[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74447-74451]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08de08-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0064; 91200-1231-9BPP]
RIN 1018-AV66
Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Rusty Blackbird and Tamaulipas
(Mexican) Crow From the Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Cowbirds,
Grackles, Crows, and Magpies, and Other Changes to the Order
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose a change in
the regulations governing control of depredating blackbirds, cowbirds,
grackles, crows, and magpies at 50 CFR 21.43. Because of long-term
evidence of population declines throughout much of their ranges, we
propose to remove the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) and the
Mexican (Tamaulipas) Crow (Corvus imparatus) from the list of species
that may be controlled under the depredation order. After this change,
a depredation permit would be necessary to conduct control actions to
take either of these species. We also propose to add a requirement to
use nontoxic shot or bullets when a firearm is used to control any
species listed under the order, and we propose to add a requirement to
report on control actions taken under the order.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by one of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AV66; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
VA 22203-1610.
We will not accept e-mails or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide (see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
Information Collection: See ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on submitting comments on the
proposed information collection requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107,
Arlington, VA 22203-1610, or telephone 703-358-1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency delegated
the primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. This
delegation is authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements conventions with Great Britain
(for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). Part 21 of
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations covers migratory bird
permits. Subpart D deals specifically with the control of depredating
birds and presently includes eight depredation orders. A depredation
order is a regulation that allows the take of specific species of
migratory birds, at specific locations, and for specific purposes
without a depredation permit. The depredation order at 50 CFR 21.43 for
blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies allows take when
individuals of an included species are ``found committing or about to
commit depredations upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops,
livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner
as to constitute a health hazard or other nuisance.''
Rusty Blackbird
The Rusty Blackbird is highly dependent upon wooded wetlands and
breeds further north than any other blackbird in North America. It
breeds mainly in Alaska and Canada and occurs in the contiguous United
States during migration and winter. For a map of the species'
geographic distribution, go to: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/
AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Rusty_Blackbird_dtl.html#range. Estimates of
the Rusty Blackbird's global breeding population have varied and
continue to vary considerably. A good recent estimate is perhaps 1.3
million (P. Blancher, Environment Canada, unpublished data).
Greenberg and Droege (1999) wrote, ``All of the evidence to date
indicates that the Rusty Blackbird was once abundant but has been
experiencing a chronic decline since the mid-1800s. This decline may be
accelerating, with total decreases estimated at
[[Page 74448]]
approximately 90 percent by three independent population surveys.''
This evidence of sharp decline, coupled with the species' low
population density, has made it a conservation concern; the Rusty
Blackbird is included on both Audubon's WatchList (National Audubon
Society 2008) and the Partners In Flight Watch List (where it is
labeled as ``moderately abundant or widespread [but] with declines or
high threats''; Rich et al. 2004). Additionally, it is labeled a
species of ``Special Concern'' by the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and as ``Vulnerable'' to extinction in
the wild by the World Conservation Union (BirdLife International 2004).
Three lines of evidence have raised concerns about the Rusty
Blackbird's population status. First, the species is now rare or absent
from at least some boreal forest areas where it was once common
(Greenberg and Droege 1999). Second, Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data
indicate that the species has declined dramatically over the past few
decades, with the highest rates of decline occurring in the central and
eastern portion of the boreal forest. Since 1966, abundance of the
Rusty Blackbird has declined by 12.8 percent annually across the BBS
survey (Sauer et al. 2007). However, BBS survey coverage is
concentrated at the southern extent of the Rusty Blackbird's breeding
range and thus the BBS trend may not be representative of the entire
population. Third, Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data analysis indicates a
5.1 percent annual decline throughout the species' winter range from
1965-66 to 2002-03 (Niven et al. 2004). CBC data are considered more
reliable for detecting changes in Rusty Blackbird abundance than are
BBS data since only a small area of the species' breeding range is
covered by BBS routes, whereas a large portion of its winter range is
covered by CBC surveys (Machtans et al. 2007, Niven et al. 2004).
Conversion of wooded wetland habitats on both breeding and
wintering grounds is a compelling explanation for the species' decline.
However, acid precipitation in the boreal forest (Greenberg and Droege
1999) and dessication of boreal wetlands (Greenberg et al. unpublished
data) are other suspected contributing factors.
Avery (1995) reported that Rusty Blackbirds make up less than 1
percent of mixed-species winter roost concentrations, and that the
effects of roost control on populations are unknown. However, Greenberg
and Droege (1999) seemed to believe that bird control programs are not
an important cause of the species' decline.
Despite uncertainty about the significance of blackbird control in
the Rusty Blackbird's decline, given the long-term downward trend and
special conservation status of the species, we have decided that we
should remove the Rusty Blackbird from the list of species that may be
controlled under the depredation order at 50 CFR 21.43. After this
change, any take of this species would require a depredation permit (50
CFR 21.41) or other applicable MBTA permit.
Tamaulipas Crow
In 50 CFR 10.13, the List of Migratory Birds (the bird species
protected under the MBTA), Corvus imparatus is the ``Mexican Crow.''
However, the species is currently recognized by the common name
``Tamaulipas Crow'' by the American Ornithologists' Union Committee on
Classification and Nomenclature. We consider ``Tamaulipas Crow'' to be
synonymous with ``Mexican Crow.''
The Tamaulipas Crow is a small glossy crow of northeast Mexico,
with a total distribution limited to about 350 miles from the Texas/
Mexico border area south to northern Veracruz, Mexico (Howell and Webb
1995). The species frequents semiarid brushlands and can be found in
association with humans in villages, ranches, and garbage dumps
(Oberholser 1974). The Tamaulipas Crow was first discovered in the
United States in August 1968 when three birds were observed near the
mouth of the Rio Grande in Cameron County, Texas; a week later,
approximately 1,000 birds were seen in the same vicinity (Oberholser
1974, Arvin et al. 1975). Breeding in the United States was first
documented in Brownsville, Texas, in 1989, and the species has bred
sporadically in that area since then (Brush 2005). Lockwood and Freeman
(2004) described the Tamaulipas Crow as a ``Very rare to casual visitor
to southern Cameron County, primarily in the vicinity of the
Brownsville Sanitary Landfill. Although formerly a common winter
resident and very rare summer resident, this species now barely
maintains a toe-hold in southern Texas.''
Recent observations by ornithologists indicate that the total
distribution (and possibly the population) of the Tamaulipas Crow have
declined considerably since the late 20th century, although
quantitative data are lacking. The species is listed in the ``yellow''
category on Audubon's WatchList, due to its limited range (National
Audubon Society 2008), but has the rank of ``Least Concern'' on the
World Conservation Union's Red List (BirdLife International 2004).
However, concerns about rapid population decline in the northern part
of its range are too recent to be reflected in the Red List. In the
Partners in Flight species assessment database, the Tamaulipas Crow is
listed as a Species of Regional Importance, and it needs ``Management
Attention,'' according to the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (2005).
Because of the extremely limited distribution of this species in
the United States, and its apparent rapid decline in numbers, we
propose to remove the Tamaulipas Crow from the list of species that may
be controlled under the depredation order at 50 CFR 21.43. After this
change, any take of this species would require a depredation permit (50
CFR 21.41) or other applicable MBTA permit.
Additional Regulatory Changes
We also propose to require the use of nontoxic ammunition for all
take of migratory birds under this depredation order to prevent
toxicity hazards to other wildlife. Further, we propose to require
reporting of control actions taken under the order to give us data on
the number of each species taken each year to better monitor the
effects of such take on populations of those species. We expect the
respondents to be mostly State and Federal wildlife damage management
personnel who undertake blackbird control to protect crops. We also
propose to make the list of species to which the depredation order
applies more precise by listing each species that may be controlled
under the order.
Public Comments
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
[[Page 74449]]
proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. OMB bases
its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's
potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because neither the Rusty Blackbird nor the Tamaulipas Crow are species
that frequently cause depredation problems and, where they might do so,
depredation permits could be issued to alleviate such problems. There
are no costs associated with this regulations change except that
persons needing a depredation permit to take Rusty Blackbirds or
Tamaulipas Crows will have to pay the $100 application fee for a
depredation permit. We estimate the number of people likely to apply
for such a permit to be no more than 25 per year. We certify that
because this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
This proposed rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
a. This proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
b. This proposed 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 proposed 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.
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 proposed rule would not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not
required. Actions under the proposed regulation would not affect small
government activities in any significant way.
b. This proposed 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 Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does
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 assessment under Executive Order
13132. It would not interfere with the ability of States to manage
themselves or their funds. No significant economic impacts are expected
to result from the proposed change in the depredation order.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the 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
This proposed rule contains a collection of information that we are
submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval under Sec. 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). We
are proposing to require that any person or agency acting under the
depredation order provide an annual report to the appropriate Regional
Migratory Bird Permit Office. We plan to collect the following
information for each species taken:
(1) Number of birds taken,
(2) Months and years in which the birds were taken,
(3) State(s) and county(ies) in which the birds were taken, and
(4) The purpose for which birds were taken (such as for protection
of agriculture; human health and safety, property, or natural
resources).
We propose to collect this information so that we will be able to
determine how many birds of each species are taken each year and
whether the control actions are likely to affect the populations of
those species.
Title: Depredation Order for Certain Migratory Birds, 50 CFR 21.43.
OMB Control Number: None. This is a new collection.
Service Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: New collection.
Affected Public: State and Federal wildlife damage management
personnel, perhaps farmers.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: Annually.
Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 250.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 250.
Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 500.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on
any aspect of the reporting burden, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection
to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at
(202) 395-6566 (fax) or OIRA_DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov (e-mail). Please
provide a copy of your comments
[[Page 74450]]
to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail); (703) 358-2269 (fax); or hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail).
The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Until OMB approves this collection of information and
assigns an OMB control number and the regulations become effective, you
are not required to respond. The OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information of this proposed regulation
between 30 to 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by January 7, 2009. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment on the proposed regulations.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have completed a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on this
proposed regulations change. The DEA is a part of the administrative
record for this proposed rule. In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) and Part 516 of the
U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM), removal of the Rusty
Blackbird and Tamaulipas Crow from the depredation order and adding
requirements for nontoxic shot or bullets will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment, nor would it involve
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources.
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), Executive Order 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 proposed
rule would apply to Tribes and any control actions that Tribes carry
out on their lands, but it would not interfere with the ability of
Tribes to manage themselves or their funds.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211
addressing regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This
rule change 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 chapter'' (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must ``insure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of [critical] habitat'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). We have concluded that
the proposed regulation change would not affect listed species.
Clarity of This Regulation
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, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. 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.
Literature Cited
Arvin, J., J. Arvin, C. Cottam, and G. Unland. 1975. Mexican Crow
Invades South Texas. The Auk 92:387-390.
Avery, M.L. 1995. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus). Number 200
in The Birds of North America, A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.
BirdLife International. 2004; IUCN Red List, see http://
www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/
index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=5777&m=0.
Brush, T. 2005. Nesting Birds of a Tropical Frontier, the Lower Rio
Grande Valley of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station,
TX.
Greenberg, R., and S. Droege. 1999. On the Decline of the Rusty
Blackbird and the Use of Ornithological Literature to Document Long-
Term Population Trends. Conservation Biology 13:553-559.
Howell, S.N.G., and S. Webb. 1995. A Guide to the Birds of Mexico
and Northern Central America. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lockwood, M. W., and B. Freeman. 2004. The TOS Handbook of Texas
Birds. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
Machtans, C.S., S.L. Van Wilgenburg, L.A. Armer, and K.A. Hobson.
2007. Retrospective Comparison of the Occurrence and Abundance of
Rusty Blackbird in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories.
Avian Conservation and Ecology. 2:3. Online at: http://www.ace-
eco.org/vol2/iss1/art3/.
National Audubon Society 2008; Audubon's WatchList. http://
web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/
profile.php?speciesCode=rusbla.
Niven, D.K., J.R. Sauer, G.S. Butcher, and W.A. Link. 2004.
Christmas bird count provides insights into population change in
land birds that breed in the boreal forest. American Birds 58:10-20.
Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas. University of Texas
Press; Austin.
Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W.
Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter,
E.E. I[ntilde]igo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi,
D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, T.C. Will.
2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. http://
www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ (VERSION: March 2005).
Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. 2005. Partners In Flight Species
Assessment Database. Online at: http://www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html.
Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American
Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2006. Version
10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,
Maryland. Available at: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 21
[[Page 74451]]
of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C.
703); Public Law 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public
Law 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following 16 U.S.C. 703.
2. Revise Sec. 21.43 as follows:
Sec. 21.43 Depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles,
crows, and magpies.
You do not need a Federal permit to control the species listed in
the table below if they are committing or about to commit depredations
on ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or
wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner that they are
a health hazard or other nuisance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackbirds Cowbirds Grackles Crows Magpies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brewer's (Euphagus Bronzed (Molothrus Boat-tailed American (Corvus Black-billed (Pica
cyanocephalus). aeneus). (Quiscalus major). brachyrhynchos). pica).
Red-winged (Agelaius phoeniceus) Brown-headed Common (Quiscalus Fish (Corvus Yellow-billed
(Molothrus ater). quiscula). ossifragus). (Pica nuttalli).
Yellow-headed (Xanthocephalus Shiny (Molothrus Great-tailed Northwestern
xanthocephalus). bonariensis). (Quiscalus (Corvus caurinus).
mexicanus).
Greater Antillean
(Quiscalus niger).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) If you use a firearm to kill migratory birds under the
provisions of this section, you must use nontoxic shot or nontoxic
bullets to do so. See Sec. 20.21(j) of this chapter for a listing of
approved nontoxic shot types.
(b) If you exercise any of the privileges granted by this section,
you must allow any Federal, State, tribal, or territorial wildlife law
enforcement officer unrestricted access at all reasonable times
(including during actual operations) over the premises on which you are
conducting the control. You must furnish the officer whatever
information he or she may require about your control operations.
(c) You may kill birds under this order only in a way that complies
with all State, tribal, or territorial laws or regulations. You must
have any State, tribal, or territorial permit required to conduct the
activity.
(d) You may not sell, or offer to sell, any bird killed pursuant to
this section, or any of its plumage, but you may possess, transport,
and otherwise dispose of the bird or its plumage.
(e) Any person or agency acting under this depredation order must
provide to the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office an
annual report for each species taken. You can find the addresses for
the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices in Sec. 2.2 of subchapter A
of this chapter. You must submit your report by January 31st of the
following year, and you must include the following information:
(1) Your name, address, phone number, and email address;
(2) The species and number of birds taken;
(3) The months in which the birds were taken;
(4) The State(s) and county(ies) in which the birds were taken; and
(5) The general purpose for which the birds were taken (such as for
protection of agriculture, human health and safety, property, or
natural resources).
(f) The Office of Management and Budget has approved the
information collection requirements associated with this depredation
order and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-XXXX. 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.
You may send comments on the information collection requirements to the
Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240.
Dated: November 25, 2008.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-29017 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P