Bosslog

Nearly a year ago Boss sought to break what we believe is an approval framework that has favored a single patented identification method within the USFWS by submitting it’s non-toxic Corrosion Inhibited Copper shot trademarked as CuProX for formal approval. 

Once our application was received, a USFWS chemist stated that our shot would be approved if our test device was “approved.”  The rationale behind the relatively quick communication for CuProX approval was simple…. The Agency had already approved BTA treated Copper several years prior in 2017 and toxicology tests going back to 2013 showed that it met USFWS criteria to be deemed non-toxic. The shot was not formally approved until 2017 because a non-invasive field detection method did not exist at the time it was originally submitted. After researching the Federal Register filings, lots of back/forth between the petioner and the Agency ensued and ultimately lead to an approval that required a UV fluorescent powder coating to be applied to the shot. The company who sought approval of CIC filed a patent that essentially created a government backed monopoly once Boss petitioned to have our MkIII tester approved with CuProX and its subsequent denial for reasons we will discuss later. 

The sole purpose for the UV powder was, per the Federal Register “identification purposes only.”  Toxicology was done without powder coating. In the preamble of the Federal Register, mention was made of a clear hull and specially printed wad which was used and when a UV black light was shined on the clear hull, the shot would glow. This language was never codified in the CFR and as such, not legally required for 2 reasons. 1.  In a post Chevron society, preamble language used for rule making that is not codified cannot be treated as legally binding language. For years, federal agencies used this “incorporation by reference” to jam up American citizens and businesses. This was thrown out in a 2024 6/3 decision by SCOTUS. 2. Column 3, footnote 2 of 50 cfr 20.21(j) states that field detection methods are strictly informational and not regulatory. 

When we launched CIC/CuProX last year, we published on our website that while our shot meets Non-Toxic criteria (as previously approved) the formal addition to 20.21(j) was in process while our MkIII tester was being evaluated.  Despite being told by high level people within the Agency that we weren’t doing anything wrong, we were being contacted because the agency was being inundated with calls from individuals and competitors.  Also mentioned were allegations made by competitors that we were cutting corners. A subsequent FOIA request which, per federal statute, is to be acknowledged within 20 days went unanswered for nearly 2 months and we were told that we would not receive any documents until August 2026. 

During conversations with senior agency officials, Boss was repeatedly encouraged to continue pursuing approval of the MkIII tester and was told the company was not doing anything wrong while the approval process continued.   Boss submitted 2 iterations of the MkIII tester for evaluation and were rejected for reasons we were able to address and engineer solutions for. Our third and final version was coined as “brilliant” by a soon to be retired law enforcement chief before being returned without even testing. A month later, we were told by another law enforcement worker to seek a 3rd party validation of the MkIII. Knowing that after 6 months and numerous shifting opinions, we wanted to have the most bulletproof testing conducted and contacted UL Solutions to do the work. A month later, we submitted a 42 page report that showed a 100% pass rate with over 1800 tests conducted.  We submitted the report and were denied for reasons not found within the confines of 50 cfr 20.134. The regulation states that a field test device must “demonstrate [it] to be identifiable as not being lead in a portable field testing device for use by law enforcement officers.”  The reason for our denial was four-fold, and in our opinion all of which are wrong. 1. “The Tester cannot reliably identify the candidate CIC shot, distinguish it from other approved nontoxic shot types, or confirm that shot loaded in a shotshell is not lead.”  Our test report, which we have since learned was ignored states the exact opposite.  2. The tester cannot specifically identify CIC shot. 3. They require visual identification of CIC in a clear hull. 4. Pure copper is not approved (obviously, which is why we submitted our version of CIC shot, CuProX).

This denial creates multiple problems. Separation of CIC from pure copper shot was not required for the government backed patented product and equally relevant, 20.134 does NOT require that from a field test device. Furthermore, Hot-Shot devices and rare earth magnets do not detect exacting alloys found within 20.21(j) but those were approved. 

To make matters worse, we were made aware of the now famous memo that was signed off by the same individual that pledged his support of our initiatives and were praised for working hard to bring hunters more options. 

Despite the setbacks and changing interpretations we encountered during the process we have been quietly working with people all over the country in all levels and branches of the Federal Government to work towards a quick solution. We believe the record demonstrates significant APA, due process, and administrative law concerns. We are hopeful of a fast resolution that will, after a year of shifting standards, misapplied law and frustrating dealings will recognize CuProX as being compliant to the existing spec of 20.21(j) and once we finally have the UL verified MkIII tester approved, CuProX will have it’s own line called out on 20.21(j).  

We are days and weeks away from getting this sorted out. The fight is far from over. If diplomacy fails, we have alternative paths to follow. 

For the record, the powder coating requirement was never specifically defined and as such and to avoid a patent infringement claim, and to eliminate any doubt regarding identification, Boss has increased the visibility of the fluorescent thermoplastic powder used in CuProX to continue to maintain full compliance with 20.21(j). 

For those who are worried about the legality of non-toxic copper I hope this message has calmed your worries. We believe enforcement actions must ultimately be grounded in the law and evidence, not solely on an informational field-screening method - just like a PBT for a DUI, a blacklight should not be legally used to write a ticket because after all, the USFWS says the detection device is NOT regulatory and is strictly informational.

Simply put, 50 CFR 20.21(j) requires:

1. 99.9% Copper
2. Benzotriazole (BTA)
3. Thermoplastic Powder Coatings

CuProX shot meets all these criteria and the USFWS has known this since November of 2025.  For them to add rules outside the confines of 20.21(j) and instruct field agents to write tickets if CIC copper is not in a clear hull is over-regulatory, violates APA and creates problems not only for Boss but for other small manufacturers who have contacted the USFWS for a year looking for guidance and approval of technologies that can actually distinguish copper from lead (unlike UV fluorescent powder coating).  

Thanks to all who have supported us throughout the years. We would have folded this thing up long ago if it weren’t for your continued business and loyal support. Every email, phone call, conversation and social media message means the world to us. The connection we maintain with you guys truly is the fuel that inspires us to keep fighting the good fight. Swimming upstream is an addiction for us because only dead fish go with the flow…..