        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 721
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0304; FRL-10013-07]
        RIN 2070-AB27
        Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-8.B)

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances which are the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or processing of any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule. This action would further require that persons not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until they have submitted a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), and EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken any risk management actions as are required as a result of that determination.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0304, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

          Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this proposed rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

        • Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
        This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import provisions. This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA, which would include the SNUR requirements should these proposed rules be finalized. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after September 24, 2020 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

        II. Background
        A. What action is the Agency taking?
        EPA is proposing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for chemical substances which are the subjects of PMNs P-18-399, P-18-400, and P-20-68. These proposed SNURs would require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

        The record for these proposed SNURs, identified as docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0304, includes information considered by the Agency in developing these proposed SNURs.

        B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
        TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III.
        C. Applicability of General Provisions

        General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Pursuant to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(A)). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b) and 2604(d)(1)), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), 5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register
          , a statement of EPA's findings.
        III. Significant New Use Determination
        TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
        • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
        • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
        • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
        • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
        In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit. During its review of these chemicals, EPA identified certain conditions of use that are not intended by the submitters, but reasonably foreseen to occur. EPA is proposing to designate those reasonably foreseen conditions of use as well as certain other circumstances of use as significant new uses.
        IV. Substances Subject to This Proposed Rule
        EPA is proposing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements be added to 40 CFR part 721, subpart E, for the chemical substances identified in this unit. For each chemical substance, EPA provides the following information in this unit:
        • PMN number.
        • Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
        • Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
        • Basis for the SNUR.
        • Potentially Useful Information.
        • CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of these proposed rules.
        The regulatory text section of these proposed rules specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the proposed rules, may be claimed as CBI.
        The chemical substances that are the subject of these proposed SNURs are undergoing premanufacture review. In addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter, EPA has identified certain other reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA has preliminarily determined that the chemicals under their intended conditions of use are not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the reasonably foreseen conditions of use for these chemicals. EPA is proposing to designate these reasonably foreseen conditions of use and other circumstances of use as significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot occur without first going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.
        The substances subject to these proposed rules are as follows:
        PMN Number: P-18-399

          Chemical name: Rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, compd. with ethanolamine (generic).

          CAS number: Not available.

          Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic use of the substance will be as an open, non-dispersive use additive for industrial use only. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance and Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) analysis of test data on analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic toxicity, surfactant effects on the lungs, irritation to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and dermal sensitization if the chemical is not used following the limitation noted in the proposed SNUR. The proposed SNUR designates the following as “significant new uses” requiring further review by EPA:
        • Manufacture beyond the confidential annual production volume specified in the PMN.

          Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of specific target organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity, skin sensitization, skin irritation, and eye damage testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

          CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11556.
        PMN Number: P-18-400

          Chemical name: Rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, potassium salt (generic).

          CAS number: Not available.

          Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic use of the substance will be as an open, non-dispersive use additive for the textile industry. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance and SAR analysis of test data on analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic toxicity and surfactant effects on the lungs, irritation to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and dermal sensitization if the chemical is not used following the limitation noted in the proposed SNUR. The proposed SNUR designates the following as “significant new uses” requiring further review by EPA:

        • Manufacture beyond the confidential annual production volume specified in the PMN.

          Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information may be potentially useful to characterize the effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of specific target organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity, skin sensitization, skin irritation, and eye damage testing would help characterize the potential health effects of the PMN substance.

          CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11557.
        PMN Number: P-20-68

          Chemical name: 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-dimethyl-, 1,3-diacetate.

          CAS number: 13431-57-7.

          Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic use of the substance will be as a perfume. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance and SAR analysis of test data on analogous substances, EPA has identified concerns for aquatic toxicity and specific target organ toxicity if the chemical is not used following the limitation noted in the proposed SNUR. The proposed SNUR designates the following as “significant new uses” requiring further review by EPA:
        • Use other than for the confidential uses specified in the PMN.

          Potentially useful information: EPA has determined that certain information about the PMN substance may be potentially useful to characterize the effects of the PMN substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use that would be designated by this proposed SNUR. EPA has determined that the results of aquatic toxicity testing would help characterize the potential environmental effects of the PMN substance.

          CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.11558.
        V. Rationale and Objectives of the Proposed Rule
        A. Rationale
        During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are the subject of these proposed SNURs and as further discussed in Unit IV., EPA identified certain other reasonably foreseen conditions of use, in addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter. EPA has preliminarily determined that the chemical under the intended conditions of use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA is proposing to designate these conditions of use as well as certain other circumstances of use as significant new uses. As a result, those significant new uses cannot occur without going through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.
        B. Objectives
        EPA is proposing these SNURs because the Agency wants:
        • To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
        • To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the chemical, under the conditions of use, is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.
        • To be able to complete its review and determination on each of the PMN substances, while deferring analysis on the significant new uses proposed in these rules unless and until the Agency receives a SNUN.

        Issuance of a proposed SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Inventory. Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.

        VI. Applicability of the Proposed Rules to Uses Occurring Before the Effective Date of the Final Rule
        To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this proposed rule were undergoing premanufacture review at the time of signature of this proposed rule and were not on the TSCA Inventory. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for the chemical substances subject to these proposed SNURs, EPA concludes that the proposed significant new uses are not ongoing.
        EPA designates August 4, 2020 (date of web posting of this proposed rule) as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach is to ensure that a person cannot defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the final rule.

        Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified on or after that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and EPA would have to take action under section 5 allowing manufacture or processing to proceed. In developing this proposed rule, EPA has recognized that, given EPA's general practice of posting proposed rules on its website a week or more in advance of Federal Register publication, this objective could be thwarted even before Federal Register publication of the proposed rule.
        VII. Development and Submission of Information

        EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information (e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: If a person is required to submit information for a chemical substance pursuant to a rule, order or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603), then TSCA section 5(b)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b)(1)(A)) requires such information to be submitted to EPA at the time of submission of the SNUN.

        In the absence of a rule, order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. lists potentially useful information for all SNURs listed here. Descriptions are provided for informational purposes. The potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. will be useful to EPA's evaluation in the event that someone submits a SNUN for the significant new use. Companies who are considering submitting a SNUN are encouraged, but not required, to develop the information on the substance, which may assist with EPA's analysis of the SNUN.
        EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).
        The potentially useful information described in Unit IV. may not be the only means of providing information to evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
        SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
        • Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
        VIII. SNUN Submissions

        According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca.

        IX. Economic Analysis
        EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this proposed rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
        X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations-and-executive-orders.

        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review
        This action proposes to establish SNURs for new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        According to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register
          , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.
        The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
        Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., I hereby certify that promulgation of this proposed SNUR would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.” Because these uses are “new,” based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities.

        A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was seven in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, 13 in FY2014, six in FY2015, 12 in FY2016, 13 in FY2017, and 11 in FY2018, only a fraction of these were from small businesses. In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $16,000 to $2,800. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping of cost of submitting a SNUN to about $10,116 for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with this proposed SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its general determination that final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

        Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this proposed rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 et seq.).
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action will not have federalism implications because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action will not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 31, 2020.
          Tala Henry,
          Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

        Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

          PART 721—[AMENDED]

        1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

        2. Add §§ 721.11556 through 721.11558 to subpart E to read as follows:

          Subpart E—Significant New Uses for Specific Chemical Substances

          Sec.

          721.11556
          Rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, compd. with ethanolamine (generic).
          721.11557
          Rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, potassium salt (generic).
          721.11558
          1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-dimethyl-, 1,3-diacetate.

          § 721.11556
          Rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, compd. with ethanolamine (generic).
          (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance generically identified as rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, compd. with ethanolamine, (PMN P-18-399) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
          (2) The significant new uses are:
          (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(s).
          (ii) [Reserved]
          (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
          (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.
          (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
          (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

          § 721.11557
          Rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, potassium salt (generic).
          (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance generically identified as rosin adduct ester, polymer with polyols, potassium salt, (PMN P-18-400) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
          (2) The significant new uses are:
          (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(s).
          (ii) [Reserved]
          (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
          (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.
          (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
          (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

          § 721.11558
          1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-dimethyl-, 1,3-diacetate.
          (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as 1,3-propanediol, 2,2-dimethyl-, 1,3-diacetate (PMN P-20-68, CAS No. 13431-57-7) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
          (2) The significant new uses are:
          (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(j).
          (ii) [Reserved]
          (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph (b).
          (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

          (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
          (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 2020-17200 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-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:
          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 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 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 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. Iñigo-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 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 § 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 pica).

                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) 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.
            (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 § 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