Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 75153 

* * * * * 

We will publish an amendment to 39 

CFR Part 20 to reflect these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30186 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, change 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 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. 

With the effective date of this final rule, 

a depredation permit is required to 

conduct control actions to take either of 

these species. Also, nontoxic shot or 

bullets must be used in most cases when 

a firearm is used to control any species 

listed under the order. Finally, we add 

a requirement to report on control 

actions taken under the order. 

DATES: This regulation will be effective 

on January 3, 2011. 

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, Phone: (703) 358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. 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.’’ 

II. Species We Are Removing From the 

Depredation Order 

We 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 

at 50 CFR 21.43. We remove the Rusty 

Blackbird because of the long-term 

downward trend in its population and 

its special conservation status. Because 

of the very limited distribution of the 

Tamaulipas Crow in the United States 

and its apparent rapid decline in 

numbers, we also remove this species 

from the list of species that may be 

controlled under the depredation order. 

After the effective date of this final 

rule (see DATES), any take of either of 

these species will require a depredation 

permit (50 CFR 21.41) or other 

applicable MBTA permit. For 

background and current information on 

these two species, see our proposed rule 

published December 8, 2008 (73 FR 

74447). 

III. Additional Regulatory Changes 

We also 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 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 make 

the list of species to which the 

depredation order applies more precise 

by listing each species that may be 

controlled under the order. 

IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule or 

the Draft Environmental Assessment 

Issue: Opposition to the depredation 

order. 

‘‘WS [U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services] is 

notorious for indiscriminate regimes 

that have resulted in the mortality of 

uncountable millions of birds * * * and 

will continue to pose a real risk to the 

rusty blackbird and Tamaulipas crow 

despite the proposed rule change. We 

therefore request that 50 CFR § 21.43 not 

only be narrowed in scope, but 

withdrawn completely.’’ 

‘‘Currently, 50 CFR § 21.43 allows for 

such a broad exemption from the 

normal MBTA permitting process that 

some migratory birds are afforded 

virtually no protections—especially 

given the enormous amount of land 

conversion to agriculture and other 

uses.’’ 

Response: Blackbird depredation on 

crops has been clearly demonstrated. 

We will consider the effects of the 

depredation order as we obtain 

information on reported take of birds 

under its authority. We may make 

changes in the depredation order if we 

determine that it is advisable to do so. 

However, we leave the order in place. 

Issue: Nontoxic ammunition 

requirement. 

‘‘We are also convinced that FWS 

should finalize its proposal to end the 

use of toxic shot for killing blackbirds, 

crows, and grackles, and thus also 

commend that portion of the proposed 

change to 50 CFR § 21.43 concerning 

this point. Lead shot can have 

detrimental effects on scavengers and 

the environment.’’ 

‘‘I am writing to express my support 

for * * * the requirement to use 

nontoxic shot or bullets when a firearm 

is used to control any species listed 

under the order.’’ 

‘‘WS recommends eliminating the 

non-toxic requirement for all 

ammunition in all situations involving 

blackbirds unless: (1) Further analysis 

by the FWS provides definitive 

evidence that lead ammunition has 

impacted rusty blackbird populations 

and (2) evidence is provided that lead 

ammunition used under the authority of 

the blackbird depredation order has 

impacted other wildlife species.’’ (USDA 

Wildlife Services) 

‘‘Supporting documentation and 

analysis is needed for all claims of lead 

toxicosis in songbirds. The use of 

unsupported claims of lead toxicosis in 

songbirds should be discarded since 

there is not any information from 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

75154 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

necropsies supporting these statements.’’ 

(USDA Wildlife Services) 

‘‘The requirement to use non-toxic 

shot to take crows for depredation 

management is inconsistent with 

hunting regulations that allow the use of 

lead shot to hunt crows. This would 

represent an unequal application of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. More lead 

shot will likely be used to take crows 

while hunting than non-toxic shot to 

take crows for depredation purposes.’’ 

(Wildlife Services) 

Response: ‘‘Lead has been known 

for centuries to be a broad-spectrum 

toxicant to humans and wildlife’’ (The 

Wildlife Society Position Statement on 

lead in ammunition and fishing tackle: 

http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/ 

positionstatements/ 

Lead_final_2009.pdf). Schulz et al. 

(2009) reported that ‘‘Substantial 

information exists demonstrating the 

effects of lead poisoning on mourning 

doves.’’ Poisoning of many other species 

of birds by lead shot has been well 

documented. We reasonably infer based 

on this information that lead is toxic to 

rusty blackbirds and other bird species, 

which provides sufficient justification 

to ban the use of lead shot in bird 

control under this order. 

The requirement for nontoxic shot in 

depredation control or in hunting is 

already applied unevenly; nontoxic shot 

is not required for all migratory bird 

hunting. However, we are concerned 

about lead poisoning of migratory birds, 

and will seek to apply nontoxic shot 

requirement more evenly by 

implementing the use of nontoxic shot 

as we consider revisions to the current 

regulations. 

In the proposed rule, we asserted no 

effects of lead shot from bird control 

under the depredation order on any 

particular wildlife taxon. However, 

wildlife professionals have recognized 

that lead shot and lead in bullets are 

hazardous in the environment, and have 

recommended that wildlife managers 

‘‘Advocate the replacement of leadbased ammunition and fishing tackle 

with nontoxic products, while 

recognizing that complete replacement 

may not be possible in specific 

circumstances’’ (The Wildlife Society 

Final Position Statement on lead in 

ammunition and fishing tackle). 

We recognize that nontoxic shot is not 

required in all hunting in locations in 

which control under this order might 

take place. Nevertheless, we are taking 

a step toward eliminating the use of lead 

shot and lead ammunition in wildlife 

damage control. 

Issue: ‘‘We also have concerns that the 

use of nontoxic shot would limit the 

tools available to wildlife managers 

when conducting blackbird control 

work. Currently, nontoxic shot is 

difficult to obtain to nonexistent for airrifles or .22 caliber rim fire rifles. Both 

may be valuable tools in certain 

settings.’’ (Mississippi Flyway Council) 

Response: We acknowledge the 

concerns over availability of lead 

projectiles for air-rifles and 22 caliber 

rimfire rifles. We added an exemption 

for their use to this rule. 

Issue: ‘‘At the very least, FWS must 

require that agricultural interests and 

WS always employ non-lethal methods 

before releasing indiscriminate toxicants 

for birds.’’ 

Response: We added this requirement 

to the depredation order. 

Issue: Reporting on take under the 

depredation order. 

‘‘WS recommends the FWS continue 

to use the existing reporting 

requirement already established to the 

greatest extent possible, and that no 

additional requirements be enacted.’’ 

(Wildlife Services) 

‘‘We have concerns about the 

paperwork requirements of this DEA. 

We question if non-biologists will 

collect this data. As stated before, 

Wildlife Services does the vast majority 

of blackbird control work in the United 

States and is already collecting this 

data. We are concerned that this DEA 

subjects our constituents to prosecution 

when the potential for valuable data 

acquisition is questionable.’’ 

(Mississippi Flyway) 

Response: This depredation order 

currently has no requirement for 

reporting on control of depredating 

birds. We seek to bring this regulation 

in line with all other migratory bird 

depredation orders—which require 

reporting on control taken under their 

authorities. Without reporting on 

control of species taken under this 

order, we have no way to assess the 

effects of the activities it authorizes. 

Failure to assess control measures and 

report on control activities will 

potentially put any person conducting 

control under this depredation order in 

violation of the MBTA. 

Issue: ‘‘We also ask that an additional 

provision be added discouraging control 

of night-time blackbird roosts during the 

winter months, as well into the month 

of March in northern regions, when 

Rusty Blackbirds might be reasonably 

assumed to be in the roosts.’’ 

Response: We defer to Wildlife 

Services and to State agencies to 

determine whether or not rusty 

blackbirds are present in winter nighttime blackbird roosts. To ensure 

compliance with the MBTA, Wildlife 

Services and State agencies should 

ensure that no rusty blackbirds are 

present in a roost before conducting 

control actions. If Wildlife Services or a 

State agency determine that rusty 

blackbirds are present, the relevant 

agency would need to obtain a 

depredation permit from FWS before 

conducting any control actions on that 

roost. 

Issue: ‘‘WS recommends the FWS 

develop a standardized method to 

estimate the species composition of 

large mixed blackbird flocks to enhance 

the reliability of the data collected and 

analyzed. Many times light conditions 

in the field are very poor thereby 

increasing the difficulty of species 

identification. Additionally, most 

citizens will be unaware of the reporting 

requirements and are unable to 

distinguish fish crows from American 

crows, common grackles from boattailed grackles, etc., and this will result 

in inaccurate data being reported to the 

FWS.’’ (Wildlife Services) 

Response: Though we recognize that 

there may be difficulties in 

distinguishing species of blackbirds, 

grackles, and crows, we assume that any 

person or agency undertaking control 

under this depredation order will 

carefully identify the species involved. 

If the individual or agency cannot do so, 

control under this depredation order 

should not be undertaken. We are 

willing to work with Wildlife Services 

on a method of estimating the species 

composition of large mixed blackbird 

flocks as allowed by our budget and 

other tasks. 

V. Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this Final 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 75155 

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 will 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, we can issue depredation 

permits to alleviate the 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 Final rule will not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, 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 will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. 

b. This rule will 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 will not have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased 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 will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

small government agency plan is not 

required. Actions under the regulation 

will not affect small government 

activities in any significant way. 

b. This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year. It will not be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this rule does not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. This rule does not contain a 

provision for taking of private property. 

Federalism 

This rule does not have sufficient 

Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism assessment 

under Executive Order 13132. It will not 

interfere with the ability of States to 

manage themselves or their funds. No 

significant economic impacts are 

expected to result from the 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 rule contains new information 

collection requirements that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The OMB has approved 

these requirements and assigned OMB 

Control Number 1018–0146, which 

expires November 30, 2013. We have 

addressed all comments received on the 

proposed rule above in this preamble. 

Any person or agency acting under 

this depredation order must provide an 

annual report to the appropriate 

Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. 

You must provide your name, address, 

phone number, and email address and 

the following information for each 

species taken: 

(1) Species and number of birds taken; 

(2) Months in which the birds were 

taken; 

(3) State(s) and county(ies) in which 

the birds were taken; and 

(4) General purpose for which the 

birds were taken (such as for protection 

of agriculture, human health and safety, 

property, or natural resources). 

We 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 

blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, 

and magpies, 50 CFR 21.43. 

Service Form Number(s): None. 

Affected Public: State and Federal 

wildlife damage management personnel; 

farmers; and individuals. 

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. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The public may 

comment, at any time, on the accuracy 

of the information collection 

requirements in this rule and may 

submit comments to the Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., (Mailstop 

222–ARLSQ), Washington, DC 20240. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have completed a Final 

Environmental Assessment (FEA) on 

this regulations change. The FEA is a 

part of the administrative record for this 

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 will it involve 

unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources. 

There will be a positive environmental 

effect because take of the two removed 

species as a result of control actions will 

be significantly reduced or eliminated. 

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 will apply to Tribes 

and any control actions that Tribes carry 

out on their lands, but it will not 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

75156 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 will not be a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor 

will it significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. This 

action will 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 regulation change 

will not affect listed species. 

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 amend part 21 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); Pub. L. 95–616, 92 

Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106– 

108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following 16 U.S.C. 

703. 

■ 2. Revise § 21.43 as follows: 

§ 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 

cyanocephalus).

Bronzed (Molothrus 

aeneus).

Boat-tailed (Quiscalus 

major).

American (Corvus 

brachyrhynchos).

Black-billed (Pica 

hudsonia). 

Red-winged (Agelaius 

phoeniceus).

Brown-headed (Molothrus 

ater).

Common (Quiscalus 

quiscula).

Fish (Corvus ossifragus) ... Yellow-billed (Pica nuttalli). 

Yellow-headed 

(Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus).

Shiny (Molothrus 

bonariensis).

Great-tailed (Quiscalus 

mexicanus).

Northwestern (Corvus 

caurinus).

Greater Antillean 

(Quiscalus niger).

(a) You must attempt to control 

depredation by species listed under this 

depredation order using non-lethal 

methods before you may use lethal 

control. 

(b) 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 § 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, an air 

pistol, or a 22 caliber rimfire firearm for 

control of depredating birds under this 

order. 

(c) 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. 

(d) 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. 

(e) 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. 

(f) 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 § 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 e-mail 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). 

(g) 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 222–ARLSQ, 1849 

C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

Dated: July 7, 2010. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30288 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES