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

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rulemaking 

that the Charleston, West Virginia PM2.5

nonattainment area has clean data for 

the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 standard does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian Country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 8, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21224 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0063; 

92220–1113–0000–C5] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Delist the Valley Elderberry 

Longhorn Beetle 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to delist the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 

review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

delisting the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle may be warranted. Therefore, 

with the publication of this notice, we 

are initiating a status review of the 

species to determine if delisting is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Based 

on this status review, we will issue a 12- 

month finding on the petition, which 

will address whether the petitioned 

action is warranted under section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before October 

18, 2011. Please note that if you are 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

Eastern Standard Time on this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword 

box, enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES– 

2011–0063, which is the docket number 

for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 

panel on the left side of the screen, 

under the Document Type heading, 

click on the Proposed Rules link to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send a 

Comment or Submission.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– 

0063; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see Request for Information below for 

more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Suite W–2605, Sacramento, CA 

95825; telephone 916–414–6600; 

facsimile 916–414–6712. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that delisting a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle from governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. We seek 

information on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing/delisting/downlisting 

determination for a species under 

section 4(a) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
51930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as 

references to scientific journal articles 

or other publications) to allow us to 

verify any scientific or commercial 

information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

cannot be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you 

submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or you may make 

an appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 

12-month finding. 

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires 

that we conduct a review of listed 

species at least once every 5 years. We 

are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to 

determine, on the basis of such a 

review, whether or not any species 

should be removed from the List 

(delisted), or reclassified from 

endangered to threatened, or threatened 

to endangered. Our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.21 require that we publish a 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing those species currently 

under active review. This notice 

announces our active review of the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle. 

Petition History 

On September 10, 2010, we received 

a petition dated September 9, 2010, 

from The Pacific Legal Foundation, 

requesting the Service to delist the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) 

based on the analysis and 

recommendation contained in the most 

recent 5-year review for the species. The 

petition clearly identified itself as such 

and included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, as 

required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). This 

finding addresses the petition. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

was proposed as a threatened 

subspecies with critical habitat on 

August 10, 1978 (43 FR 35636). A rule 

re-proposing critical habitat was issued 

on May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29373), to 

comply with amendments made to the 

Act. A final rule listing the beetle as 

threatened and designating critical 

habitat was published in the Federal 

Register on August 8, 1980 (45 FR 

52803). On June 28, 1984, a final 

recovery plan was approved for the 

beetle (Service 1984, pp. 1–62). On July 

7, 2005, we announced in the Federal 

Register that we were initiating 5-year 

reviews for 31 listed species, including 

the beetle (70 FR 39327). Information 

from the public was accepted until 

September 6, 2005. On November 3, 

2005, we announced in the Federal 

Register an extension of the period for 

submitting information to be considered 

in the 5-year review to January 3, 2006 

(70 FR 66842). A 5-year review was 

completed for the beetle on September 

26, 2006 (Service 2006), and was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7064). 

Additional information regarding 

previous Federal actions for the beetle 

can be obtained by consulting the 

species’ regulatory profile found at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/species or the 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

Web site at: http://fws.gov/ 

sacramento/. 

Species Information 

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) is 

a medium-sized red and dark green (to 

red and black) insect approximately 0.8 

inches (in.) (2 centimeters (cm)) long. It 

is endemic to the Central Valley of 

California (Fisher 1921, p. 207; Doane et 

al. 1936, p. 178; Linsley and Chemsak 

1972, p. 7). The similar-looking 

California elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus californicus californicus) 

is primarily known from coastal regions 

of California (Collinge et al. 2001, p. 

104). The ranges of the two subspecies 

may abut or overlap along the foothills 

of the eastern Coast Range and the 

southern San Joaquin Valley (Talley et 

al. 2006, p. 5). Beetles meeting the 

description of the California elderberry 

longhorn beetle have also been recorded 

in the Sierra Nevada foothills as far 

north as Mariposa County (Halstead and 

Oldham 2000, p. 74–75), suggesting that 

the ranges of the two subspecies may 

also abut or overlap in that area. 

The beetle is a wood borer, dependent 

on, and found only in association with, 

its host plant, the elderberry (Sambucus 

species of the Caprifoliaceae 

[honeysuckle] family) (Barr 1991, p. 4; 

Collinge et al. 2001, p.104). The 

elderberry is a common shrub 

component of riparian forests and 

adjacent uplands along river corridors of 

the Central Valley (Hickman 1993, pp. 

474–475; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995, 

pp. 171, 229; Halstead and Oldham 

2000, p. 74). Adult beetles feed on 

elderberry nectar, flowers, and foliage, 

and are generally active from March 

through June (Eng 1984, p. 916; Barr 

1991, p. 4; Collinge et al. 2001, p. 105). 

They are uncommon (see discussion of 

population sizes, below) and rarely 

observed, despite their relatively large 

size and conspicuous coloration. 

The females lay eggs, singly or in 

small groups, on the leaves or stems of 

living elderberry shrubs (Barr 1991, p. 

4). The larvae hatch in a few days and 

bore into living stems that are at least 

2.5 cm (1 in.) in diameter. The larvae 

remain within the elderberry stem, 

feeding on the pith (dead woody 

material) until they complete their 

development. Each larva creates its own 

gallery (set of tunnels) within the stem 


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). 

The larva eventually cuts an exit hole 

out of the stem, but plugs the hole up 

again from within using wood shavings. 

This will allow the beetle to eventually 

exit the stem after it has become an 

adult, since the adults are not wood 

borers. The larva remains within the 

stem, becomes a pupa, and finally 

emerges from its single exit hole as an 

adult between mid-March and mid-June 

(Lang et al. 1989, p. 242; Barr 1991, p. 

5; Talley et al. 2006, p. 9). There is thus 

one exit hole per larva. The complete 

life cycle is thought to take either 1 or 

2 years (depending on the amount of 

time the larva stays in the elderberry 

stem), with adults always emerging in 

the spring. Adults live from a few days 

to a few weeks after emerging, during 

which time they mate and lay their eggs 

(Talley et al. 2006, p. 7). 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

We must consider these same five 

factors in delisting a species. We may 

delist a species according to 50 CFR 

424.11(d) if the best available scientific 

and commercial data indicate that the 

species is neither endangered nor 

threatened for the following reasons: 

(1) The species is extinct; 

(2) The species has recovered and is 

no longer endangered or threatened; or 

(3) The original scientific data used at 

the time the species was classified were 

in error. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle, as presented in the 

petition and other information available 

in our files, is substantial, thereby 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. Our evaluation of 

this information is presented below. 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioner requested the Service 

to delist the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle based on the analysis and 

recommendation contained in the most 

recent 5-year review of the species. The 

petitioner cited the 5-year review as 

supporting information for the petition. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The 2006 5-year review for the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle contains 

general background and life-history 

information, overview of recovery 

criteria, an analysis of threats specific to 

the species based on the five listing 

factors in section 4 the Act. The 

petitioner cited the 5-year review as 

supporting information for the petition, 

but provided no other information. In 

the 5-year review conducted for the 

species, we analyzed the threats based 

on the five listing factors in section 4 of 

the Act; we hereby cite and incorporate 

by reference the data and 

recommendation in the 5-year review 

for the species (Service 2006, entire). 

Accordingly, we have already 

previously evaluated information 

regarding threats as presented in the 

petition (see the 2006 5-year review for 

the species on http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.fws.gov/endangered/). Based on 

the analysis and recommendation 

contained in the 5-year review for the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle, we 

conclude that the petition and 

information in our files represent 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

The primary rationale for the 

recommendation in the 2006 5-year 

review to delist the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle was that the number of 

known occupied localities had 

increased from less than 10 at the time 

of listing in 1980 to more than 190 in 

2006. Loss of riparian habitat slowed 

throughout the Central Valley, and there 

were a number of programs and 

regulatory mechanisms in existence to 

protect habitat. Specifically, protection 

of more than 50,000 acres (ac) (20,234 

hectares (ha)) had been accomplished, 

and restoration of habitat had occurred 

on more than 5,100 ac (2,064 ha). 

Therefore, the Service recommended 

delisting the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle. 

Any additional information we 

receive in response to this finding will 

be incorporated into our status review. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

delisting the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle may be warranted. This finding is 

based on information provided in our 

analysis of the threats to the species 

contained in the 2006 5-year review for 

the species. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that delisting 

may be warranted, we are initiating a 

status review for the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle to determine whether 

the petitioned action of delisting is 

warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. We will complete 

a thorough status review of the species 

following a substantial 90-day finding. 

In the resulting 12-month finding, we 

will determine whether a petitioned 

action is warranted. Because the Act’s 

standards for 90-day and 12-month 

findings are different, as described 

above, a substantial 90-day finding does 

not mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Offices (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

David Cottingham, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21201 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS