82 FR 38664 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 156 (August 15, 2017)

Page Range		38664-38668
FR Document		2017-17175

Having completed our review of the application materials for corrosion-inhibited copper shot, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) proposes to approve the shot for hunting waterfowl and coots. We have concluded that this type of shot left in terrestrial or aquatic environments is unlikely to adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats. Approving this shot formulation would increase the nontoxic shot options for hunters.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38664-38668]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17175]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0073; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018-BB06


Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Corrosion-Inhibited Copper 
Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Having completed our review of the application materials for 
corrosion-inhibited copper shot, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(hereinafter Service or we) proposes to approve the shot for hunting 
waterfowl and coots. We have concluded that this type of shot left in 
terrestrial or aquatic environments is unlikely to adversely affect 
fish, wildlife, or their habitats. Approving this shot formulation 
would increase the nontoxic shot options for hunters.

DATES: Electronic comments on this proposal or on the draft 
environmental assessment via http://www.regulations.gov must be 
submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on September 14, 2017. Comments 
submitted by mail must be postmarked no later than September 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Document Availability. You may view the application and our 
draft environmental assessment by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Search for Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0073.
     Request a copy by contacting the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Written Comments: You may submit comments on the proposed rule or 
the associated draft environmental assessment by either one of the 
following two methods:
     Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-
MB-2015-0073.
     U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attention: FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0073; Division of Policy, Performance, and 
Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg 
Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information that you provide.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, at 703-358-1967.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 
16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird treaties between the 
United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996, as amended), 
Mexico (1936 and 1972, as amended), Japan (1972 and

[[Page 38665]]

1974, as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These 
treaties protect most migratory bird species from take, except as 
permitted under the Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 
to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this 
authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through 
regulations at 50 CFR part 20. We prohibit the use of shot types other 
than those listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 
20.21(j) for hunting waterfowl and coots and any species that make up 
aggregate bag limits.
    Deposition of toxic shot and release of toxic shot components in 
waterfowl hunting locations are potentially harmful to many organisms. 
Research has shown that ingested spent lead shot causes significant 
mortality in migratory birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to 
identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to 
migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested. We have approved 
nontoxic shot types and coatings and added them to the migratory bird 
hunting regulations at 50 CFR 20.21(j). We continue to review shot 
types and coatings submitted for approval as nontoxic following a 
process set forth at 50 CFR 20.134.
    We addressed lead poisoning in waterfowl in an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) in 1976, and again in a 1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 
document provided the scientific justification for a ban on the use of 
lead shot and the subsequent approval of steel shot for hunting 
waterfowl and coots that began that year, with a complete ban of lead 
for waterfowl and coot hunting in 1991. We have continued to consider 
other potential nontoxic shot candidates for approval. We are obligated 
to review applications for approval of alternative shot types as 
nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots.
    Many hunters believe that some nontoxic shot types compare poorly 
to lead and may damage some shotgun barrels. A small and decreasing 
percentage of hunters have not complied with nontoxic shot regulations. 
Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage greater 
hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot requirements and 
discourage the use of lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for waterfowl 
hunting increased after the ban on lead shot (Anderson et al. 2000), 
but we believe that compliance would continue to increase with the 
availability and approval of other nontoxic shot types. Increased use 
of nontoxic shot will enhance protection of migratory waterfowl and 
their habitats. More important is that the Service is obligated to 
consider all complete nontoxic shot applications submitted to us for 
approval.

Application

    Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, Oregon, seeks approval of 
corrosion-inhibited copper shot as nontoxic. We evaluated the impact of 
approval of this shot type in a draft environmental assessment (see 
ADDRESSES, above, for information on viewing a copy of the draft 
environmental assessment). The data from Environ-Metal, Inc., indicate 
that the shot's coating will essentially eliminate copper exposure in 
the environment and to waterfowl if the shot is ingested. We believe 
that this type of shot will not pose a danger to migratory birds, other 
wildlife, or their habitats.
    We have reviewed the shot under the criteria in Tier 1 of the 
nontoxic shot approval procedures at 50 CFR 20.134 for permanent 
approval of shot and coatings as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and 
coots. We propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) to add the shot to the list 
of those approved for waterfowl and coot hunting. Details on the 
evaluations of the shot can be found in the draft environmental 
assessment.

Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot

    Corrosion-inhibited copper shot (CIC shot) consists of commercially 
pure copper that has been surface-treated with benzotriazole (BTA) to 
obtain insoluble, hydrophobic films of BTA-copper complexes (CDA 2009). 
These films are very stable; are highly protective against copper 
corrosion in both salt water and fresh water; and are used extensively 
to protect copper, even in potable water systems. Other high-volume 
applications include deicers for aircraft and dishwasher detergent 
additives, effluents of which may be directly introduced into municipal 
sewer systems, indicative of the exceptionally low environmental impact 
of BTA. ``The corrosion-inhibiting effectiveness of BTA-copper complex 
coating, based on actual testing conducted by the applicants and by 
others, is substantial.''

Shot Coating and Test Device

    CIC shot will have an additional coating that will fluoresce under 
ultraviolet light. The coating is applied by a proprietary process, and 
coats the shot so that the layers of coating are visible through the 
translucent shotshell. The coating is environmentally safe and is very 
long-lasting in the shotshells. The sole purpose of fluorescent-coating 
CIC shot is to provide a portable, non-invasive and affordable field 
detection method for use by law enforcement officers to identify this 
non-magnetic shot type as approved for waterfowl and coot hunting.
    ECO Pigments\TM\, manufactured exclusively by DayGlo, Inc. 
(Cleveland, OH), are thermoplastic fluorescent powders free of 
formaldehyde, heavy metals, azo compounds, perfluorooctanoic acid, 
aromatic amines, regulated phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons, substance of very high concern (SVHC) chemicals, and 
California Proposition 65 chemicals. The pigments were originally 
developed for use as brightly colored ``markers'' to be mixed with 
aerially applied, fire-retardant chemicals used in forest fire 
suppression, because they are more ``environmentally friendly'' than 
even the relatively inert iron-oxide powders formerly applied. They are 
globally approved for a wide variety of uses, including textile dyes, 
paints, and toys. Environ-Metal, Inc., anticipates applying coatings 
approximately 0.001-inch thick, a value which is calculated to add 
about 0.13 percent by weight to the mass of a #4-size copper shot.
    Environ-Metal, Inc., will apply the pigment to metallic shot using 
a proprietary process to create a thin, adherent coating of a tough, 
resilient, fluorescent substance. The coating is visually detectable 
through the wall of a shotshell when ultraviolet light is applied to 
the exterior of the shell. To further aid field detection, after 
application of the nontoxic ultraviolet (UV) pigment to CIC shot, the 
shot is loaded into an uncolored (``clear'') hull, with a unique inner 
shot wad printed with the manufacturer and shot material type.
    Law enforcement officers who have reason to suspect that a non-
magnetic shotshell may contain unapproved shot (e.g., toxic lead) need 
only shine the UV light on the side of the translucent shell, which 
will be marked by Environ-Metal, Inc., as containing copper, to 
determine the presence or absence of a visible glow emitted by the shot 
coating.
    Although the shot coating is inherently water-proof, it is further 
protected against environmental degradation by being sealed within two 
layers of polyethylene plastic--the wad and the hull or shell. Environ-
Metal, Inc., has stated that ``potential fading of the thermoplastic UV 
dye could not become significant until after both of the enveloping 
polyethylene cylinders had become embrittled/cracked by excessive

[[Page 38666]]

exposure to direct sunlight, a condition which would essentially render 
the shotshell useless.''

Positive Effects for Migratory Waterfowl Populations

    Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage 
greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot 
requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. Furnishing additional 
approved nontoxic shot types and nontoxic coatings likely would further 
reduce the use of lead shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot 
types and coatings would likely result in a minor positive long-term 
impact on waterfowl and wetland habitats.

Unlikely Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species

    The impact on endangered and threatened species of approving 
corrosion-inhibited copper shot would be very small, but positive. 
Corrosion-inhibited copper shot is highly unlikely to adversely affect 
animals that consume the shot or habitats in which it might be used. We 
see no potential significant negative effects on endangered or 
threatened species due to approval of the shot type.
    Further, we annually obtain a biological opinion pursuant to 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), prior to establishing the annual migratory bird hunting 
regulations. The migratory bird hunting regulations promulgated as a 
result of this annual consultation remove and alleviate chances of 
conflict between migratory bird hunting and endangered and threatened 
species.

Beneficial Effects on Ecosystems

    Previously approved shot types have been shown in test results to 
be nontoxic to the migratory bird resource, and we believe that they 
cause no adverse impact on ecosystems. There is concern, however, about 
noncompliance with the prohibition on lead shot and potential ecosystem 
effects. The use of lead shot has a negative impact on wetland 
ecosystems due to the erosion of shot, causing sediment/soil and water 
contamination and the direct ingestion of shot by aquatic and predatory 
animals. Though we believe noncompliance is of concern, approval of the 
shot type would have little impact on the resource, except the small 
positive impact of reducing the rate of noncompliance.

Cumulative Impacts

    We foresee no negative cumulative impacts if we approve this shot 
type for waterfowl hunting. Its approval could help to further reduce 
the negative impacts of the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and 
coots. We believe the impacts of the approval for waterfowl hunting in 
the United States should be positive.

Public Comments

    You may submit information concerning this proposed rule or the 
draft environmental assessment by one of the methods listed in 
ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, 
your entire submission--including any personal identifying 
information--will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made 
via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may 
request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal 
identifying information from public review. However, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy 
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we receive in 
response to this proposed rule will be available for you to review at 
http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 
Bird Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA.

Required Determinations

Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    This proposed rule is considered to be an Executive Order (E.O.) 
13771 deregulatory action (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it 
would approve an additional type of nontoxic shot in our regulations at 
50 CFR part 20.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that OIRA will review all 
significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 
small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions).
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. We have examined this proposed 
rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The rule would allow small entities to improve their economic 
viability. However, the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact because it would affect only two companies. We certify that 
because this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required.
    This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)).
    a. This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more.
    b. This rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices 
for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, Tribal, or local 
government agencies; or geographic regions.
    c. This rule would not have significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises.

[[Page 38667]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we have determined the following:
    a. This rule would not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions 
under the proposed rule would not affect small government activities in 
any significant way.
    b. This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year. It would not be a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule would not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. This proposed rule does not contain a provision for 
taking of private property.

Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to 
warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact assessment under 
E.O. 13132. It would not interfere with the ability of States to manage 
themselves or their funds.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial 
system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 
12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of 
information that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has approved 
our collection of information associated with applications for approval 
of nontoxic shot (50 CFR 20.134) and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-
0067, which expires March 31, 2020. We may not conduct or sponsor and 
you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Our draft environmental assessment is part of the administrative 
record for this proposed rule. In accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part 516 of 
the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM), approval of 
corrosion-inhibited copper shot and fluoropolymer coatings would not 
have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, nor 
would it involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 
available resources. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact 
statement is not required.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 
evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and 
have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule would 
not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their 
funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule would not 
be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor would it 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action 
would not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements

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

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, please send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 20--MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING

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 paragraph (j)(1) by:
0
a. Adding a table entry for ``Corrosion-inhibited copper'', immediately 
following the entry for ``Copper-clad iron''; and
0
b: Revising the first table note.
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec.  20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

* * * * *
    (j)(1) * * *

[[Page 38668]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Percent composition by    Field testing
     Approved shot type *               weight              device **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Corrosion-inhibited copper....  >=99.9 copper with      Ultraviolet
                                 benzotriazole and       Light.
                                 thermoplastic
                                 fluorescent powder
                                 coatings.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome,
  fluoropolymers, and fluorescent thermoplastic on approved nontoxic
  shot types also are approved.

* * * * *

    Dated: August 8, 2017.
Todd D. Willens,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2017-17175 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

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

1974, as amended), and Russia (then the nontoxic shot will enhance protection of lasting in the shotshells. The sole
Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties migratory waterfowl and their habitats. purpose of fluorescent-coating CIC shot
protect most migratory bird species from More important is that the Service is is to provide a portable, non-invasive
take, except as permitted under the Act, obligated to consider all complete and affordable field detection method
which authorizes the Secretary of the nontoxic shot applications submitted to for use by law enforcement officers to
Interior to regulate take of migratory us for approval. identify this non-magnetic shot type as
birds in the United States. Under this approved for waterfowl and coot
Application
authority, we control the hunting of hunting.
migratory game birds through Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, ECO PigmentsTM, manufactured
regulations at 50 CFR part 20. We Oregon, seeks approval of corrosion- exclusively by DayGlo, Inc. (Cleveland,
prohibit the use of shot types other than inhibited copper shot as nontoxic. We OH), are thermoplastic fluorescent
those listed in the Code of Federal evaluated the impact of approval of this powders free of formaldehyde, heavy
Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for shot type in a draft environmental metals, azo compounds,
hunting waterfowl and coots and any assessment (see ADDRESSES, above, for perfluorooctanoic acid, aromatic
species that make up aggregate bag information on viewing a copy of the amines, regulated phthalates, bisphenol
limits. draft environmental assessment). The A (BPA), polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
Deposition of toxic shot and release of data from Environ-Metal, Inc., indicate substance of very high concern (SVHC)
toxic shot components in waterfowl that the shot’s coating will essentially chemicals, and California Proposition
hunting locations are potentially eliminate copper exposure in the 65 chemicals. The pigments were
harmful to many organisms. Research environment and to waterfowl if the originally developed for use as brightly
has shown that ingested spent lead shot shot is ingested. We believe that this colored ‘‘markers’’ to be mixed with
causes significant mortality in migratory type of shot will not pose a danger to aerially applied, fire-retardant
birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have migratory birds, other wildlife, or their chemicals used in forest fire
sought to identify types of shot for habitats. suppression, because they are more
waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to We have reviewed the shot under the ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ than even
migratory birds or other wildlife when criteria in Tier 1 of the nontoxic shot the relatively inert iron-oxide powders
ingested. We have approved nontoxic approval procedures at 50 CFR 20.134 formerly applied. They are globally
shot types and coatings and added them for permanent approval of shot and approved for a wide variety of uses,
to the migratory bird hunting coatings as nontoxic for hunting including textile dyes, paints, and toys.
regulations at 50 CFR 20.21(j). We waterfowl and coots. We propose to Environ-Metal, Inc., anticipates
continue to review shot types and amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) to add the shot applying coatings approximately 0.001-
coatings submitted for approval as to the list of those approved for inch thick, a value which is calculated
nontoxic following a process set forth at waterfowl and coot hunting. Details on to add about 0.13 percent by weight to
50 CFR 20.134. the evaluations of the shot can be found the mass of a #4-size copper shot.
We addressed lead poisoning in in the draft environmental assessment. Environ-Metal, Inc., will apply the
waterfowl in an environmental impact pigment to metallic shot using a
statement (EIS) in 1976, and again in a Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot proprietary process to create a thin,
1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 Corrosion-inhibited copper shot (CIC adherent coating of a tough, resilient,
document provided the scientific shot) consists of commercially pure fluorescent substance. The coating is
justification for a ban on the use of lead copper that has been surface-treated visually detectable through the wall of
shot and the subsequent approval of with benzotriazole (BTA) to obtain a shotshell when ultraviolet light is
steel shot for hunting waterfowl and insoluble, hydrophobic films of BTA- applied to the exterior of the shell. To
coots that began that year, with a copper complexes (CDA 2009). These further aid field detection, after
complete ban of lead for waterfowl and films are very stable; are highly application of the nontoxic ultraviolet
coot hunting in 1991. We have protective against copper corrosion in (UV) pigment to CIC shot, the shot is
continued to consider other potential both salt water and fresh water; and are loaded into an uncolored (‘‘clear’’) hull,
nontoxic shot candidates for approval. used extensively to protect copper, even with a unique inner shot wad printed
We are obligated to review applications in potable water systems. Other high- with the manufacturer and shot material
for approval of alternative shot types as volume applications include deicers for type.
nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and aircraft and dishwasher detergent Law enforcement officers who have
coots. additives, effluents of which may be reason to suspect that a non-magnetic
Many hunters believe that some directly introduced into municipal shotshell may contain unapproved shot
nontoxic shot types compare poorly to sewer systems, indicative of the (e.g., toxic lead) need only shine the UV
lead and may damage some shotgun exceptionally low environmental impact light on the side of the translucent shell,
barrels. A small and decreasing of BTA. ‘‘The corrosion-inhibiting which will be marked by Environ-Metal,
percentage of hunters have not effectiveness of BTA-copper complex Inc., as containing copper, to determine
complied with nontoxic shot coating, based on actual testing the presence or absence of a visible glow
regulations. Allowing use of additional conducted by the applicants and by emitted by the shot coating.
nontoxic shot types may encourage others, is substantial.’’ Although the shot coating is
greater hunter compliance and inherently water-proof, it is further
participation with nontoxic shot Shot Coating and Test Device protected against environmental
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

requirements and discourage the use of CIC shot will have an additional degradation by being sealed within two
lead shot. The use of nontoxic shot for coating that will fluoresce under layers of polyethylene plastic—the wad
waterfowl hunting increased after the ultraviolet light. The coating is applied and the hull or shell. Environ-Metal,
ban on lead shot (Anderson et al. 2000), by a proprietary process, and coats the Inc., has stated that ‘‘potential fading of
but we believe that compliance would shot so that the layers of coating are the thermoplastic UV dye could not
continue to increase with the visible through the translucent become significant until after both of the
availability and approval of other shotshell. The coating is enveloping polyethylene cylinders had
nontoxic shot types. Increased use of environmentally safe and is very long- become embrittled/cracked by excessive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Aug 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1

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

exposure to direct sunlight, a condition Cumulative Impacts consider regulatory approaches that
which would essentially render the We foresee no negative cumulative reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
shotshell useless.’’ impacts if we approve this shot type for and freedom of choice for the public
waterfowl hunting. Its approval could where these approaches are relevant,
Positive Effects for Migratory feasible, and consistent with regulatory
Waterfowl Populations help to further reduce the negative
impacts of the use of lead shot for objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
Allowing use of additional nontoxic hunting waterfowl and coots. We further that regulations must be based
believe the impacts of the approval for on the best available science and that
shot types may encourage greater hunter
waterfowl hunting in the United States the rulemaking process must allow for
compliance and participation with
should be positive. public participation and an open
nontoxic shot requirements and
exchange of ideas. We have developed
discourage the use of lead shot. Public Comments this rule in a manner consistent with
Furnishing additional approved these requirements.
nontoxic shot types and nontoxic You may submit information
coatings likely would further reduce the concerning this proposed rule or the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
use of lead shot. Thus, approving draft environmental assessment by one et seq.)
additional nontoxic shot types and of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
coatings would likely result in a minor you submit information via http://
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
positive long-term impact on waterfowl www.regulations.gov, your entire
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and wetland habitats. submission—including any personal
Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L.
identifying information—will be posted
104–121)), whenever an agency is
Unlikely Effects on Endangered and on the Web site. If your submission is
required to publish a notice of
Threatened Species made via a hardcopy that includes rulemaking for any proposed or final
personal identifying information, you rule, it must prepare and make available
The impact on endangered and may request at the top of your document
threatened species of approving for public comment a regulatory
that we withhold this personal flexibility analysis that describes the
corrosion-inhibited copper shot would identifying information from public
be very small, but positive. Corrosion- effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,
review. However, we cannot guarantee small businesses, small organizations,
inhibited copper shot is highly unlikely that we will be able to do so. We will
to adversely affect animals that consume and small government jurisdictions).
post all hardcopy submissions on http:// SBREFA amended the Regulatory
the shot or habitats in which it might be www.regulations.gov. Flexibility Act to require Federal
used. We see no potential significant Information and supporting agencies to provide a statement of the
negative effects on endangered or documentation that we receive in factual basis for certifying that a rule
threatened species due to approval of response to this proposed rule will be will not have a significant economic
the shot type. available for you to review at http:// impact on a substantial number of small
Further, we annually obtain a www.regulations.gov, or by entities. We have examined this
biological opinion pursuant to section 7 appointment, during normal business proposed rule’s potential effects on
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife small entities as required by the
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Service, Division of Migratory Bird Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have
prior to establishing the annual Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls determined that this action would not
migratory bird hunting regulations. The Church, VA. have a significant economic impact on
migratory bird hunting regulations Required Determinations a substantial number of small entities.
promulgated as a result of this annual The rule would allow small entities to
Executive Order 13771—Reducing improve their economic viability.
consultation remove and alleviate
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory However, the rule would not have a
chances of conflict between migratory
Costs significant economic impact because it
bird hunting and endangered and
threatened species. This proposed rule is considered to be would affect only two companies. We
an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 certify that because this rule would not
Beneficial Effects on Ecosystems deregulatory action (82 FR 9339, have a significant economic effect on a
February 3, 2017) because it would substantial number of small entities, a
Previously approved shot types have
approve an additional type of nontoxic regulatory flexibility analysis is not
been shown in test results to be shot in our regulations at 50 CFR part required.
nontoxic to the migratory bird resource, 20. This rule is not a major rule under the
and we believe that they cause no SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)).
adverse impact on ecosystems. There is Regulatory Planning and Review a. This rule would not have an annual
concern, however, about noncompliance (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) effect on the economy of $100 million
with the prohibition on lead shot and Executive Order 12866 provides that or more.
potential ecosystem effects. The use of OIRA will review all significant rules. b. This rule would not cause a major
lead shot has a negative impact on OIRA has determined that this rule is increase in costs or prices for
wetland ecosystems due to the erosion not significant. consumers; individual industries;
of shot, causing sediment/soil and water Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the Federal, State, Tribal, or local
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

contamination and the direct ingestion principles of E.O. 12866 while calling government agencies; or geographic
of shot by aquatic and predatory for improvements in the nation’s regions.
animals. Though we believe regulatory system to promote c. This rule would not have
noncompliance is of concern, approval predictability, to reduce uncertainty, significant adverse effects on
of the shot type would have little impact and to use the best, most innovative, competition, employment, investment,
on the resource, except the small and least burdensome tools for productivity, innovation, or the ability
positive impact of reducing the rate of achieving regulatory ends. The of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
noncompliance. executive order directs agencies to with foreign-based enterprises.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Aug 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act National Environmental Policy Act Clarity of the Rule
In accordance with the Unfunded (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part
We are required by Executive Orders
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 516 of the U.S. Department of the
12866 and 12988 and by the
seq.), we have determined the following: Interior Manual (516 DM), approval of
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
a. This rule would not ‘‘significantly corrosion-inhibited copper shot and
1998, to write all rules in plain
or uniquely’’ affect small governments. fluoropolymer coatings would not have
a significant effect on the quality of the language. This means that each rule we
A small government agency plan is not publish must:
required. Actions under the proposed human environment, nor would it
involve unresolved conflicts concerning (a) Be logically organized;
rule would not affect small government (b) Use the active voice to address
activities in any significant way. alternative uses of available resources.
Therefore, preparation of an readers directly;
b. This rule would not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or environmental impact statement is not (c) Use clear language rather than
greater in any year. It would not be a required. jargon;
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (d) Be divided into short sections and
Government-to-Government
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. sentences; and
Relationship With Tribes
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
Takings In accordance with the President’s possible.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this memorandum of April 29 1994, If you feel that we have not met these
proposed rule would not have ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations requirements, please send us comments
significant takings implications. A with Native American Tribal by one of the methods listed in
takings implication assessment is not Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the
required. This proposed rule does not 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have rule, your comments should be as
contain a provision for taking of private evaluated potential effects on federally specific as possible. For example, you
property. recognized Indian Tribes and have should tell us the numbers of the
determined that there are no potential sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
Federalism effects. This rule would not interfere written, which sections or sentences are
This proposed rule does not have with the ability of Tribes to manage too long, the sections where you feel
sufficient Federalism effects to warrant themselves or their funds or to regulate lists or tables would be useful, etc.
preparation of a federalism summary migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.
impact assessment under E.O. 13132. It List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
would not interfere with the ability of (E.O. 13211) Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting
States to manage themselves or their and recordkeeping requirements,
funds. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects Transportation, Wildlife.
Civil Justice Reform when undertaking certain actions. This Proposed Regulation Promulgation
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the proposed rule would not be a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor For the reasons discussed in the
Office of the Solicitor has determined preamble, we propose to amend part 20,
that this proposed rule does not unduly would it significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. This subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the
burden the judicial system and meets Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
the requirements of sections 3(a) and action would not be a significant energy
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. action, and no Statement of Energy PART 20—MIGRATORY BIRD
Effects is required. HUNTING
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
Compliance With Endangered Species
This proposed rule does not contain ■ 1. The authority citation for part 20
Act Requirements
any new collections of information that continues to read as follows:
require approval by the Office of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40
Management and Budget (OMB) under
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ‘‘The Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703–712; Fish and
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a–j; Public
has approved our collection of Secretary [of the Interior] shall review
Law 106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following
information associated with other programs administered by him 16 U.S.C. 703.
applications for approval of nontoxic and utilize such programs in
shot (50 CFR 20.134) and assigned OMB furtherance of the purposes of this Act’’ ■ 2. Amend § 20.21 paragraph (j)(1) by:
Control Number 1018–0067, which (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states ■ a. Adding a table entry for ‘‘Corrosion-
expires March 31, 2020. We may not that the Secretary must ‘‘insure that any inhibited copper’’, immediately
conduct or sponsor and you are not action authorized, funded, or carried out following the entry for ‘‘Copper-clad
required to respond to a collection of * * * is not likely to jeopardize the iron’’; and
information unless it displays a continued existence of any endangered ■ b: Revising the first table note.
currently valid OMB control number. species or threatened species or result in The addition and revision read as
the destruction or adverse modification follows:
National Environmental Policy Act of [critical] habitat’’ (16 U.S.C.
Our draft environmental assessment is 1536(a)(2)). We have concluded that this § 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

part of the administrative record for this proposed rule would not affect listed * * * * *
proposed rule. In accordance with the species. (j)(1) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Aug 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1

$38668 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules Approved shot type * Percent composition by weight Field testing device ** * * * * * * * Corrosion-inhibited copper ............. ≥99.9 copper with benzotriazole and thermoplastic fluorescent powder Ultraviolet Light. coatings. * * * * * * * * Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, fluoropolymers, and fluorescent thermoplastic on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved. * * * * * Dated: August 8, 2017. Todd D. Willens, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2017–17175 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Aug 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1$

Document Created: 2017-08-15 01:12:43
Document Modified: 2017-08-15 01:12:43

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment.
Dates		Electronic comments on this proposal or on the draft environmental assessment via http://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on September 14, 2017. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked no later than September 14, 2017.
Contact		Ron Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, at 703-358-1967.
FR Citation		82 FR 38664
RIN Number		1018-BB06
CFR Associated		Exports; Hunting; Imports; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Transportation and Wildlife

82 FR 38664 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 156 (August 15, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service