[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27930-27934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0027; FF09M21200-234-FXMB1232099BPP0]
RIN 1018-AY60


Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Yellow-Billed Magpie and Other 
Revisions to Depredation Order

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
changes to the regulations governing control of depredating blackbirds, 
cowbirds, grackles, crows and magpies. The yellow-billed magpie (Pica 
nuttalli) is endemic to California and has suffered substantial 
population declines. It is a species of conservation concern. We 
propose to remove the species from the depredation order. After this 
change, a depredation permit would be necessary to control the species. 
We also propose to narrow the application of the regulation from 
protection of any wildlife to protection of threatened or endangered 
species only. We propose to add conditions for live trapping, which are 
not currently included in the regulation. Finally, we propose to refine 
the reporting requirement to gather data more useful in assessing 
actions under the order.

DATES: Electronic comments on this proposal via http://www.regulations.gov must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on 
August 12, 2013. Comments submitted by mail must be postmarked no later 
than August 12, 2013. Comments on the information collection 
requirements are due no later than June 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods. 
Please do not submit comments by both.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9-
MB-2012-0027.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2012-0027; 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 email or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).
    Submit comments on the information collection requirements to the 
Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB-OIRA) at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments 
to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, MS 2042-PDM, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 
22203 (mail), or [email protected] (email).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Allen, 703-358-1825. You 
may review the Information Collection Request online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the 
Interior collections under review by OMB.

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 Russian Federation (formerly the 
Soviet Union). We implement the provisions of the MBTA through 
regulations in parts 10, 13, 20, 21, and 22 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR). Regulations pertaining to migratory bird permits are

[[Page 27931]]

at 50 CFR 21; subpart D of part 21 contains regulations for the control 
of depredating birds.
    A depredation order allows the take of specific species of 
migratory birds for specific purposes without need for a depredation 
permit. The depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, 
crows, and magpies (50 CFR 21.43) 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 that they are 
a health hazard or other nuisance.''
    We established the depredation order for blackbirds and grackles in 
1949 (14 FR 2446, May 11, 1949). The regulation specified that take of 
birds under the order was to protect agricultural crops and ornamental 
or shade trees. We added cowbirds to that depredation order in 1958 (23 
FR 5481; July 18, 1958). In 1972, we added magpies and also expanded 
the order to cover depredations on livestock or wildlife or ``when 
concentrated in such numbers and manner as to constitute a health 
hazard or other nuisance'' (37 FR 9223; May 6, 1972). We added crows to 
the order in 1973 (38 FR 15448; June 12, 1973) and removed the tri-
colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) in 1989 (54 FR 47524, November 
15, 1989).
    From 1989 until 2010, the depredation order at 50 CFR 21.43 
pertained to ``yellow-headed, red-winged, rusty, and Brewer's 
blackbirds, cowbirds, all grackles, crows, and magpies.'' On December 
8, 2008 (73 FR 74447), we proposed ``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.'' We issued a final 
rule December 2, 2010 (75 FR 75153), which became effective January 3, 
2011, and remains effective today, that revised 50 CFR 21.43 to include 
four species of grackles; three species each of blackbirds, cowbirds, 
and crows; and two species of magpies, including the yellow-billed 
magpie.

Proposed Revisions to Depredation Order

Removal of the Yellow-Billed Magpie

    The yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli) is an endemic species of 
California. It is found ``primarily in the Central Valley, the southern 
Coast Ranges, and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada,'' and is an 
``integral part of the oak savannah avifauna'' in California (Koenig 
and Reynolds, 2009). Degradation of habitat is considered a threat to 
the species, though secondary poisoning may be a threat in some 
locations (Koenig and Reynolds, 2009).
    The yellow-billed magpie is on the Service's list of Birds of 
Conservation Concern for the California/Nevada Region (USFWS, 2008). 
Recently, there have apparently been severe impacts of West Nile virus 
on the species (Crosbie et al. 2008, Ernest et al., 2010). Our concern 
for this species leads us to propose to remove it from the depredation 
order. If the final rule includes removal of this species, then 
individuals and organizations needing to deal with depredating yellow-
billed magpies could apply for a depredation permit under 50 CFR 21.41.

Wildlife Depredation

    For wildlife protection, we propose to limit application of this 
depredation order, which currently covers protecting all wildlife, to 
only allow take without a permit for protection of threatened or 
endangered species listed in 50 CFR 17.11(h), in counties in which the 
listed species occur as is shown to occur in the Service's 
Environmental Conservation Online System (http://ecos.fws.gov), or in 
designated critical habitat. Take to protect other species of wildlife 
can be allowed under depredation permits (see 50 CFR 21.41).

Trapping Conditions

    We propose to add requirements regarding the use of traps to take 
birds listed in the order. Proposed regulations cover locating and 
checking traps, releasing nontarget birds, and using lure birds. We are 
particularly interested in suggestions about the frequency of trap 
checks (proposed paragraph (f)).
    We are concerned that checking traps once per day, as we propose to 
require, may not be sufficient to limit take and loss of nontarget bird 
species. However, more frequent checks of traps may be difficult to 
accomplish, more expensive when traps are spread over wide areas, and 
could result in reduced trap performance, and may result in increased 
stress upon live lures. If we receive comments that substantiate the 
need for more frequent trap checks, we may require them in the final 
rule, and require authorization under depredation permits of less 
frequent trapping regimes, on a case-by-case basis.

Reporting

    Under the current regulations, we cannot assess impacts of this 
order on nontarget species. Therefore, we propose to clarify that 
reporting of activities under this depredation order requires a summary 
of those activities and information about capture of nontarget species 
(proposed paragraph (i)).

Euthanasia

    We propose to allow three methods of euthanasia that are considered 
humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association (2013, https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf). We solicit 
suggestions as to whether we should allow other methods of euthanasia.

Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept 
comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. 
Finally, we will not consider mailed comments that are not postmarked 
by the date specified in DATES.
    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 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 Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule 
is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

[[Page 27932]]

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 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 the yellow-billed magpie does not frequently cause depredation 
problems. Where it does, depredation permits could be issued to 
alleviate problems.
    The only potential costs associated with this proposed regulations 
change is that a person needing a depredation permit to control yellow-
billed magpies would have to pay the application fee for the permit, 
which is $100 for organizations and $50 for homeowners. For the reasons 
explained in the preamble, we believe that few entities would have 
cause to apply for these permits. Therefore, we do not believe that 
this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, we certify that a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
    a. This rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more.
    b. This 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 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 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 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, the rule has no takings 
implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism

    This 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 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 new reporting requirements 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). OMB 
has approved the current information collection requirements associated 
with the depredation orders in 50 CFR 21.43 and assigned OMB Control 
Number 1018-0146, which expires November 30, 2013. OMB has also 
approved the information collection requirements associated with 
migratory bird permits and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0022, which 
expires February 28, 2014.
    We are refining the reporting requirements at 50 CFR 21.43(i) to 
gather data that will be more useful in assessing actions taken under 
the order. At present, we cannot assess the impacts of the depredation 
order on nontarget species. Therefore, we clarify that reporting of 
activities under this regulation requires a summary of those activities 
and information about capture of nontarget species. We have developed 
FWS Form 3-202-2143 for respondents' use in submitting the annual 
report. We are proposing that the annual report contain the following 
new reporting requirements:
     GPS coordinates to three decimal places of the locations 
in which the birds were captured or killed. Only the county must be 
reported for captures by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Services, Wildlife Services that are conducted to protect agriculture 
operations, farming, or conservation practices.
     Species, if birds were taken for the protection of 
wildlife, or the crop, if birds were taken for the protection of 
agriculture.
     Method of take.
     Whether captured nontarget species were released, sent to 
rehabilitators, or died.
     If trapping was conducted, measures taken to minimize 
capture of nontarget species.
    We are requesting that OMB assign a new control number for the new 
annual report requirements. When we publish the final rule, we will 
incorporate the new requirements into OMB Control Number 1018-0146 and 
discontinue the new number. An agency 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.
    Title: New Annual Report Requirements for Take of Blackbirds, 
Cowbirds, Crows, Grackles, and Magpies, 50 CFR 21.43.
    OMB Control Number: None. This is a new collection.
    Service Form Number: 3-202-2143.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Description of Respondents: Individuals, farmers, and State and 
Federal wildlife damage management personnel.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: Annually.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 250.
    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 126 (rounded).
    Estimated Total Nonhour Burden Cost: None.
    As part of our continuing effort to minimize paperwork and 
respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to 
comment on any aspect of the reporting burden, including:

[[Page 27933]]

    (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) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please 
provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 2042-PDM, 4401 
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail), or [email protected] 
(email).

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 432-437(f), and U.S. 
Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR 46 and have determined 
that the proposed changes can be categorically excluded from the NEPA 
process. This action would have no 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 rule 
would not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or 
their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This action would not be a 
significant energy action. Because this rule change would not 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, 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

Crosbie, S. P., W. D. Koenig, W. K. Reisen, V. L. Kramer, L. Marcus, 
R. Carney, E. Pandolfino, G. M. Bolen, L. R. Crosbie, D. A. Bell, 
and H. B. Ernest. 2008. Early impact of West Nile virus on the 
yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli). Auk 125:542-550.
Ernest, H. B., L. W. Woods, and B. R. Hoar. 2010. Pathology 
associated with West Nile virus infections in the yellow-billed 
magpie (Pica nuttalli): a California endemic bird. Journal of 
Wildlife Diseases 46:401-408.
Koenig, W. and M. D. Reynolds. 2009. Yellow-billed Magpie (Pica 
nuttalli), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Editor). 
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Birds of North America Online: 
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/180, 27 January 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, 
2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 21 
of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS

0
1. The authority for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712.

0
2. Revise Sec.  21.43 to read as follows:


Sec.  21.43  Depredation order for blackbirds, cowbirds, crows, 
grackles, and magpies.

    (a) Species covered.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Blackbirds                  Cowbirds              Crows             Grackles             Magpies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brewer's (Euphagus                Bronzed (Molothrus  American (Corvus    Boat-tailed         Black-billed (Pica
 cyanocephalus).                   aeneus).            brachyrhynchos).    (Quiscalus major).  hudsonia)
Red-winged (Agelaius phoeniceus)  Shiny (Molothrus    Fish (Corvus        Common (Quiscalus
                                   bonariensis).       ossifragus).        quiscula).
Yellow-headed (Xanthocephalus     Brown-headed        Northwestern        Great-tailed
 xanthocephalus).                  (Molothrus ater).   (Corvus caurinus).  (Quiscalus
                                                                           mexicanus).
                                                                          Greater Antillean
                                                                           (Quiscalus niger).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27934]]

     (b) Conditions under which control is allowed. You do not need a 
Federal permit to control the species listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section in the following circumstances:
    (1) Where they are seriously injurious to agricultural or 
horticultural crops or to livestock feed;
    (2) When they cause a health hazard or property damage;
    (3) To protect a threatened or endangered species in any county in 
which the species is shown to occur in the Service's Environmental 
Conservation Online System (http://ecos.fws.gov); or
    (4) To protect a threatened or endangered species in designated 
critical habitat for the species.
    (c) Non-lethal control efforts. You must attempt to control 
depredation by species listed under this depredation order using non-
lethal methods before you may use lethal control.
    (d) Ammunition. In most cases, 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. However, this 
prohibition does not apply if you use an air rifle or an air pistol for 
control of depredating birds.
    (e) Access to control efforts. 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.
    (f) Trapping conditions. You must comply with the following 
conditions if you attempt to trap any species under this order.
    (1) You may possess, transport, and use a lure bird or birds of the 
species listed in paragraph (a) of this section that you wish to trap.
    (2) You must check each trap at least once every day it is 
deployed.
    (3) At temperatures above 80[emsp14][deg]Fahrenheit, the traps must 
provide shade for captured birds.
    (4) Each trap must contain adequate food and water.
    (5) You must promptly release all healthy nontarget birds that you 
capture.
    (6) You must send injured or debilitated nontarget birds to a 
federally permitted wildlife rehabilitator. You must report the 
captures in your annual report (see paragraph (i) of this section).
    (g) Euthanasia. Captured birds of the species listed in paragraph 
(a) of this section may only be killed by carbon monoxide or carbon 
dioxide inhalation, or by cervical dislocation performed by well-
trained personnel who are regularly monitored to ensure proficiency.
    (h) Disposition of birds and parts. You may not sell, or offer to 
sell, any bird, or any part thereof, killed under this section, but you 
may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of the bird or its parts, 
including transferring them to authorized research or educational 
institutions. If not transferred, the bird and its parts must either be 
burned, or buried at least 1 mile from the nesting area of any 
threatened or endangered migratory bird species.
    (i) Annual report. Any person, business, organization, or 
government official acting under this depredation order must provide an 
annual report to the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. 
The use of FWS Form 3-202-2143 is preferred, but not required. The 
addresses for the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices are in Sec.  
2.2 of subchapter A of this chapter, and are on the form. The report is 
due by January 31st of the following year and must include the 
following information:
    (1) The species and number of all birds captured or killed.
    (2) The months in which the birds were captured or killed.
    (3) The locations in which the birds were captured or killed.
    (i) You must report the GPS coordinates to three decimal places of 
the locations.
    (ii) However, only the county must be reported for captures by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Services, Wildlife Services that are conducted to protect agriculture 
operations, farming, or conservation practices.
    (4) The purpose for which they were captured or killed (such as for 
protection of one or more threatened or endangered species, 
agriculture, human health and safety, or property). If taken for 
protection of wildlife, specify the species. If taken for protection of 
agriculture, specify the crop.
    (5) The method of take.
    (6) Whether captured nontarget species were released, sent to 
rehabilitators, or died.
    (7) If you conducted trapping, measures you took to minimize 
capture of nontarget species, such as baiting traps with only white 
millet seed for capture of brown-headed cowbirds, and using traps that 
prevent raptors from entering.
    (j) Compliance with other laws. You may trap and 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.
    (k) Information collection. The Office of Management and Budget has 
approved the information collection requirements associated with this 
depredation order and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0146. 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 2042-PDM, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20240.

    Dated: April 17, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-11254 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P