[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45957-45960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AG22


Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Matrix Shot as 
Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to 
grant final approval of tungsten-matrix shot as nontoxic for hunting 
waterfowl and coots. Acute toxicity studies reveal no adverse effects 
over a 30-day period on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) dosed with 
tungsten-matrix shot. Reproductive/chronic toxicity testing over a 150-
day period indicated that tungsten-matrix administered to adult 
mallards did not adversely affect them or the offspring they produced. 
We also propose to remove 50 CFR Subpart M (Part 20--Migratory Bird 
Hunting)--Criteria and Schedule for Implementing Nontoxic Shot Zones 
for the 1987-88 and Subsequent Waterfowl Hunting Season because 
implementation of nontoxic shot zones in the United States was 
completed in 1991.

DATES: You should submit comments on the proposed rule no later than 
August 25, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should send comments to the Chief, Division of Migratory 
Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, 
NW., ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240. You may inspect comments 
during normal business hours in Room 634, Arlington Square Building, 
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted 
under the Act. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this 
authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service controls the hunting of 
migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to allow the hunting public to 
use tungsten-matrix shot for hunting migratory birds. Accordingly, we 
propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21, which describes illegal hunting methods 
for migratory birds. Paragraph (j) of Sec. 20.21 pertains to prohibited 
types of shot. In accordance with Sec. 20.21(j)(2), tungsten-matrix 
shot (95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with 1 percent residual 
lead) is legal as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 
1999-2000 hunting season only. We propose to amend Sec. 20.21(j) to 
allow permanent use of tungsten-matrix shot in the formulation 
described above.
    Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot that does not 
pose a significant toxic hazard to migratory birds or other wildlife. 
Currently, only steel, bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer 
shot are approved as nontoxic. We previously granted temporary approval 
for tungsten-matrix shot during the 1998-99 (December 8, 1998; 63 FR 
67619) and 1999-2000 (August 19, 1999; 64 FR 45400) migratory bird 
hunting seasons. Compliance with the use of nontoxic shot has increased 
over the last few years. We believe that compliance will continue to 
increase with the approval and availability of other nontoxic shot 
types.
    Kent Cartridge Company has requested that we permanently approve 
tungsten-matrix shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. 
Kent's candidate shot is fabricated from what is described in their 
application as a mixture of powdered metals in a plastic polymer matrix 
whose density is comparable to that of lead. All component metals are 
present in their elemental form, not as compounds. The shot material 
being considered has a density of 10.8 grams/cm\3\ and is composed of 
approximately 95.9 percent tungsten and 4.1 percent plastic polymers.
    Kent's application for tungsten-matrix includes a description of 
the shot, a toxicological report (Thomas 1997), results of a 30-day 
toxicity study (Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998), and results of a 
150-day reproductive/chronic toxicity study (Gallagher et al. 2000). 
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) and information on 
environmental fate and transport (shot alteration, environmental half-
life, and environmental concentration).

Toxicity Information

    The toxicity of the plastic polymers in tungsten-matrix is 
negligible due to their insolubility. There is considerable difference 
between the toxicity of soluble and insoluble compounds of tungsten. 
Elemental tungsten, as found in tungsten-matrix shot, is virtually 
insoluble and is expected to be relatively nontoxic. Even though most 
toxicity tests reviewed were based on soluble tungsten compounds rather 
than elemental tungsten, there appears to be no basis for concern of 
toxicity to wildlife for tungsten-matrix shot via ingestion by fish or 
mammals (Bursian et al. 1996a, Bursian et al. 1996b; Bursian et al. 
1999; Gigiema 1983; Karantassis 1924; Patty 1982; Industrial Medicine 
1946).

Environmental Fate and Transport

    Elemental tungsten is insoluble in water and, therefore, does not 
weather and degrade in the environment. Tungsten is very stable with 
acids and

[[Page 45958]]

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).

Environmental Concentration

    The estimated environmental concentration (EEC) for a terrestrial 
ecosystem was calculated based on 69,000 shot per hectare (Pain 1990), 
assuming complete erosion of shot material in 5 centimeters of soil. 
The EECs for tungsten and the two polymers found in tungsten-matrix are 
25.7 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg), 4.2 mg/kg, and 0.14 mg/kg, 
respectively. The EEC for an aquatic ecosystem was calculated assuming 
complete erosion of the shot in 1 foot of standing water. The EECs in 
water for tungsten and the two plastic polymers found in tungsten-
matrix shot are 4.2 milligram/liter (mg/L), 0.2 mg/L, and 0.02 mg/L, 
respectively.

Effects on Birds

    An extensive literature review contained in the application 
provided information on the toxicity of elemental tungsten to waterfowl 
and other birds. Ringelman et al. (1993) orally dosed 20 8-week-old 
game-farm mallards with 12-17 (1.03 g average weight) tungsten-bismuth-
tin pellets and monitored them for 32 days for evidence of 
intoxication. No birds died during the trial and gross lesions were not 
observed during the postmortem examinations. Examination of tissues did 
not reveal any evidence of toxicity or tissue damage, and tungsten was 
not detectable in kidney or liver samples. The authors concluded that 
tungsten-bismuth-tin shot presented virtually no potential for acute 
toxicity in mallards.
    Kraabel et al. (1996) assessed the effects of embedded tungsten-
bismuth-tin shot on mallards and concluded that tungsten-bismuth-tin 
was not acutely toxic when implanted in muscle tissue. Inflammatory 
reactions to tungsten-bismuth-tin shot were localized and had no 
detectable systemic effects on mallard health.
    Ringelman et al. (1992) conducted a 32-day acute toxicity study 
that involved dosing game-farm mallards with a shot alloy of tungsten-
bismuth-tin (39 percent tungsten, 44.5 bismuth, and 16.5 tin). 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. This study concluded that ``* * * tungsten-bismuth-tin 
shot presents virtually no potential for acute intoxication in mallards 
under the conditions of this study.''
    Nell (1981) fed laying chickens (Gallus domesticus) 0.4 or 1.0 
grams/kg tungsten (contained in an unspecified salt compound) in a 
commercial mash for 5 months to assess reproductive performance. Weekly 
egg production was normal, and hatchability of fertile eggs was not 
affected. Exposure of chickens to large doses of tungsten either 
through injection or by feeding resulted in an increased tissue 
concentration of tungsten (Nell 1981). The loss of tungsten from the 
liver occurred in an exponential manner with a half-life of 27 hours. 
Death due to tungsten occurred when tissue concentrations increased to 
25 milligram/gram of liver. Due to the insoluble nature of elemental 
tungsten contained in tungsten-matrix shot, it is not expected that 
such high levels of tungsten could be attained through ingestion of 
tungsten-matrix shot.
    The two plastic polymers used in tungsten-matrix shot act as a 
physical matrix in which the tungsten is distributed as ionically bound 
fine particles. Most completely polymerized nylon materials are 
physiologically inert, regardless of the toxicity of the monomer from 
which they are made (Peterson 1977). A literature review did not reveal 
studies in which either of the two polymers were evaluated for toxicity 
in birds.

New Acute Toxicity Studies

    Kent contracted with Wildlife International Ltd. to conduct an 
acute toxicity study of tungsten-matrix. The acute toxicity test is a 
short-term (30-day) study where ducks are dosed with shot and fed 
commercially available duck food. Survival, body weight, blood 
chemistry (hematocrit), bone (femur), and organ analysis are recorded.
    Kent's 30-day dosing study (Wildlife International Ltd. 1998) 
included four treatment and one control group of game-farm mallards. 
Treatment groups were exposed to one of three different types of shot: 
eight No. 4 steel, eight No. 4 lead, or eight No. 4 tungsten-matrix; 
whereas the control group received no shot. The two tungsten-matrix 
treatment groups (1 group with a deficient diet, 1 group with a 
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 tungsten-matrix-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 tungsten-matrix 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 eight No.4 size tungsten-matrix 
shot and monitored over a 30-day period. Tungsten was found to be below 
the limit of detection in all samples of femur, gonad, liver, and 
kidney from treatment groups.

New Reproductive/Chronic Toxicity Study

    Kent contracted with Wildlife International Ltd. to conduct a 
reproductive/chronic toxicity study of tungsten-matrix. The 
reproductive/chronic toxicity study is a long-term (150-day) study 
where ducks are dosed with shot and fed commercially available duck 
food. Survival, body weight, blood hematocrit, bone (femur), organ 
analysis, and reproductive performance are recorded.
    The chronic toxicity/reproductive study revealed no adverse effects 
when mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 size tungsten-matrix shot and 
monitored over a 150-day period (Gallagher et al. 2000). At initiation 
of the test (day 0), and on days 31, 60, and 90, 21 male and 21 female 
adult mallards were orally dosed with 8 No. 4 tungsten-matrix shot. On 
the same days, 22 male and 22 female adult mallards were dosed with 
eight No. 4 steel shot (negative control group). An additional four 
male and four female mallards were dosed with a single No. 4 lead shot 
(positive control group). Two lead-dosed birds (one female, one male) 
died from lead toxicosis on days 10 and 17, respectively, during the 
study; whereas no mortalities occurred in the other test groups. 
Hematological and biochemical results from blood samples collected 
during tests revealed no biologically meaningful differences between 
the tungsten-matrix group and the steel shot control group. Low, but 
measurable, levels of tungsten were found in the livers of males from 
the tungsten-matrix group and in the femurs of females from all 
treatment groups. For all treatment groups, levels of tungsten were 
below the limit of detection in egg yolks and whites, and all tissues 
collected from offspring. Liver and kidney tissues collected for 
histopathological examination revealed no treatment-related 
abnormalities.
    No significant differences occurred in egg production, fertility, 
or hatchability of eggs from birds dosed with tungsten-matrix when 
compared to steel-dosed ducks. No differences occurred in survival and 
body weight of ducklings from birds dosed with tungsten-matrix

[[Page 45959]]

when compared to ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Blood measurements 
of ducklings from tungsten-matrix-dosed ducks were similar to 
measurements from ducklings from steel-dosed ducks. Overall, results of 
the 150-day study indicated that tungsten-matrix shot repeatedly 
administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect them, or the 
offspring they produced.

Nontoxic Shot Approval

    The nontoxic shot approval process contains a tiered review system 
and outlines three conditions for approval of shot types. The first 
condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing. Based on the 
results of the toxicological report and the toxicity tests discussed 
above, we conclude that tungsten-matrix shot does not pose a 
significant danger to migratory birds or other wildlife.
    The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead 
levels. Any shot with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1 percent will 
be considered toxic and, therefore, illegal. We have determined that 
the maximum environmentally acceptable level of lead in any nontoxic 
shot is trace amounts of 1 percent, and we have incorporated this 
requirement in the new approval process. Kent has documented that 
tungsten-matrix meets this requirement.
    The third condition for approval involves law enforcement. In the 
August 18, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 43314), we indicated our 
position that a noninvasive field detection device to distinguish lead 
from other shot types was an important component of the nontoxic shot 
approval process. At that time, we stated that final approval of 
bismuth-tin shot would be contingent upon the development and 
availability of a noninvasive field detection device (60 FR 43315). We 
incorporated a requirement for a noninvasive field detection device in 
the revised nontoxic shot approval process published on December 1, 
1997 (62 FR 63608). The most common electronic field testing device 
used by wildlife law enforcement officers can distinguish shells 
containing tungsten-matrix from shells containing lead. Therefore, the 
tungsten-matrix application meets the final condition for approval.
    As stated previously, this proposed rule would amend 50 CFR 
20.21(j) by approving tungsten-matrix shot as nontoxic for hunting 
waterfowl and coots. It is based on the toxicological report, acute 
toxicity study, and the reproductive/chronic toxicity study submitted 
by Kent. Results of these studies indicate the absence of any 
deleterious effects of tungsten-matrix shot when ingested by captive-
reared mallards. This proposed rule would also amend Sec. 20.21(j) by 
removing paragraph (3), which pertains to the legal use of tin shot 
during the 1999-2000 hunting season. Because the 1999-2000 hunting 
season is over, this regulation is no longer in effect.
    This proposed rule would further amend 50 CFR part 20, by removing 
and reserving subpart M-Criteria and Schedule for Implementing Nontoxic 
Shot Zones for the 1987-1988 and Subsequent Waterfowl Hunting Season. A 
need for this Subpart no longer exists, as implementation of nontoxic 
shot zones in the United States was completed in 1991. Nontoxic shot 
zones are defined in Sec. 20.108 for the purpose of hunting waterfowl, 
coots, and certain other species as being the contiguous 48 United 
States, and the States of Alaska and Hawaii, the Territories of Puerto 
Rico and the Virgin Islands, and the territorial waters of the United 
States.

References

Bursian, S. J., M. E. Kelly, R. J. Aulerich, D. C. Powell, and S. 
Fitzgerald. 1996a. Thirty-day dosing test to assess the toxicity of 
tungsten-iron shot in game-farm mallards. Report to Federal Cartridge 
Co. 77 pp.
Bursian, S. J., M. E. Kelly, R. J. Aulerich, D. C. Powell, and S. 
Fitzgerald. 1996b. Thirty-day dosing test to assess the toxicity of 
tungsten-polymer shot in game-farm mallards. Report to Federal 
Cartridge Co. 71 pp.
Bursian, S. J., R. M. Mitchell, R. J. Tempelman, R. J. Aulerich, and S. 
D. Fitzgerald. 1999. Chronic dosing study to assess the health and 
reproductive effects of tungsten-iron and tungsten-polymer shot on 
game-farm mallards. Report to Federal Cartridge Co. 115 pp.
Gallagher, S.P., J.B. Beavers, R. Van Hoven, M. Jaber. 2000. Tungsten-
matrix shot: A chronic exposure study with the mallard including 
reproductive parameters. Wildlife International, Ltd. Project No. 475-
102. Easton, Maryland. 324pp.
Gigiema I. Sanitariya. 1983. Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga. Moscow, USSR. 
48(7):71.
Industrial Medicine. 1946. 15:482.
Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace elements in soil and 
plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.
Karantassis, T. 1924. On the toxicity of compounds of tungsten and 
molybdenum. Ann. Med. 28:1541-1543.
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.
Nell, J. A., E. F. Annison, and D. Balnave. 1981. The influence of 
tungsten on the molybdenum status of poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 21:193-
202.
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.
Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 1982. Wiley Interscience. 
Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY, NY. Third Ed.
Peterson, J. E. 1977. Industrial Health. Prentice-Hall, Englewood 
Cliffs, NJ.
Ringelman, J. K., M. W. Miller, and W. F. Andelt. 1992. Effects of 
ingested tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on mallards. CO Div. Wildl., Fort 
Collins, 24 pp.
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.
Thomas, V.G. 1997. Application for approval of tungsten-matrix shot as 
non-toxic for the hunting of migratory birds. 39 pp.
Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998. Tungsten-matrix shot: An oral 
toxicity study with the mallard. Project No. 475-101. 162 pp.

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 regulation for implementing NEPA (40 
CFR 1500-1508), we prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for 
approval of tungsten-matrix shot in May 2000. The EA is available to 
the public 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 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 are completing a Section 7 
consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The results of our 
Section 7 consultation will be available to the public at the location 
indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

[[Page 45960]]

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 effect on a substantial number of small entities, 
which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental 
jurisdictions. This rule proposes to approve an additional type of 
nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt migratory birds; this 
proposed rule would provide one shot type in addition to the existing 
four that are approved. We have determined, however, that this proposed 
rule will have no effect on small entities since the approved shot 
merely will supplement nontoxic shot 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.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action subject 
to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 
12866. OMB makes the final determination under E.O. 12866.
    E.O. 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? (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?

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 information collection requirements. However, we do have 
OMB approval (1018-0067; expires 08/30/2000) for information collection 
relating to what manufacturers of shot are required to provide to us 
for the nontoxic shot approval process. 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 proposed 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

    We, in promulgating this proposed rule, have determined that these 
proposed regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, 
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant 
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This proposed rule will not result in the physical 
occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the 
regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this proposed rule allows 
hunters to exercise privileges that would be otherwise unavailable and, 
therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public 
property.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This proposed 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, these proposed regulations do not have significant federalism 
effects and do not 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 evaluated possible 
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that 
there are no effects.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
    Accordingly, 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 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
    2. Section 20.21 is amended by revising paragraph (j) in its 
entirety to read as follows:


20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

* * * * *
    (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 (40 parts tungsten: 60 parts iron with 1 percent residual lead) 
shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 parts Nylon 6 or 11 
with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix (95.9 parts 
tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer 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 this restriction applies only to 
the taking of Anatidae (ducks, geese, [including brant] and swans), 
coots (Fulica americana) and any species that make up aggregate bag 
limits during concurrent seasons with the former in areas described in 
Sec. 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.

Subpart M--[Removed and Reserved]

    3. Remove and reserve subpart M, consisting of Secs. 20.140 through 
20.143.

    Dated: July 14, 2000.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-18806 Filed 7-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P