Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Conditional Approval of Tin Shot as Nontoxic for the 1998-99 Season

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AE39

Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Conditional Approval of Tin

Shot as Nontoxic for the 1998-99 Season

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to amend

Section 20.21(j) and grant temporary and conditional approval of tin

shot as nontoxic for the 1998-99 migratory bird hunting season while

chronic toxicity/reproductive testing is being completed. Tin shot has

been submitted for consideration as nontoxic by the International Tin

Research Institute, Ltd. (ITRI), of Uxbridge, Middlesex, Great Britain.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule or draft Environmental Assessment

(EA) (see caption NEPA CONSIDERATION) must be received no later than

January 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the EA are available by writing to the Chief,

Office of Migratory Bird Management (MBMO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240.

Comments may also be forwarded to this same address. The public may

inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington

Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Blohm, Acting Chief, or

James R. Kelley, Jr., Wildlife Biologist, Office of Migratory Bird

Management (MBMO), (703) 358-1714.

RLSQ, Washington, DC 20240.

Comments may also be forwarded to this same address. The public may

inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington

Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Blohm, Acting Chief, or

James R. Kelley, Jr., Wildlife Biologist, Office of Migratory Bird

Management (MBMO), (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since the mid-1970s, the Service has sought

to identify shot that does not pose a significant toxic hazard to

migratory birds or other wildlife. Currently, only steel and bismuth-

tin shot are approved by the Service as nontoxic. Tungsten-iron and

tungsten-polymer shot have been given temporary conditional approval

for the 1998-99 hunting season. Compliance with the use of nontoxic

shot has been increasing over the last few years. The Service believes

that this level of compliance will continue to increase with the

availability and approval of other nontoxic shot types. The Service is

eager to consider these other materials for approval as nontoxic shot.

The revised procedures for approving nontoxic shot (50 CFR 20.134)

consist of a three-tier process whereby existing information can

minimize the need for full testing of a candidate shot. However,

applicants still carry the burden of proving that the candidate shot is

nontoxic. By developing the new approval procedure, it was the

Service's intent to discontinue the practice of granting temporary

conditional approval to candidate shot material. However, the

application by ITRI was initiated prior to implementation of the new

protocol. To date, scientific information presented in the application

suggests that tin is nontoxic under conditions for the proposed shot

configuration. Therefore, the Service proposes to grant temporary

conditional approval for the 1998-99 hunting season

orary

conditional approval to candidate shot material. However, the

application by ITRI was initiated prior to implementation of the new

protocol. To date, scientific information presented in the application

suggests that tin is nontoxic under conditions for the proposed shot

configuration. Therefore, the Service proposes to grant temporary

conditional approval for the 1998-99 hunting season. Permanent approval

will not be granted until chronic toxicity/reproductive testing is

successfully completed and the results are reviewed and approved by the

Director.

ITRI's candidate shot is made from commercially pure tin; no

alloying or other alterations are intentionally made to the chemical

composition of the shot. The shot material has a density of

approximately 7.29 g/cm3. The shot is 99.97 percent tin,

with a low level of iron pickup due to the steel production equipment.

ITRI's application includes a statement of proposed use, a

description of the new tin shot, a toxicological report (Thomas 1997),

and results of a 30-day dosing study of the toxicity of the candidate

shot in game-farm mallards (Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998). The

toxicological report incorporates toxicity information (a synopsis of

acute and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds, potential for

environmental concern, and toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial

invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles), effects of firing on tin shot,

and information on environmental fate and transport. The toxicity study

is a 30-day dosing test to determine if the candidate shot poses any

deleterious effects to game-farm mallards. This will meet the

requirements for Tier 2, as described in 50 CFR 20.134(b)(3).

Toxicity Information

toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial

invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles), effects of firing on tin shot,

and information on environmental fate and transport. The toxicity study

is a 30-day dosing test to determine if the candidate shot poses any

deleterious effects to game-farm mallards. This will meet the

requirements for Tier 2, as described in 50 CFR 20.134(b)(3).

Toxicity Information

Detailed reviews of the toxicological impacts of different tin

compounds have been conducted by Eisler (1989) and Cooney (1988). Both

reviews indicate that elemental tin, which is the material used in this

shot, is non-toxic to animals. Tin shot designed for waterfowl hunting

is utilized in several European countries and no reports exist that

suggest that tin shot is causing toxicity problems for wildlife in

those countries.

Environmental Fate and Transport

Tin pellets will undergo slow surface oxidation to form hydrated

tin oxide, which is extremely insoluble in water (Lide 1990). Therefore

dissolution will be slow, and highly localized aqueous concentrations

will not arise. This means that elemental tin will over time remain

largely in the same inorganic form as when it is discharged. Tin

pellets discharged into wetlands where sulphur ions are released during

organic decomposition would become coated with tin sulphide, which is

highly insoluble in water and resistant to aquatic hydrolysis (Hoiland

1995).

Environmental Concentrations

Calculation of the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of

tin in a terrestrial ecosystem is based on 69,000 shot per hectare

(Pain 1990). The EEC for tin in soil is 19.3 g/m3.

Calculation of the EEC in an aquatic ecosystem assumes complete erosion

of the shot in one cubic foot of water. The EEC in water for tin is

19.3 mg/L. Tin shot is considered insoluble and is stable in basic,

neutral, and mildly acidic environments. Therefore, erosion is expected

to be minimal, and adverse effects on biota are not expected to occur.

Effects on Birds

tin in soil is 19.3 g/m3.

Calculation of the EEC in an aquatic ecosystem assumes complete erosion

of the shot in one cubic foot of water. The EEC in water for tin is

19.3 mg/L. Tin shot is considered insoluble and is stable in basic,

neutral, and mildly acidic environments. Therefore, erosion is expected

to be minimal, and adverse effects on biota are not expected to occur.

Effects on Birds

Several studies have been conducted in which pellets made of tin or

tin alloys have been placed inside the digestive tract or tissues of

ducks to determine if toxic effects occur. Grandy et al. (1968) and the

Huntingdon Research Centre (1987) conducted 30 and 28-day,

respectively, acute toxicity tests on mallard ducks and reported that

all treatment ducks survived with insignificant weight loss or

development of pathological lesions.

Ringelman et al. (1993) conducted a 32-day acute toxicity study

which involved dosing game-farm mallards with a shot alloy of tungsten-

bismuth-tin (TBT), which was 39, 44.5 and 16.5 percent by weight,

respectively. No dosed birds died during the trial, and behavior was

normal. Examination of tissues post-euthanization revealed no toxicity

or damage related to shot exposure. Blood calcium differences between

dosed and un-dosed birds were judged to be unrelated to shot exposure.

This study concluded that ``. . . TBT shot presents virtually no

potential for acute intoxication in mallards under the conditions of

this study.''

Kraabel et al. (1996) surgically embedded TBT shot in the

pectoralis muscles of ducks to simulate wounding by gunfire and to test

for toxic effects of

ium differences between

dosed and un-dosed birds were judged to be unrelated to shot exposure.

This study concluded that ``. . . TBT shot presents virtually no

potential for acute intoxication in mallards under the conditions of

this study.''

Kraabel et al. (1996) surgically embedded TBT shot in the

pectoralis muscles of ducks to simulate wounding by gunfire and to test

for toxic effects of

the shot. These authors found that TBT shot produced no toxic effects

nor induced any adverse systemic effects on the health of ducks during

the 8-week period.

The potential for bismuth-tin (BT) shot to produce toxicological

effects in ducks during reproduction has been investigated under both

acute and chronic testing conditions. Tin as a 2% component of the

tested shot, did not pose a toxic risk to ducks when fed a

nutritionally-imbalanced, corn-based diet. Neither has BT shot been

shown to pose an adverse risk to the health of ducks, the reproduction

by male and female birds, nor the survival of ducklings over the long

term (Sanderson et al. 1997).

The studies cited above summarize the available published

information on shot types in which tin is a component. However, these

studies involve either short-term acute toxicity tests, or shot

compositions in which tin is a minor component. Additional information

is needed to fully assess the toxicity of tin shot.

ITRI's 30-day dosing study (Wildlife International Ltd., 1998) with

the candidate shot included 4 treatment and 1 control group of game-

farm mallards. Treatment groups were exposed to 1 of 3 different types

of shot: 8 #4 steel, 8 #4 lead, or 8 #4 TM; whereas the control group

received no shot. The 2 tin treatment groups (1 group deficient diet, 1

group balanced diet) each consisted of 16 birds (8 males and 8

females); whereas remaining treatment and control groups consisted of 6

birds each (3 males and 3 females). All tin-dosed birds survived the

test and showed no overt signs of toxicity or treatment-related effects

on body weight

4 TM; whereas the control group

received no shot. The 2 tin treatment groups (1 group deficient diet, 1

group balanced diet) each consisted of 16 birds (8 males and 8

females); whereas remaining treatment and control groups consisted of 6

birds each (3 males and 3 females). All tin-dosed birds survived the

test and showed no overt signs of toxicity or treatment-related effects

on body weight. There were no differences in hematocrit or hemoglobin

concentration between the tin treatment group and either the steel shot

or control groups. No histopathological lesions were found during gross

necropsy. In general, no adverse effects were seen in mallards given 8

#4 size tin shot and monitored over a 30-day period. No levels of tin

above the limit of detection were observed in any tissues collected

from either tin treatment group.

Based on the results of the toxicological report and the toxicity

test (Tier 1 and 2), the Service concludes that tin shot,

(approximately 99.9 percent tin by weight with <1 percent residual

lead), does not appear to pose a significant danger to migratory birds

or other wildlife and their habitats. However, the Service is concerned

that available information on the effect of tin on reproduction in

birds is based on shot alloys in which tin is a small component.

Therefore, effects of the candidate shot on reproduction in birds is

relatively unknown.

The first condition of approval is toxicity testing. Candidate

materials not approved under Tier 1 and/or 2 testing are subjected to

standards of Tier 3 testing. The scope of Tier 3 includes chronic

exposure under adverse environmental conditions and effects on

reproduction in game-farm mallards, as outlined in 50 CFR 20.134

the candidate shot on reproduction in birds is

relatively unknown.

The first condition of approval is toxicity testing. Candidate

materials not approved under Tier 1 and/or 2 testing are subjected to

standards of Tier 3 testing. The scope of Tier 3 includes chronic

exposure under adverse environmental conditions and effects on

reproduction in game-farm mallards, as outlined in 50 CFR 20.134

(b)(4)(A and B) (Tier 3), and in consultation with the Service's Office

of Migratory Bird Management and the U.S. Geological Survey's Division

of Biological Resources. This study includes assessment of long-term

toxicity under depressed temperature conditions using a nutritionally-

deficient diet, as well as a moderately long-term study that includes

reproductive assessment. The tests require the applicant to demonstrate

that tin shot is nontoxic to waterfowl and their offspring.

The second condition of final unconditional approval is testing for

residual lead levels. Any tin shot with lead levels equal to or

exceeding 1 percent will be considered toxic and, therefore, illegal.

In the Federal Register of August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43314), the Service

indicated that it would establish a maximum level for residual lead.

The Service has determined that the maximum environmentally acceptable

level of lead in any nontoxic shot is trace amounts of <1 percent and

has incorporated this requirement (50 CFR 20.134(b)(5)) in the December

1, 1997, final rule (62 FR 63608). ITRI documented that tin shot had no

residual lead levels equal to or exceeding 1 percent.

The third condition of final unconditional approval involves

enforcement. In the August 18, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 43314), the

Service indicated that final unconditional approval of any nontoxic

shot would be contingent upon the development and availability of a

noninvasive field testing device. Several noninvasive field testing

devices are under development to separate tin shot from lead shot

ffects of tin shot

when ingested by captive-reared mallards or to the ecosystem. The

comment period for the proposed rule has been shortened to 30 days.

This time frame will make it possible for tin shot, if temporarily

approved, to be available for use by hunters during the 1998-99 hunting

season. This will increase the number of nontoxic shot options

available to hunters.

Literature Cited

Cooney, J.J. 1988. Microbial transformations of tin and tin

compounds. J. Industr. Microbiol. 3:195-204.

Eisler, R. 1989. Tin hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a

synoptic review. Biological Rep. 85 (1.15). Contaminant Hazard

Reviews Report No. 15. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept.

Interior. Washington, DC 85 pp.

Grandy, J.W., L.N. Locke, and G.E. Bagley. 1968. Relative toxicity

of lead and five proposed substitute shot types to pen-reared

mallards. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:483-488.

Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 1987. The effects of dosing mallard

ducks with Safe Shot. Huntingdon, Cambridge, U.K. Report dated Dec.

19, 1987. 15pp.

Hoiland, K. 1995. Reaction of some decomposer basidiomycetes to

toxic elements. Nordic J. Bot. 15:305-318.

Kraabel, F. W., M. W. Miller, D. M. Getzy, and J. K. Ringleman.

1996. Effects of embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot and steel shot

on mallards. J. Wildl. Dis. 38(1):1-8.

Lide, D.R. 1990. CRC--Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 71st

Edition, 1990-1991. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Pain, D. J. 1990. Lead shot ingestion by waterbirds in the

Carmarque, France: an investigation of levels and interspecific

difference. Environ. Pollut. 66:273-285.

Ringelman, J. K., M. W. Miller, and W. F. Andelt. 1993. Effects of

ingested tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on captive mallards. J. Wildl.

Manage. 57:725-732.

Sanderson, G.C., W.L. Anderson, G.L. Foley, L.M. Skowron, J.D.

Brawn, and J.W. Seets. 1997. Acute toxicity of ingested bismuth

alloy shot in game farm mallards. Illinois Nat. History Survey Bull.

35:185-216.

Sanderson, G.C., W.L. Anderson, G.L. Foley, K.L

K., M. W. Miller, and W. F. Andelt. 1993. Effects of

ingested tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on captive mallards. J. Wildl.

Manage. 57:725-732.

Sanderson, G.C., W.L. Anderson, G.L. Foley, L.M. Skowron, J.D.

Brawn, and J.W. Seets. 1997. Acute toxicity of ingested bismuth

alloy shot in game farm mallards. Illinois Nat. History Survey Bull.

35:185-216.

Sanderson, G.C., W.L. Anderson, G.L. Foley, K.L. Duncan, L.M.

Skowron, J.D. Brawn, and J.W. Seets. 1997. Toxicity of ingested

bismuth alloy shot in game farm mallards: chronic health effects and

effects on reproduction. Illinois Nat. History Survey Bull. 35:217-

252.

Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998. Tin shot: An oral toxicity study

with the mallard. Project No. 476-101. 158 pp.

NEPA Consideration

In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)),

and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the Service prepared an Environmental

Assessment (EA) in October 1998. This EA is available to the public for

comment at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

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, ``The Secretary shall review

other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in

furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) 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 * * *'' The Service has initiated a Section 7

consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The result of the

Service's consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be available to

the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of (critical) habitat * * *'' The Service has initiated a Section 7

consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The result of the

Service's consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be available to

the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and the

Paperwork Reduction 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 effect on a substantial number of small entities,

which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental

jurisdictions. The Department of the Interior certifies that this

document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial

number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The

approved shot will merely supplement nontoxic shot already in commerce

and available throughout the retail and wholesale distribution systems,

therefore, this rule would have minimal effect on such entities. The

Service anticipates no dislocation or other local effects with regard

to hunters and others. This document is not a significant rule subject

to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule does not contain collections of information that require

approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or

State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department has determined that these proposed regulations meet

the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988.

Authorship

nfunded

Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or

State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department has determined that these proposed regulations meet

the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988.

Authorship

The primary author of this proposed rule is James R. Kelley, Jr.,

Office of Migratory Bird Management.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and record-keeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Accordingly, Part 20, subchapter B, chapter 1 of Title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

2. Section 20.21 is amended by revising paragraph (j) introductory

text, and adding paragraph (j)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 20.21 Hunting methods.

* * * * *

(j) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot

for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts

bismuth: 3 parts tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-

iron ([nominally] 40 parts tungsten: 60 parts iron with <1 percent

residual lead) shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5

parts Nylon 6 with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix

(95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with <1 percent residual lead)

shot, or tin (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or

such shot approved as nontoxic by the Director pursuant to procedures

set forth in Sec. 20.134, provided that:

* * * * *

dual lead) shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5

parts Nylon 6 with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix

(95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with <1 percent residual lead)

shot, or tin (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or

such shot approved as nontoxic by the Director pursuant to procedures

set forth in Sec. 20.134, provided that:

* * * * *

(5) Tin shot (99.9 percent tin with <1 percent residual lead) is

legal as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 1998-1999

hunting season only.

Dated: November 17, 1998.

Stephen C. Saunders,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98-32236 Filed 12-3-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P