[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 236 (Monday, December 8, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74447-74451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29017]


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

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 [email protected] (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 [email protected] (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