
Council 1980, Pham-Huu-Chanh 1965), but elemental tungsten is virtually
insoluble and therefore essentially nontoxic. Tungsten powder added to
the food of young rats at 2, 5, and 10 percent by mass for 70 days did
not affect health or growth (Sax and Lewis 1989). A dietary
concentration of 94 p/m did not reduce weight gain in growing rats (Wei
et al. 1987). Exposure to pure tungsten through oral, inhalation, or
dermal pathways is not reported to cause any health effects (Sittig
1991).
Acute tungsten toxicosis results in death from respiratory
paralysis, often preceded by diarrhea and coma. Chronic intoxication is
most evident in reduced growth rates. However, the most sensitive sign
is reduced xanthine oxidase activity. Xanthine oxidase is an enzyme
that is dependent upon molybdenum for proper functioning. It is thought
that tungsten readily substitutes for molybdenum, with subsequent
reduction in enzyme activity; supplemental dietary molybdenum will
reverse the symptoms. The National Research Council Committee on Animal
Nutrition recommends a maximum tolerable dose of 20 p/m tungsten in the
diet for effective rearing of livestock (NRC 1980).
The LD50 of tungsten as sodium tungstate
(Na2WO4) administered by intraperitoneal
injection is 112 p/b body weight in male rats and 79 p/b body weight in
mice (Mus species) (Pham-Huu-Chanh 1965). This would classify tungsten
as ``very toxic'' when administered intraperitoneally as a soluble
salt. Kinard and Van de Erve (1941) showed that
Na2WO4 is the most toxic tungsten salt, when
compared with tungsten oxide and ammonium paratungstate.
Tungsten administered in the diet had no effects on rats until
reaching 150 p/m diet when carcinoma incidence was increased in female
Sprague-Dawley rats (Wei et al. 1987). Higgins et al. (1956a, b) noted
that dietary concentrations of 45 or 94 p/m tungsten produced no
adverse effects on weight gain in growing rats. Other studies with rats
indicate that dietary exposure to 5,000 p/m tungsten oxide
(WO3) or Na2WO4 results in 90 percent
and 80 percent mortality, respectively, by the 70th day of exposure
(NRC 1980). However, lifetime exposure of rats to 5 p/m tungsten as
Na2WO4 in drinking water resulted in no
observable adverse effects (Schroeder and Michener 1975). At 100 p/m
tungsten as Na2WO4 in drinking water, rats had
decreased enzyme activity after 21 days of exposure (Cohen et al.
1973).
Goats (Capra hircus) appear to be less tolerant of dietary
tungsten. A 5-month exposure to 22.5 p/m dietary tungsten as
Na2WO4 resulted in depressed liver xanthine
oxidase activity in growing kids. Milk production in goats and cows
(Bos species) was unaffected by a single oral exposure to 25.0 p/b body
weight of Na2WO4 (Owen and Proudfoot 1968). Anke
and Groppel (1985) established that goats require at least 0.06 p/m
tungsten in their diets for optimal reproduction.
Chickens given a complete diet showed no adverse effects of 250 p/m
sodium tungstate administered for 10 days in the diet. However, 500 p/m
in the diet reduced xanthine oxidase activity and reduced growth of
day-old chicks (Teekell and Watts 1959). Adult hens had reduced egg
production and egg weight on a diet containing 1,000 p/m tungsten (Nell
et al. 1981). Ecological Planning and Toxicology (1999) concluded that
the No Observed
[[Page 49548]]
Adverse Effect Level for tungsten for chickens should be 250 p/m in the
diet; the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level should be 500 p/m. Kelly
et al. (1998) demonstrated no adverse effects on mallards dosed with
tungsten-iron or tungsten-polymer shot according to nontoxic shot test
protocols.
Breeder hen exposure to 250 p/m tungsten as sodium tungstate for 10
days had no adverse effects, but increasing the diet to 500 p/m
tungsten for an additional 20 days resulted in decreased xanthine
oxidase activity (Teekell and Watts 1959). Similarly, day-old chicks on
a 500 p/m tungsten diet with adequate molybdenum showed reduced rate of
gain (Selle 1942).
Nell et al. (1981) fed laying hens diets containing 1,000 p/m
tungsten (unspecified salt) for five months; control diets contained
0.4 p/m tungsten. Hens were artificially inseminated and eggs were
collected and set weekly. Three of 40 hens on the high-tungsten diet
died, and the remaining 37 had reduced egg production and egg weight.
Egg fertility and hatchability were not affected. Liver tungsten was
significantly elevated in treated birds, although there was no effect
on body weight.
Day-old white leghorn chickens placed on a molybdenum-deficient
diet for 35 days showed a decreased rate of growth and increased
mortality at 45 p/m tungsten as sodium tungstate (Higgins et al. 1956a,
b). However, this is not an accurate reflection of tungsten toxicity
because low molybdenum levels potentiate the effects of tungsten (NRC
1980).
Ecological Planning and Toxicology (1999) concluded that the No
Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for tungsten for chickens should
be 250 p/m in the diet; the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level should
be 500 p/m. An adult chicken fed a diet of 1,000 p/m tungsten for 150
days would ingest about 100 mg of tungsten per day, or a total of 15
grams. In the USFWS guidelines for a reproduction study for shot,
mallards would receive eight number 4 shot on four dosing periods. A
total of 32 TICN shot during the course of the study, each containing
0.2006 grams of tungsten, would result in a total exposure of 6.42
grams of tungsten, if the tungsten in the shot is totally dissolved.
This estimated exposure of 6.42 grams of tungsten during a TICN shot
mallard reproductive study is about 43 percent of the 15 grams
demonstrated to cause reproductive effects in chickens.
The effects of ingestion of tungsten by mallards as elemental metal
in a shot pellet were studied by Ringelman et al. (1993). Birds were
given pellets of 39 percent tungsten, 44.5 percent bismuth, and 16.5
percent tin by weight, per bird. No evidence of toxicity or other
histological changes were reported. Tungsten was not detected in liver
or kidney tissue.
Dosing mallards with eight number 4 Iron-Tungsten shot (with 55
percent tungsten) also produced no tungsten toxicity in the ducks
(Kelly et al. 1998). In that study, birds received eight number 4
pellets by oral gavage and were observed for changes in serum enzymes,
organ weights, histology of tissues and accumulation of metals in bone.
Tungsten was detected in femur, liver, and kidneys of dosed ducks, but
no other significant changes were measured. Iron-Tungsten shot eroded
by 55 percent and Tungsten-Polymer shot eroded by 80 percent over the
course of the study; however, tissue concentrations were lower in the
Tungsten-Polymer birds than in the Iron-Tungsten group. The shot were
55 percent tungsten for the Iron-Tungsten formulation and 95.5 percent
tungsten for the polymerized shot. The amount of tungsten in TICN shot
(40-76 percent) is similar to that in the Iron-Tungsten shot (55
percent). Tungsten-Nickel-Iron shot in the study by Ecotoxicology &
Biosystems Associates, Inc. (2000), conducted with a proportion of
tungsten similar to that in TICN shot, was not toxic.
Kraabel et al. (1996) surgically embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot
in the pectoralis muscles of ducks to simulate wounding by gunfire and
to test for toxic effects of the shot. The shot produced no toxic
effects nor induced adverse systemic effects during the 8-week study.
Copper
Copper is a dietary essential for all living organisms. In most
mammals, ingestion of one TICN shot pellet would result in release of 8
to 25 mg of copper, not all of which would be absorbed. In humans,
ingestion of a pellet could mobilize approximately 8 mg of copper.
These low levels of copper would not pose any risk to mammals.
Copper requirements in birds may vary depending on intake and
storage of other minerals (Underwood 1971). The maximum tolerable level
of dietary copper during the long-term growth of chickens and turkeys
is 300 p/m (CMTA 1980). Eight-day-old ducklings were fed a diet
supplemented with 100 p/m copper as copper sulfate for eight weeks.
They showed greater growth than controls, but some thinning of the
caecal walls (King 1975). Studying day-old chicks, Poupoulis and Jensen
(1976) reported that no gizzard lining erosion could be detected in
chicks fed 125 p/m of copper for four weeks, but they detected slight
gizzard erosion in chicks fed 250 p/m copper. The authors found that it
required 500 to 1,000 p/m of copper to depress growth and weight gain
of chicks. Jensen et al. (1991) found that 169 p/m copper in the diet
produced maximal weight gain in chickens.
Stevenson and Jackson (1979) studied the influence of dietary
copper addition on the body mass and reproduction of mature domestic
chickens. Hens fed on a diet containing 250 p/m copper for 48 days
showed a similar rate of food intake as control hens that had no copper
in their diet. Additionally, the mean number of eggs laid daily did not
differ between hens fed 250 p/m copper and the controls. After 4 months
of being fed at dietary copper levels in excess of 500 p/m, negative
effects on the daily food intake, body mass loss, and egg-laying rates
were observed.
At the 300 p/m level for chronic exposure for poultry, a 1.8 kg
chicken consuming 100 g of food per day (Morck and Austic 1981) would
consume 30 mg of copper per day (16.7 mg of copper per kg of body
weight/day). One number 4 TICN shot contains a maximum of 31.7 mg of
copper. However, at the 0.233 mg of copper per shot per day release
rate from the solubility testing, a bird would have to ingest at least
128 TICN shot to exceed the maximum tolerable level. Thus, the copper
release from the TICN shot appears to be well below the level that
could cause copper toxicosis in waterfowl. The average amount of copper
released from 8 TB nontoxic shot per day is 7.87 mg, so a bird would
have to ingest over 30 shot to exceed the maximum tolerable level.
Day-old poults fed diets containing 500 p/m ration for 24 weeks
showed reduced growth and increased gizzard histopathology (Kashani et
al. 1986). Growing domestic turkeys showed no long-term effects when
fed 300 p/m copper in the daily diet, but 800 p/m of copper in the diet
for 3 weeks inhibited growth with no adverse effects on survival
(Supplee 1964). No effect of feeding 400 p/m of copper as copper
sulfate to turkey poults in the daily diet for 21 weeks was reported,
and it was concluded that poults could tolerate 676 p/m of copper
without deleterious effects. Growth was reduced in poults fed 800 p/m
and 910 p/m of copper over the same time (Vohra and Kratzer 1968).
Their conclusion was supported by another study that found that copper
in the diet of domestic turkeys had to rise to 500 to 750 p/m level
before signs of slight toxicity appeared, assuming that
[[Page 49549]]
adequate methionine also was present (Christmas and Harms 1979).
Henderson and Winterfield (1975) reported acute copper toxicity in
3-week-old Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that had ingested water
contaminated with copper sulfate. The authors calculated the copper
intake to be about 600 mg copper sulfate/kg body weight, or 239 mg
copper/kg. The amount of copper released from eight number 4 shot would
be 42.26 mg, which is much less that the 239 p/b toxic level.
Irby et al. (1967) dosed 24 Mallard ducks with 8 number 6 pure
copper shot to observe if they were toxic over a 60-day exposure
period. They calculated that the total mass of copper in the gizzard
was 0.6 gram, and observed that none of the ducks died from copper
toxicosis after 60 days. TB shot is 35.1 percent copper by weight, so
eight shot would contain 0.64 grams of copper.
International Nontoxic Composites, Inc. (2003) reported that pure
copper control shot breaks down at the rate of 18.42 mg copper per gram
of shot per day, or 11.05 mg copper per day for 0.6 grams of copper
shot, under in vitro gizzard simulation test conditions. However, TB
shot releases only 4.35 mg copper per gram of shot per day or 7.87 mg
of copper per day for 1.81 grams of shot under the same test
conditions. This indicates that TB shot should not be a hazard for
wildlife that consume it.
The EPA (2002) provided both acute and chronic freshwater quality
criteria for copper, which are functions of water hardness. The
freshwater acute criterion for a water body with hardness of 100 mg/l,
for example, is 13 [mu]g/l, and the chronic criterion is 9.0 [mu]g
copper per liter. The EPA acute and chronic saltwater quality criteria
are not affected by hardness, and are 4.8 and 3.1 [mu]g/l.
Nickel
Deficiencies have been reported in diets ranging from 2 to 40
billion p/b nickel (NRC 1980). The dietary requirement for nickel has
been set at 50 to 80 p/b for the rat and chick (Nielsen and Sandstead
1974). Humans consume up to 900 [mu]g per day as a normal dietary
intake (Nieboer et al. 1988). Though it is necessary for some enzymes,
nickel competes with zinc, calcium, and magnesium for binding sites on
most of the metal-dependent enzymes, resulting in various levels of
inactivation, although it is essential for functioning of some enzymes,
particularly urease (Andrews et al. 1988, Nieboer et al. 1988). Water-
soluble nickel salts are poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal
tract, averaging only 3 percent to 6 percent assimilation efficiency in
rats (Nieboer et al. 1988).
Rats fed nickel carbonate concentrations up to 1,000 p/m for 3 to 4
months did not show treatment-related effects, nor was body weight of
pups affected (Phatak and Patwardhan 1950). Elevated nickel
concentrations in pups were observed in the 500 and 1,000 p/m treatment
groups. Young rats were fed nickel catalyst (finely divided nickel
suspended in vegetable oil and supported on kieselguhr) at 250 p/m for
16 months with no effects (Phatak and Patwardhan 1952).
Rats fed 1,000 p/m nickel sulfate for 2 years exhibited mild
effects, such as reduced body weight and liver weight, but increased
heart weight (Ambrose et al. 1976). Also, there was an increase in the
number of stillborn pups and a decrease in weanling weights through
three generations. Nickel chloride was most toxic to rats. Young rats
decreased food consumption and lost body weight within 13 days in diets
containing 1,000 p/m nickel as nickel chloride (Schnegg and
Kirchgessner 1976).
Calves showed weight loss and decreased feed intake, organ size,
and nitrogen retention when fed 1,000 p/m nickel and nickel carbonate
for 8 weeks (O'Dell et al. 1970a, 1971). Calves fed 250 p/m nickel did
not show effects. Lactating dairy cows were not affected by 50 or 250
p/m dietary nickel (Archibald 1949, O'Dell et al. 1970b). Soluble
nickel salts are very toxic to mammals, with an oral LD50 of 136 p/b in
mice, and 350 p/b in rats (Fairchild et al. 1977). Nickel catalyst
(finely divided nickel in vegetable oil) fed to young rats at 250 p/m
for 16 months, however, produced no detrimental effects (Phatak and
Patwardhan 1952).
Water-soluble nickel salts are poorly absorbed if ingested by rats
(Nieboer et al. 1988). Nickel carbonate caused no treatment effects in
rats fed 1,000 p/m for 3 to 4 months (Phatak and Patwardhan 1952). Rats
fed 1,000 p/m nickel sulfate for 2 years showed reduced body and liver
weights, an increase in the number of stillborn pups, and decrease in
weanling weights through three generations (Ambrose et al. 1976).
Nickel chloride was even more toxic; 1,000 p/m fed to young rats caused
weight loss in 13 days (Schnegg and Kirchgestiner 1976).
In chicks from hatching to 4 weeks of age, 300 p/m nickel as nickel
carbonate or nickel acetate in the diet produced no observed adverse
effects, but concentrations of 500 p/m or more reduced growth (Weber
and Reid 1968). A diet containing 200 p/m nickel as nickel sulfate had
no observed effects on mallard ducklings from 1 to 90 days of age.
Diets of 800 p/m or more caused significant changes in physical
condition of the ducklings (Cain and Pafford 1981).
Mallard ducklings fed 1,200 p/m nickel as nickel sulfate from 1 to
90 days of age experienced reduced growth rates, tremors, paresis, and
death (71 percent within 60 days) (Cain and Pafford 1981). Weights of
ducklings receiving 200 and 800 p/m nickel were not significantly
different than controls, but the humerus weight/length ratio, a measure
of bone density, was significantly lower than controls among females in
the 800 p/m group and all birds in the 1,200 p/m group. There was no
mortality in the 200 and 800 p/m groups.
Breeding pairs of mallards were fed diets containing 0, 12.5, 50,
200, and 800 p/m nickel as nickel sulfate for 90 days (Eastin and
O'Shea 1981). No treatment-related effects were observed on egg
production, hatchability, or survival of ducklings. At the end of the
90-day treatment period, there were no significant differences in
hematocrit, concentrations of hemoglobin, plasma triglycerides,
cholesterol, or plasma activities of ornithine carbamoyl transferase
and alanine aminotransferase. The only treatment-related observation
was a black, tarry feces in the 800 p/m group. Assuming a mean daily
consumption of 128 grams per bird (Heinz 1979), the 800 p/m treatment
group would have consumed 102 mg nickel each day and 9.2 grams of
nickel during the course of the 90-day study. In the nontoxic shot Tier
2 approval process, birds could be given eight number 4 shot. For ITN
shot, each shot would contain 0.02206 grams of nickel, so each duck
would receive 0.176 grams of nickel, assuming complete solubilization
of the nickel from the shot during the study. This is a very small
fraction of the 9.2 grams of total nickel exposure or 102 mg per day
experienced by the mallards in the Eastin and O'Shea (1981) study.
Therefore, we expect no effect of the nickel on birds ingesting the
shot.
No reproductive or other effects were observed in mallards
consuming the equivalent of 102 mg of nickel as nickel sulfate each day
for 90 days (Eastin and O'Shea 1981). Therefore, the 15.3 mg of nickel
in each TICN shot, if completely eroded and absorbed in 24 hours, would
not be expected to affect waterfowl. Based on the 0.221 mg of nickel
per shot per day rate of release from the solubility study, a mallard
would have to ingest in excess of 450 TICN shot to exceed the 102 mg
nickel amount. Additionally, metallic nickel likely has a lower
absorption from the
[[Page 49550]]
gastrointestinal tract than does the nickel sulfate used in the mallard
reproduction study, further decreasing the absorbed dose of TICN shot
compared to the published toxicity study described above.
Adult mallards dosed with eight tungsten-nickel-iron number 4
pellets were fed a whole kernel corn and grit and observed for signs of
toxicity for 30 days following dosing (January 4, 2001; 66 FR 737). No
adverse effects were observed on body weight, food consumption or
clinical chemistry, hematology, and histopathology. The tungsten-
nickel-iron pellets lost an average of 7.9 percent of their initial
weight during the study, releasing nickel at a rate of 1.85 mg per day
per bird, for a total of 55.5 mg over the 30-day study.
In a Tier 2 dosing study under the regulations governing approval
of nontoxic shot, mallard ducks would each be given eight number 4 TICN
shot (each containing 0.02206 grams of nickel) during the study. A duck
would be exposed to 0.176 grams of nickel during the study if the
nickel were completely dissolved. This is much less than the nickel
exposure experienced by the mallards in the Eastin and O'Shea (1981)
study. We conclude that the nickel in TICN shot will not be significant
to waterfowl that ingest the shot.
Water hardness is the dominant factor governing nickel effects on
aquatic biota (Stokes 1988). Toxicity of nickel to aquatic organisms is
dependent upon water hardness, pH, and organic content, as well as
other minor environmental parameters (Allen and Hansen 1996). In soft
water, as little as 7 p/b nickel may be acutely toxic to fish fry,
while in harder waters toxicity thresholds may be an order of magnitude
higher (Stokes 1988).
The EPA (1986) acute water quality criteria reflect this
insensitivity of aquatic organisms to nickel. For a water body with
hardness of 50 mg/l (generally associated with highly oligotrophic
systems that would not support large numbers of waterfowl), the
criterion is 1,400 [mu]g/l. However, early fish life stages are more
sensitive to nickel (Stokes 1988), which is reflected in the order of
magnitude lower Freshwater Chronic Criterion of 160 [mu]g/l at a
hardness of 50 mg/l (EPA 1986).
The saltwater chronic criterion of 8.3 [mu]g/l is much lower than
the measured mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) chronic value, which is
from the only chronic saltwater study in the EPA guidelines (EPA 1986).
Toxicity of nickel to aquatic organisms is dependent upon water
hardness, pH, and organic content, as well as other minor environmental
parameters (Allen and Hansen 1996). In soft water, as few as 7 p/b may
be acutely toxic to fish fry, but in harder waters toxicity thresholds
may be an order of magnitude higher. General toxicity ranges for
aquatic organisms are as variable, with an acute toxicity of as low as
82 [mu]g/l for some oligochaetes to 138,000 [mu]g/l for some
gastropods; chronic toxicity values range from fewer than 100 [mu]g/l
for some green algae to 10,000 [mu]g/l for filamentous algae (Stokes
1988).
The freshwater criterion maximum concentration is dependent on
hardness. For a water body with hardness of 50 mg/l (generally
associated with highly oligotrophic systems that would not support
large numbers of waterfowl), this results in a criterion of 1,400
[mu]g/l. However, because early fish life stages are more sensitive to
nickel, the freshwater chronic criterion is 160 [mu]g/l at a hardness
of 50 mg/l (EPA 1986).
Tin
It is generally agreed that inorganic tin and tin compounds are
comparatively harmless (Eisler 1989). Inorganic tin and its salts are
poorly absorbed, their oxides are relatively insoluble, and they are
rapidly lost from tissues (see Eisler 1989 for reviews). Reviews
indicate that elemental tin is not toxic to birds (Cooney 1988,
Eisler1989). Tin shot designed for waterfowl hunting is used in several
European countries. We are aware of no reports that suggest that tin
shot causes toxicity problems for wildlife.
Tin (II) chloride was toxic to juvenile eels at 6.0 mg/l and 1.2
mg/l, with death coming at 2.8 and 50 hours, respectively. This
inorganic tin salt was also toxic to daphnids, at concentrations of 2.5
mg/l or more. Metelev et al. (1971) found that 1 g/l of Tin (II)
chloride dihydrate (530 mg of tin per liter) was lethal to all fish
species tested (Bandman 1993).
Grandy et al. (1968) and the Huntingdon Research Centre (1987)
conducted 30-day and 28-day, respectively, acute toxicity tests on
mallard ducks by placing tin pellets inside the digestive tract or
tissues of ducks. They reported that all treated ducks survived without
deleterious effects.
Ringelmann et al. (1993) examined the effects of Tungsten-Bismuth-
Tin shot consumption in ducks. The authors found no signs of toxicosis,
and tin was not detected in the liver or kidney (< 6 p/m) during the 32-
day test period. In a 30-day dosing study of game-farm mallards dosed
with eight number 4 size tin shot, there were no overt signs of
toxicity or treatment-related effects on body weight. Tin was not
detected in any tissues (Gallagher et al. 1999).
The 2 percent tin in bismuth-tin shot produced no toxicological
effects in ducks during reproduction. It did not affect the health of
ducks, the reproduction by male and female birds, or the survival of
ducklings over the long term (Sanderson et al. 1997).
Chronic and acute studies documenting the nontoxic properties of
99.9 percent tin shot were conducted for the application for USFWS
approval of tin shot as a nontoxic alternative. A 150-day chronic
toxicity/reproductive study conducted for tin shot revealed no adverse
effects in mallards dosed with eight number 4 sized shot. Additionally,
there were no significant changes in egg production, fertility, or
hatchability of birds dosed with tin when compared to steel-dosed
birds. A 30-day acute study was also completed by the International Tin
Research Institute (Federal Register 64:17308, 1999). Treatment
mallards were dosed with eight number 4 tin shot and hematocrit and
hemoglobin concentrations, body weight and indications of toxicity were
compared to those of control (no shot) and steel shot-dosed birds. No
adverse effects were seen in ducks dosed with tin. Hematocrit and
hemoglobin concentrations did not differ from those of either negative
control group, nor were there treatment-related effects on body weight.
Ducks dosed with tin exhibited no sign of toxicity.
In a study by Kraabel et al. (1996), shot pellets containing 39
percent tungsten, 44.5 percent bismuth, and 16.5 percent tin were
embedded into the breast muscle of mallards. There were no adverse
systemic effects observed in the study and the localized inflammatory
reactions surrounding the shot were reduced in the tin-containing shot
when compared to the steel shot control group.
Based on the toxicological report and toxicity tests, we concluded
that shot that was 99.9 percent tin posed no significant danger to
migratory birds or other wildlife and their habitats (65 FR 76886,
December 7, 2000). Temporary approval was given because field detection
techniques had not been approved, not due to any toxicity concerns. In
support of the nontoxic application, chronic and acute toxicity tests
demonstrated no adverse effects of tin shot on mallards. We do not
believe the tin in any of the proposed shot types that contain it will
pose toxicological risks due to wildlife.
[[Page 49551]]
Impacts of Approval of Alloys of Previously Approved Metals
We propose to extend the past approvals of some nontoxic shot types
to broader alloys. We have, for example, approved nontoxic shot of
almost 100 percent tungsten, and steel shot is essentially 100 percent
iron. We are not aware of any synergistic effects of these metals, and
approval of other shot types containing them in different proportions
has indicated that negative effects on wildlife, fish, or their
habitats from approval of alloys of these metals are very unlikely.
Therefore, we propose to approve alloys containing any proportion of
tungsten and 1 percent or more iron.
Similarly, as noted above, we gave temporary approval to shot of
100 percent tin (65 FR 76885), though the submitter did not seek final
approval of that shot type. We also propose to approve shot alloys with
any proportions of tungsten and tin and at least 1 percent iron.
Effects of the Approvals on Migratory Waterfowl
Approving additional nontoxic shot types will likely result in a
minor positive long-term impact on waterfowl and wetland habitats.
Approval of the four shot types and additional alloys as nontoxic would
have a positive impact on the waterfowl resource.
Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
The impact on endangered and threatened species of approval of the
four shot types and the additional alloys would be very small, but
positive. The metals in all four shot types and the additional alloys
have been approved in other nontoxic shot types, and we see no
potential effects on threatened or endangered species due to approval
of these shot types.
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 four shot types and the
additional alloys will have little impact on the resource.
Cumulative Impacts
We foresee no negative cumulative impacts of approval of the four
shot types and the additional alloys for waterfowl hunting. Their
approval should help to further reduce the negative impacts of the use
of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots.
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
In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and our
nontoxic shot approval regulations, we seek comments on this proposal.
Of particular relevance is information regarding the potential impacts
of these shot types and the approval of alloys of metals already
approved in other formulations on migratory birds, other wildlife, and
their habitats.
In addition, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to
make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly
stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or
reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it
were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears
in bold type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered
heading; for example, ``Sec. 20.134 Approval of nontoxic shot
types.'') (5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
You may submit written comments on this proposal to the location
identified in the ADDRESSES section, or you may submit electronic
comments to the internet address or the e-mail address listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We must receive your comments before the date listed
in the DATES section. While our normal practice is to open public
comment periods on our proposed rules for 60 days, in this case we are
opening the comment period for only 30 days. We believe a 30-day
comment period will be sufficient because we have approved several
other nontoxic shot types through the rulemaking process and have
received very few comments on those rulemaking actions and because the
changes in this proposed rule should not be controversial. Following
review and consideration of comments, we will issue a final rule on the
proposed regulation changes.
When submitting electronic comments, please include your name and
return address in your message, identify it as comments on the nontoxic
shot proposed rule, and submit your comments as an ASCII file,
preferably as part of the e-mail text. Include RIN 1018-AU04 in the
subject line of your message. Do not use special characters or any
encryption. Written comments on this proposed rule must be on 8\1/2\-
inch by 11-inch paper.
We make comments, including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review during regular business hours.
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address
from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable
by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking
record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to
withhold your name or address, you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comment. We will not accept anonymous comments. We
will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their
entirety. Comments will become part of the Administrative Record for
the review of the application. You may inspect comments at the mailing
address in ADDRESSES during normal business hours.
The Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for approval of the four
shot types is available from the Division of Migratory Bird Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4091,
Arlington, VA 22203-1610. You may call 703-358-1825 to request a copy
of the DEA.
The complete file for this rule is available, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the same address. You may make an
appointment at 703-358-1825 to review the files.
Required Determinations
NEPA Consideration
In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the
Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA
(40 CFR 1500-
[[Page 49552]]
1508), though all of the metals in these shot types have been approved
in other shot types and are not likely to pose adverse toxicity effects
on fish, wildlife, their habitats, or the human environment, we have
prepared Draft Environmental Assessments for this action. We will
finalize the Environmental Assessments before we publish a final rule
on this action.
Endangered Species Act Considerations
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that Federal agencies shall ``insure
that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of (critical) habitat.'' We have concluded that because all of the
metals in these shot types have been approved in other shot types and
will not be available to biota in significant amounts due to use of any
of the four shot types, this action will not affect endangered or
threatened species.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866. This
rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or
adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of government. Therefore, a cost-benefit
economic analysis is not required. This action will not create
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency. No other Federal
agency has any role in regulating nontoxic shot for migratory bird
hunting. The action is consistent with the policies and guidelines of
other Department of the Interior bureaus. This action will not
materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of their recipients because it has no
mechanism to do so. This action will not raise novel legal or policy
issues because the Service has already approved several other nontoxic
shot types.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or
governmental jurisdictions. This rule proposes to approve four
additional types of nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt
migratory birds. We have determined, however, that this rule will have
no effect on small entities since the approved shot merely will
supplement nontoxic shot types already in commerce and available
throughout the retail and wholesale distribution systems. We anticipate
no dislocation or other local effects, with regard to hunters and
others.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule will not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and does 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
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. We have examined this regulation
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) and found it
to contain no new information collection requirements. OMB has assigned
control number 1018-0067 to the collection of information that shot
manufacturers are required to provide to us for the nontoxic shot
approval process. This approval expires December 31, 2006. For further
information, see 50 CFR 20.134.
Unfunded Mandates Reform
We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or more in any given year. Therefore, this rule
does not constitute a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In promulgating this rule, we have determined that these
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. A takings assessment is not required.
Federalism Effects
This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal
capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State
governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. In
accordance with Executive Order 13132, this regulation does not have
significant federalism effects, nor does it have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have determined that this
rule has no effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend part
20, subchapter B, chapter I of Title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 20--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub. L. 106-108.
2. Section 20.21 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(j)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 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.
[[Page 49553]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Approved shot type composition by Field testing
weight device
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bismuth-tin..................... 97 bismuth, 3 tin. Hot Shot[supreg]*.
iron (steel).................... iron and carbon... Magnet or Hot
Shot[supreg].
iron-tungsten................... any proportion of Magnet or Hot
tungsten, >= 1 Shot[supreg].
iron.
iron-tungsten-nickel............ >= 1 iron, any Magnet or Hot
proportion of Shot[supreg].
tungsten, up to
40 nickel
tungsten-bronze................. 51.1 tungsten, Rare Earth Magnet.
44.4 copper, 3.9
tin, 0.6 iron and
60 tungsten, 35.1
copper, 3.9 tin,
1 iron.
tungsten-iron-copper-nickel..... 40-76 tungsten, 10- Hot Shot[supreg]
37 iron, 9-16 or Rare Earth
copper, 5-7 Magnet.
nickel
tungsten-matrix................. 95.9 tungsten, 4.1 Hot Shot[supreg].
polymer.
tungsten-polymer................ 95.5 tungsten, 4.5 Hot Shot[supreg].
Nylon 6 or 11.
tungsten-tin-iron............... any proportions of Magnet or Hot
tungsten and tin, Shot[supreg].
>= 1 iron.
tungsten-tin-bismuth............ 49-71 tungsten, 29- Rare Earth Magnet.
51 tin; 0.5-6.5
bismuth, 0.8
iron.
tungsten-tin-iron-nickel........ 65 tungsten, 21.8 Magnet.
tin, 10.4 iron,
2.8 nickel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.
* * * * *
Dated: July 26, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-16718 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P