[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65573-65576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket Nos. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028 and FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038; FF09M21200-
134-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 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: Final rule; availability of environmental assessments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approve copper-clad
iron shot and fluoropolymer coatings for hunting waterfowl and coots.
We published a proposed rule for approval of copper-clad iron shot and
fluoropolymer coatings in the Federal Register on September 26, 2012
(77 FR 59158). We considered comments on the proposed rule, and we
believe that neither the shot nor the coatings will pose toxicity
hazards to fish or wildlife or their habitats.
DATES: This rule is effective December 2, 2013.
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 continue to review
shot types and shot coatings 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, but we believe that
compliance will continue to increase with the availability and approval
of other nontoxic shot types. Increased use of nontoxic shot will
enhance protection of migratory waterfowl and their habitats.
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 Shot\TM\ Blue, Spectra Shot\TM\ Green, Spectra
Shot\TM\ Orange, and Spectra Shot\TM\ Yellow. The thickness of the
coating will be 3 to 10 microns, with a corresponding weight per shot
as follows: Spectra Shot\TM\ Blue--0.209 milligram per shot; Spectra
Shot\TM\ Green--0.732 milligram per shot; Spectra Shot\TM\ Orange--
0.942 milligram per shot; and Spectra Shot\TM\ 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
Shot\TM\ 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.
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 will further
reduce the use of lead shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot
types and coatings will likely have no effect on waterfowl and wetland
habitats.
[[Page 65574]]
Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
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. Their approval will not affect
threatened or endangered species.
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 will 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, albeit
minor.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
We received five comments on the proposed rule published on
September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59158). Four supported approval of the shot
and the coatings, and one contained no useful information. Therefore,
as stated in the proposed rule, we reviewed the shot and the shot
coatings under the criteria at 50 CFR 20.134, and add these products to
the list of those approved for hunting waterfowl and coots at 50 CFR
20.21(j).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Management and
Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 affirms the principles of E.O. 12866, and
calls 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 will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The rule will allow small entities to improve their economic viability.
However, the rule will not have a significant economic impact because
it will affect only two companies. We certify that because this rule
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)).
a. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more.
b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Tribal, or local
government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we have determined the following:
a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions
under the regulation will not affect small government activities in any
significant way.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year. It will not be a ``significant regulatory action''
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant
takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
Federalism
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a federalism summary impact assessment under E.O. 13132.
It will not interfere with the ability of States to manage themselves
or their funds.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that 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 rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control
[[Page 65575]]
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 environmental assessment is part of the administrative record
for this regulations change. It is posted at http://www.regulations.gov
in Docket Nos. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0028 and FWS-R9-MB-2012-0038. 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
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment, nor will it involve unresolved conflicts concerning
alternative uses of available resources. Therefore, preparation of an
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
determined that there are no potential effects on federally recognized
Indian Tribes. This rule will not interfere with the ability of Tribes
to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird
activities on Tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule change will not be
a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor will it
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action
will not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ``The Secretary [of the
Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize
such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter'' (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must ``insure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out . . . is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of [critical] habitat'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). We have concluded that
the regulation change will not affect listed species.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend part 20,
subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 20--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C.
703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Public Law
106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
0
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 Field testing
Approved shot type* weight 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 Magnet or Hot
tungsten, and >=1 Shot[supreg].
iron.
Iron-tungsten-nickel.......... >=1 iron, any Magnet or Hot
proportion of Shot[supreg].
tungsten, and up to
40 nickel.
Copper-clad iron.............. 84 to 56.59 iron core, Magnet or Hot
with copper cladding Shot[supreg]
up to 44.1 of the
shot mass.
Tungsten-bronze............... 51.1 tungsten, 44.4 Rare Earth
copper, 3.9 tin, and Magnet.
0.6 iron, or 60
tungsten, 35.1
copper, 3.9 tin, and
1 iron.
Tungsten-iron-copper-nickel... 40-76 tungsten, 10-37 Hot Shot[supreg]
iron, 9-16 copper, or Rare Earth
and 5-7 nickel. Magnet.
Tungsten-matrix............... 95.9 tungsten, 4.1 Hot
polymer. Shot[supreg].
Tungsten-polymer.............. 95.5 tungsten, 4.5 Hot
Nylon 6 or 11. Shot[supreg].
Tungsten-tin-iron............. any proportions of Magnet or Hot
tungsten and tin, and Shot[supreg].
>=1 iron.
Tungsten-tin-bismuth.......... any proportions of Rare Earth
tungsten, tin, and Magnet.
bismuth.
Tungsten-tin-iron-nickel...... 65 tungsten, 21.8 tin, Magnet.
10.4 iron, and 2.8
nickel.
Tungsten-iron-polymer......... 41.5-95.2 tungsten, Rare Earth
1.5-52.0 iron, and Magnet or Hot
3.5-8.0 fluoropolymer. Shot[supreg].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 65576]]
* * * * *
Dated: September 17, 2013.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-26063 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P