Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51929

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife action’’ subject to review by the Office Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS of Management and Budget under Fish and Wildlife Service 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We October 4, 1993); 50 CFR Part 17 will post all information we receive on • Does not impose an information [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0063; http://www.regulations.gov. This collection burden under the provisions 92220–1113–0000–C5] generally means that we will post any of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 personal information you provide us U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (see Request for Information below for • Is certified as not having a and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a more details). significant economic impact on a Petition To Delist the Valley Elderberry FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: substantial number of small entities Longhorn Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator, U.S. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Interior. Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage • Does not contain any unfunded ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition Way, Suite W–2605, Sacramento, CA mandate or significantly or uniquely finding and initiation of status review. 95825; telephone 916–414–6600; affect small governments, as described facsimile 916–414–6712. If you use a in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and telecommunications device for the deaf of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Wildlife Service (Service), announce a (TDD), call the Federal Information • Does not have Federalism 90-day finding on a petition to delist the Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. implications as specified in Executive valley elderberry SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, ( californicus dimorphus) 1999); under the Endangered Species Act of Request for Information • Is not an economically significant 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our When we make a finding that a regulatory action based on health or review, we find that the petition petition presents substantial safety risks subject to Executive Order presents substantial scientific or information indicating that delisting a 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); commercial information indicating that species may be warranted, we are • Is not a significant regulatory action delisting the valley elderberry longhorn required to promptly review the status subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR beetle may be warranted. Therefore, of the species (status review). For the 28355, May 22, 2001); with the publication of this notice, we status review to be complete and based • Is not subject to requirements of are initiating a status review of the on the best available scientific and Section 12(d) of the National species to determine if delisting is commercial information, we request Technology Transfer and Advancement warranted. To ensure that this status information on the valley elderberry Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because review is comprehensive, we are longhorn beetle from governmental application of those requirements would requesting scientific and commercial agencies, Native American Tribes, the be inconsistent with the CAA; and data and other information regarding the scientific community, industry, and any • Does not provide EPA with the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Based other interested parties. We seek discretionary authority to address, as on this status review, we will issue a 12- information on: appropriate, disproportionate human month finding on the petition, which (1) The species’ biology, range, and health or environmental effects, using will address whether the petitioned population trends, including: practicable and legally permissible action is warranted under section (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, methods, under Executive Order 12898 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. breeding, and sheltering; (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). DATES: To allow us adequate time to (b) Genetics and ; In addition, this proposed rulemaking conduct this review, we request that we (c) Historical and current range, that the Charleston, West Virginia PM2.5 receive information on or before October including distribution patterns; nonattainment area has clean data for 18, 2011. Please note that if you are (d) Historical and current population the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 standard does using the Federal eRulemaking Portal levels, and current and projected trends; not have tribal implications as specified (see ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for and by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, submitting an electronic comment is (e) Past and ongoing conservation November 9, 2000), because the SIP is Eastern Standard Time on this date. measures for the species, its habitat, or not approved to apply in Indian Country ADDRESSES: You may submit comments both. located in the state, and EPA notes that by one of the following methods: (2) The factors that are the basis for it will not impose substantial direct (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal making a listing/delisting/downlisting costs on tribal governments or preempt eRulemaking Portal: http:// determination for a species under tribal law. www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword section 4(a) of the Endangered Species box, enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES– Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 2011–0063, which is the docket number U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: Environmental protection, Air for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search (a) The present or threatened pollution control, Incorporation by panel on the left side of the screen, destruction, modification, or reference, Particulate matter, Reporting under the Document Type heading, curtailment of its habitat or range; and recordkeeping. click on the Proposed Rules link to (b) Overutilization for commercial, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. locate this document. You may submit recreational, scientific, or educational a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send a purposes; Dated: August 8, 2011. Comment or Submission.’’ (c) Disease or predation; W.C. Early, (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail (d) The inadequacy of existing Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. or hand-delivery to: Public Comments regulatory mechanisms; or [FR Doc. 2011–21224 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– (e) Other natural or manmade factors BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 0063; Division of Policy and Directives affecting its continued existence.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM 19AUP1 wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS 51930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Please include sufficient information the measure proposed in the petition announced in the Federal Register on with your submission (such as may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7064). references to scientific journal articles If we find that substantial scientific or Additional information regarding or other publications) to allow us to commercial information was presented, previous Federal actions for the beetle verify any scientific or commercial we are required to promptly conduct a can be obtained by consulting the information you include. species status review, which we species’ regulatory profile found at: Submissions merely stating support subsequently summarize in our http://ecos.fws.gov/species or the for or opposition to the action under 12-month finding. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office consideration without providing Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires Web site at: http://fws.gov/ supporting information, although noted, that we conduct a review of listed sacramento/. cannot be considered in making a species at least once every 5 years. We determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to Species Information Act directs that determinations as to determine, on the basis of such a The valley elderberry longhorn beetle whether any species is an endangered or review, whether or not any species (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) is threatened species must be made should be removed from the List a medium-sized red and dark green (to ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific (delisted), or reclassified from red and black) approximately 0.8 and commercial data available.’’ endangered to threatened, or threatened inches (in.) (2 centimeters (cm)) long. It You may submit your information to endangered. Our regulations at 50 is endemic to the Central Valley of concerning this status review by one of CFR 424.21 require that we publish a California (Fisher 1921, p. 207; Doane et the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you notice in the Federal Register al. 1936, p. 178; Linsley and Chemsak submit information via http:// announcing those species currently 1972, p. 7). The similar-looking www.regulations.gov, your entire under active review. This notice California elderberry longhorn beetle submission—including any personal announces our active review of the (Desmocerus californicus californicus) identifying information—will be posted valley elderberry longhorn beetle. is primarily known from coastal regions on the Web site. If you submit a of California (Collinge et al. 2001, p. hardcopy that includes personal Petition History 104). The ranges of the two subspecies identifying information, you may On September 10, 2010, we received may abut or overlap along the foothills request at the top of your document that a petition dated September 9, 2010, of the eastern Coast Range and the we withhold this personal identifying from The Pacific Legal Foundation, southern San Joaquin Valley (Talley et information from public review. requesting the Service to delist the al. 2006, p. 5). meeting the However, we cannot guarantee that we valley elderberry longhorn beetle description of the California elderberry will be able to do so. We will post all (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) longhorn beetle have also been recorded hardcopy submissions on http:// based on the analysis and in the Sierra Nevada foothills as far www.regulations.gov. recommendation contained in the most north as Mariposa County (Halstead and Information and supporting recent 5-year review for the species. The Oldham 2000, p. 74–75), suggesting that documentation that we received and petition clearly identified itself as such the ranges of the two subspecies may used in preparing this finding is and included the requisite identification also abut or overlap in that area. available for you to review at http:// information for the petitioner, as The beetle is a wood borer, dependent www.regulations.gov, or you may make required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). This on, and found only in association with, an appointment during normal business finding addresses the petition. its host plant, the elderberry ( species of the Caprifoliaceae hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Previous Federal Actions Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife [honeysuckle] family) (Barr 1991, p. 4; Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The valley elderberry longhorn beetle Collinge et al. 2001, p.104). The CONTACT). was proposed as a threatened elderberry is a common shrub subspecies with critical habitat on component of riparian forests and Background August 10, 1978 (43 FR 35636). A rule adjacent uplands along river corridors of Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 re-proposing critical habitat was issued the Central Valley (Hickman 1993, pp. U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we on May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29373), to 474–475; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995, make a finding on whether a petition to comply with amendments made to the pp. 171, 229; Halstead and Oldham list, delist, or reclassify a species Act. A final rule listing the beetle as 2000, p. 74). Adult beetles feed on presents substantial scientific or threatened and designating critical elderberry nectar, flowers, and foliage, commercial information indicating that habitat was published in the Federal and are generally active from March the petitioned action may be warranted. Register on August 8, 1980 (45 FR through June (Eng 1984, p. 916; Barr We are to base this finding on 52803). On June 28, 1984, a final 1991, p. 4; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105). information provided in the petition, recovery plan was approved for the They are uncommon (see discussion of supporting information submitted with beetle (Service 1984, pp. 1–62). On July population sizes, below) and rarely the petition, and information otherwise 7, 2005, we announced in the Federal observed, despite their relatively large available in our files. To the maximum Register that we were initiating 5-year size and conspicuous coloration. extent practicable, we are to make this reviews for 31 listed species, including The females lay eggs, singly or in finding within 90 days of our receipt of the beetle (70 FR 39327). Information small groups, on the leaves or stems of the petition and publish our notice of from the public was accepted until living elderberry shrubs (Barr 1991, p. the finding promptly in the Federal September 6, 2005. On November 3, 4). The larvae hatch in a few days and Register. 2005, we announced in the Federal bore into living stems that are at least Our standard for substantial scientific Register an extension of the period for 2.5 cm (1 in.) in diameter. The larvae or commercial information within the submitting information to be considered remain within the elderberry stem, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with in the 5-year review to January 3, 2006 feeding on the pith (dead woody regard to a 90-day petition finding is (70 FR 66842). A 5-year review was material) until they complete their ‘‘that amount of information that would completed for the beetle on September development. Each larva creates its own lead a reasonable person to believe that 26, 2006 (Service 2006), and was gallery (set of tunnels) within the stem

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM 19AUP1 wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51931

by feeding (Talley et al. 2006, pp. 8–9). may be warranted. Our evaluation of Finding The larva eventually cuts an exit hole this information is presented below. out of the stem, but plugs the hole up On the basis of our determination Information Provided in the Petition again from within using wood shavings. under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we This will allow the beetle to eventually The petitioner requested the Service have determined that the petition exit the stem after it has become an to delist the valley elderberry longhorn presents substantial scientific or adult, since the adults are not wood beetle based on the analysis and commercial information indicating that borers. The larva remains within the recommendation contained in the most delisting the valley elderberry longhorn stem, becomes a pupa, and finally recent 5-year review of the species. The beetle may be warranted. This finding is emerges from its single exit hole as an petitioner cited the 5-year review as based on information provided in our adult between mid-March and mid-June supporting information for the petition. analysis of the threats to the species (Lang et al. 1989, p. 242; Barr 1991, p. Evaluation of Information Provided in contained in the 2006 5-year review for 5; Talley et al. 2006, p. 9). There is thus the Petition and Available in Service the species. one exit hole per larva. The complete Files Because we have found that the life cycle is thought to take either 1 or The 2006 5-year review for the valley petition presents substantial 2 years (depending on the amount of elderberry longhorn beetle contains information indicating that delisting time the larva stays in the elderberry general background and life-history may be warranted, we are initiating a stem), with adults always emerging in information, overview of recovery status review for the valley elderberry the spring. Adults live from a few days criteria, an analysis of threats specific to longhorn beetle to determine whether to a few weeks after emerging, during the species based on the five listing the petitioned action of delisting is which time they mate and lay their eggs factors in section 4 the Act. The warranted. (Talley et al. 2006, p. 7). petitioner cited the 5-year review as The ‘‘substantial information’’ Evaluation of Information for This supporting information for the petition, standard for a 90-day finding differs Finding but provided no other information. In from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and the 5-year review conducted for the Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) commercial data’’ standard that applies species, we analyzed the threats based and its implementing regulations at 50 to a status review to determine whether on the five listing factors in section 4 of CFR part 424 set forth the procedures a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- the Act; we hereby cite and incorporate for adding a species to, or removing a day finding does not constitute a status by reference the data and review under the Act. We will complete species from, the Federal Lists of recommendation in the 5-year review a thorough status review of the species Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the species (Service 2006, entire). following a substantial 90-day finding. and Plants. A species may be Accordingly, we have already determined to be an endangered or previously evaluated information In the resulting 12-month finding, we threatened species due to one or more regarding threats as presented in the will determine whether a petitioned of the five factors described in section petition (see the 2006 5-year review for action is warranted. Because the Act’s 4(a)(1) of the Act: the species on http:// standards for 90-day and 12-month (A) The present or threatened www.regulations.gov or http:// findings are different, as described destruction, modification, or www.fws.gov/endangered/). Based on above, a substantial 90-day finding does curtailment of its habitat or range; the analysis and recommendation not mean that the 12-month finding will (B) Overutilization for commercial, contained in the 5-year review for the result in a warranted finding. recreational, scientific, or educational valley elderberry longhorn beetle, we References Cited purposes; conclude that the petition and (C) Disease or predation; information in our files represent A complete list of references cited is (D) The inadequacy of existing substantial information indicating that available on the Internet at http:// regulatory mechanisms; or the petitioned action may be warranted. www.regulations.gov and upon request (E) Other natural or manmade factors The primary rationale for the from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife affecting its continued existence. recommendation in the 2006 5-year Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION We must consider these same five review to delist the valley elderberry CONTACT). factors in delisting a species. We may longhorn beetle was that the number of delist a species according to 50 CFR known occupied localities had Author 424.11(d) if the best available scientific increased from less than 10 at the time and commercial data indicate that the of listing in 1980 to more than 190 in The primary authors of this notice are species is neither endangered nor 2006. Loss of riparian habitat slowed the staff members of the Sacramento threatened for the following reasons: throughout the Central Valley, and there Fish and Wildlife Offices (see FOR (1) The species is extinct; were a number of programs and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). (2) The species has recovered and is regulatory mechanisms in existence to Authority no longer endangered or threatened; or protect habitat. Specifically, protection (3) The original scientific data used at of more than 50,000 acres (ac) (20,234 The authority for this action is the the time the species was classified were hectares (ha)) had been accomplished, Endangered Species Act of 1973, as in error. and restoration of habitat had occurred amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In making this 90-day finding, we on more than 5,100 ac (2,064 ha). Dated: August 4, 2011. evaluated whether information Therefore, the Service recommended regarding threats to the valley elderberry delisting the valley elderberry longhorn David Cottingham, longhorn beetle, as presented in the beetle. Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife petition and other information available Any additional information we Service. in our files, is substantial, thereby receive in response to this finding will [FR Doc. 2011–21201 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] indicating that the petitioned action be incorporated into our status review. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 18, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM 19AUP1 wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS