        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        RIN 0648-BE98
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 44 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 44 would modify required right of first refusal (ROFR) contract terms that provide eligible crab community entities with the opportunity to purchase certain processor quota shares and other associated assets when they are proposed for sale. Specifically, Amendment 44 would: extend the amount of time allowed for eligible crab community entities to exercise and perform under a ROFR contract; remove or modify provisions that currently allow a ROFR to lapse under specific conditions; provide flexibility for eligible crab community entities and processor quota shareholders to apply a ROFR to mutually-agreed upon assets; and add new reporting requirements for holders of processor quota shares subject to a ROFR. Amendment 44 is necessary to enhance the ability of eligible crab communities to maintain their historical processing interests in the crab fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before December 8, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0057, by any one of the following methods.
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0057, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 44 to the FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 44 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.
        Background

        NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 680.
        NMFS published the final rule to implement the Crab Rationalization (CR) Program on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Fishing under the CR Program started with the 2005/2006 crab fishing year.
        The CR Program is a catch share program for nine BSAI crab fisheries that allocates those resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Under the CR Program, NMFS issued quota share (QS) to eligible harvesters based on their historical participation during a set of qualifying years in one or more of the nine CR Program fisheries. QS is an exclusive, revocable privilege allowing the holder to harvest a specific percentage of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) in a CR Program fishery.
        A QS holder's annual allocation, called individual fishing quota (IFQ), is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of QS held in relation to the total QS pool for that fishery. NMFS issues IFQ in three classes: Class A IFQ, Class B IFQ, and Class C IFQ. Three percent of IFQ is issued as Class C IFQ for captains and crew. Of the remaining IFQ, 90 percent is issued as Class A IFQ and 10 percent is issued as Class B IFQ.
        NMFS issued processor quota share (PQS) to qualified individuals and entities based on processing activities in CR Program fisheries during a period of qualifying years. PQS is an exclusive, revocable privilege to receive deliveries of a fixed percentage of the annual TAC from a CR Program fishery. A PQS holder's annual allocation is known as individual processing quota (IPQ). NMFS issues IPQ at a one-to-one correlation with the amount of Class A IFQ issued for each CR Program fishery. Class A IFQ must be delivered to a processor holding a matching amount of IPQ; Class C IFQ and Class B IFQ may be delivered to any registered crab receiver.
        Right of First Refusal
        The CR Program includes several provisions intended to protect specific communities that had historically been active in the processing of king and Tanner crab from adverse impacts that could result from the CR Program. The CR Program established eligibility criteria and regulations at § 680.2 identify the nine communities that satisfied the eligibility criteria: Adak, Akutan, Dutch Harbor, Kodiak, King Cove, False Pass, St. George, St. Paul, and Port Moller. These communities are referred to as “eligible crab communities” for purposes of the CR Program's community protection measures. Additional detail on the rationale and criteria used to establish the eligible crab communities can be found in the final rule implementing the CR Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174). Additional information on these communities is provided in Section 3.1.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.

        With the exception of Adak, the CR Program provides eligible crab communities, or ECCs, with a right of first refusal (ROFR) on certain PQS and IPQ transfers. A ROFR provides an eligible crab community with the right to intervene in the sale (i.e., transfer) of PQS, IPQ, and “other goods” (i.e., assets) associated with that community under specific conditions. The regulations at § 680.41(l) require an eligible crab community to identify an entity to represent it for purposes of ROFR. The eight eligible crab communities that have a ROFR, and their representative entities are listed in Table 9 of the RIR/IRFA. The eligible crab community of Adak is not provided a ROFR for PQS or IPQ associated with that community because the CR Program incorporates other provisions to protect the community of Adak. These provisions are described in the final rule implementing the CR Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174).
        Of the eight eligible crab communities, four are community development quota (CDQ) communities, and four are non-CDQ communities. In the case of eligible crab communities that are also CDQ communities, the local CDQ group is the entity that can exercise the ROFR on behalf of the community (see § 680.41(l)(2)(i)). For the other four non-CDQ eligible crab communities, regulations authorize the governing bodies of these eligible crab communities to identify the entity that can exercise the ROFR on behalf of the community (see § 680.41(l)(2)(ii)).

        PQS and IPQ from the Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea snow crab, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, St. Matthew Island blue king crab, and Pribilof red and blue king crab fisheries are subject to a ROFR. Section 3.1.3 of the RIR/IRFA describes the specific amounts of PQS and IPQ that were, and are, subject to a ROFR.

        Under the ROFR, an eligible crab community entity is provided an opportunity to meet the same terms and conditions being offered to a proposed buyer of a proposed sale of PQS or IPQ. If an eligible crab community entity can meet the terms and conditions of a proposed sale, then the eligible crab community entity is transferred the PQS, IPQ, and any other goods instead of the proposed buyer. For a more detailed summary of ROFR, see section 3.1.3 of the RIR/IRFA.
        The CR Program included a ROFR to provide eligible crab communities an opportunity to retain crab PQS, IPQ, and other goods before they are transferred to another buyer who could then choose to take that PQS, IPQ, and other goods out of the community. Such a transfer could adversely affect the economic stability of the community. The ROFR is intended to strike a balance between the interest of communities historically reliant on crab processing to retain that processing capacity within their communities, and the interest of PQS or IPQ holders to be able to engage in open market transfers of PQS, IPQ, and other goods.
        ROFR Contract Terms
        The ROFR is administered under the CR Program through contractual arrangements between eligible crab community entities and PQS/IPQ holders. Persons who hold PQS/IPQ that is subject to a ROFR must enter into a contract with the eligible crab community entity eligible to exercise a ROFR for those PQS/IPQ shares. The terms required in a ROFR contract between an eligible crab community entity and PQS/IPQ holder were established with implementation of the CR Program and are set forth in Chapter 11 of the FMP.

        ROFR applies to any proposed sale of “PQS, and sales of IPQ, if more than 20 percent of the PQS holders' community based IPQ in the fishery were processed outside of the community by another company (intra-company transfers within a region are excluded) in three of the preceding five years.” Intra-company transfers within a region are exempt from (i.e., do not trigger) the ROFR, and sales of PQS for continued use within the community are exempt from ROFR.
        The ROFR contract terms require that in order to complete a transfer under a ROFR, an eligible crab community entity must meet “the same terms and conditions of the underlying [proposed sale] agreement and will include all processing shares and other goods included in that agreement.” The ROFR contract terms also state that all terms of any ROFR—and contract entered into, related to ROFR—will be enforced through civil law. Additional details on the rationale for the civil enforcement of the terms in a ROFR contract are provided in the EIS, RIR, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program, and the final rule implementing the CR Program (March 2, 2005, 70 FR 10174).
        An eligible crab community entity must meet two important requirements to complete a ROFR and receive PQS, IPQ, or other goods associated with a proposed sale. The eligible crab community entity must: (1) Exercise its ROFR, that is, provide a clear commitment to complete a purchase agreement within a specific time frame; and (2) perform under the ROFR, that is, meet all of the terms and conditions of the underlying agreement for the proposed sale within a specific time frame.

        To exercise the ROFR, an eligible crab community entity must provide the seller of PQS or IPQ subject to a ROFR with notice of its intent to exercise the ROFR and earnest money in the amount of 10 percent of the contract amount or $500,000, whichever is less, within 60 days of notice of a sale and receipt of the contract defining the sale's terms. To perform the ROFR, the eligible crab community entity must meet the terms and conditions of the proposed sale (i.e., complete the sale) within 120 days, or within the time specified in the proposed sales contract, whichever is longer. If an eligible crab community entity does not exercise its ROFR, or it cannot perform under the ROFR contract, then the open market sale may proceed.
        Revising ROFR Contract Terms
        The CR Program, including the ROFR contract terms, was implemented under authority provided at section 313(j)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 313(j)(3) states that after initial implementation of the CR Program, the Council may submit and the Secretary may implement changes to conservation and management measures for crab fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands to achieve on a continuing basis the purposes identified by the Council. This provision allows the Council to recommend, and NMFS to adopt, revisions to the required terms of a ROFR contract. For reasons provided below, the Council determined that the modifications to the ROFR contract terms that would be made by Amendment 44 would improve the achievement of the purposes of ROFR that were identified by the Council when it adopted the CR Program.
        In developing the CR Program, the Council and NMFS recognized the unique historical relationship between eligible crab communities and processors associated with those communities, and established ROFR provisions to provide opportunities for eligible crab communities to be notified and intervene in sales of crab processing assets important to those communities. However, with experience gained from implementation, the Council has determined that some of the ROFR contract terms are limiting the effectiveness of the ROFR provisions.

        Stakeholders, including representatives from the eight eligible crab community entities that can exercise a ROFR, noted concerns with several ROFR contract terms that could hinder an eligible crab community entity from effectively exercising and performing under a ROFR. Holders of PQS/IPQ subject to a ROFR concurred that several changes to the ROFR contract terms and notification requirements could improve the ability of eligible crab community entities to exercise and perform under a ROFR without unduly limiting open market transfers of PQS, IPQ, and other goods. The Council reviewed and analyzed these concerns in a series of documents that have been consolidated under the RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendment 44 (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended the provisions comprising Amendment 44 at its February 2013 and its October 2014 meetings.
        Amendment 44
        Amendment 44 is designed to address four categories of concern that stakeholders have for the existing ROFR contract terms. These are: (1) Inadequate time for an eligible crab community entity to exercise and perform under a ROFR; (2) ROFR contract terms that allow a ROFR to lapse; (3) ROFR contract terms that do not allow an eligible crab community entity and a PQS/IPQ holder to mutually agree to the specific assets subject to a ROFR and to exclude “other goods” if desired; and (4) the lack of verification that proper notification and reporting of proposed sales between PQS/IPQ holders and eligible crab community entities has occurred.

        To address these concerns, Amendment 44 would: (1) Extend the amount of time allowed for eligible crab community entities to exercise and perform a ROFR contract, (2) remove or modify provisions that allow the ROFR to lapse under specific conditions, (3) provide flexibility for eligible crab community entities and PQS/IPQ holders to apply a ROFR only to mutually-agreed upon assets, and (4) add contract terms that require PQS holders to provide eligible crab community entities with information on pending transfers of PQS or IPQ and the use of IPQ. The following paragraphs provide additional detail on and rationale for these proposed modifications to required ROFR contract terms.
        Extending Timelines To Exercise and Perform Under a ROFR Contract
        Amendment 44 would modify the ROFR contract term specifying the amount of time to exercise and perform under a ROFR. Amendment 44 would increase the time allowed for an eligible crab community entity to exercise a ROFR from 60 days to 90 days from receipt of the sales contract. This modification would also increase the time allowed for an eligible crab community entity to perform under the ROFR from 120 days to 150 days. The time period to exercise and the time period to perform under a ROFR begin on the date of receipt of the sales contract by the eligible crab community entity and run concurrently. The extension of both time periods is intended to help accommodate eligible crab community entities when deciding whether to exercise their ROFR, but also continue to recognize that time may be of the essence for a PQS holder or buyer under a contract.
        The current ROFR contract term requires an eligible crab community entity to exercise the ROFR within 60 days from receipt of a contract defining a transfer from a PQS holder. Within that time period, the eligible crab community entity must inform the PQS holder that it is exercising its ROFR and provide earnest money equal to 10 percent of the transaction amount or $500,000, whichever is less. The 60-day period is intended to provide community entities with the opportunity to assess the merits of intervening in the transaction. For some eligible crab community entities, such as community development quota (CDQ) groups, decisions of whether to enter simple, low value, transactions may be made expeditiously. However, an eligible crab community entity may require more time if the transaction is a larger, more complex transaction.
        For each transaction, the eligible crab community entity must assess the value of the various items included in the transaction, as it may include more than just the PQS. Under the current provisions, other items included in the transaction would also be subject to the ROFR, which could substantially drive up the transaction costs. If a community is considering purchasing the PQS and the associated assets, it may need to assess the value of each of the items independently or as groups of items. In order to obtain an accurate valuation of the items, the community may need to consult experts or conduct its own appraisals. Once the valuation has occurred, an eligible crab community entity may need to obtain financing, which could take a substantial amount of time beyond the 60 days that are currently afforded the eligible crab community entity.
        By extending the timeline for exercising the ROFR from 60 days to 90 days, the eligible crab community entity that holds the ROFR would have more time to better evaluate a transaction, access earnest money, make preliminary financing arrangements, and make an appropriate decision concerning whether to exercise the ROFR. The extension would be particularly helpful in situations where public notice and meetings are required before deciding on how to proceed with the ROFR.
        Removing or Modifying Provisions That Cause a ROFR to Lapse
        Amendment 44 would amend the FMP to remove or modify contract terms that allow a ROFR to lapse. First, Amendment 44 would remove the ROFR contract term that allows a ROFR to lapse if the IPQ derived from the PQS subject to ROFR was processed outside the community of origin for a period of three consecutive years. Removal of this contract term would allow a ROFR to stay in place regardless of whether the IPQ is being used outside the community. However, if approved, Amendment 44 would not reinstate a ROFR that lapsed prior to implementation of Amendment 44. This change would strengthen the connection between PQS and the community that holds the ROFR for that PQS by maintaining the ROFR and elevating the interests of the eligible crab community entity that holds the ROFR over those of the community where the IPQ was being processed.

        Amendment 44 also would remove the ROFR contract term that states that a ROFR will lapse if an eligible crab community entity fails to exercise its ROFR after it is triggered by a transfer of PQS and replace it with a ROFR contract term that would require the recipient of a PQS transfer (i.e., buyer) to enter into a new ROFR contract with an eligible crab community entity of the buyer's choosing in the designated region of the PQS. This amendment would ensure that an eligible crab community entity within the designated region of the PQS retains a ROFR on that PQS even if the original eligible crab community entity chooses not to exercise a ROFR.
        The modification would allow the new PQS holder to designate the original ROFR holder or a new eligible crab community entity within the PQS-designated region. This would only happen in the event that ROFR is triggered by the PQS transfer and the community that currently holds the ROFR chooses not to exercise its ROFR. Since use of the shares would be at the discretion of the PQS holder, both NMFS and the Council believe that the PQS holder should be best situated for identifying the community that would hold the ROFR.
        This modification is intended to strengthen the ROFR program by maintaining a link between PQS and eligible crab communities in perpetuity. In addition, the proposed modification may provide the original eligible crab community entity that is not able to exercise a ROFR with another opportunity to use ROFR at some point in the future, should it be triggered again through a proposed sale of the PQS.
        Flexibility To Apply a ROFR to Mutually-Agreed Upon Assets
        One ROFR contract term currently requires that the ROFR apply to all terms and conditions of the underlying sale agreement, including all processing shares and other goods included in the agreement. Amendment 44 would revise this ROFR contract term to specify that, “Any right of first refusal must be on the same terms and conditions of the underlying agreement and will include all processing shares and other goods included in this agreement, or to any subset of those assets, as otherwise agreed to by the PQS holder and the community entity.” The proposed addition of the last clause in this sentence would allow a PQS holder and an eligible crab community entity to negotiate what assets may be subject to a ROFR. This would provide PQS holders and eligible crab community entities with more flexibility compared to the status quo. For example, it would allow an eligible crab community entity to reach an agreement with the PQS holder that the ROFR would only apply to the PQS, and not to any other goods associated with a proposed sale.

        The Council determined this flexibility was necessary to increase the opportunities for eligible crab communities to exercise and perform a ROFR. The current requirement for ROFR to apply to all terms and conditions of the underlying sale agreement may inhibit some eligible crab community entities from exercising and performing a ROFR because the terms of the underlying agreement may include a variety of assets, including processing equipment and real estate. Some of these assets may have no connection to the crab fisheries or the represented community. In these instances, a community entity may be unable to effectively use its ROFR if it cannot obtain financing or if the entity has no interest in acquiring the assets that are unrelated to the community it represents. The following example demonstrates the flexibility the proposed revision would create. A PQS holder has processing plants and equipment in communities A, B, and C, along with PQS currently used in community A. The entity representing community A holds a ROFR that is triggered if the PQS holder decides to transfer the PQS for use outside of community A. No processing currently takes place in communities B and C, but the PQS holder owns processing assets in those communities. If the PQS holder decides to sell the PQS that is used in community A and the assets it owns in communities A, B, and C, to a buyer who would use the PQS outside of community A, the proposed sale would trigger the ROFR. Under the current ROFR contract terms, to exercise its ROFR, the entity representing community A would be required to purchase the PQS and the processing assets in all three communities (A, B, and C), even though the eligible crab community entity may only be interested in purchasing the PQS and the processing assets in community A.
        Under the flexibility provided by the revised contract term, the entity representing community A, which holds the ROFR, would have the option to reach an agreement with the PQS holder that the ROFR only apply to the PQS and the processing assets in community A. The PQS holder would maintain the option to sell the assets in communities B and C without triggering community A's ROFR. The additional flexibility would benefit community entities because they would not be required to purchase assets that they might not have an interest in or be able to finance in order to maintain crab processing activities in their community, if the entity can reach an agreement with the PQS holder. Instead, communities would be able to purchase a previously agreed upon subset of the PQS holder's assets. The purchase price of the subset of assets may be less than the purchase price of all assets included in the underlying agreement. Therefore, community entities may be more likely to exercise ROFR if it only applies to those assets of interest to the community. For additional information on this proposed ROFR contract term, see section 3.2.6 of the RIR/IRFA.
        Adding Requirements for PQS Holders To Report to Eligible Crab Community Entities
        Amendment 44 would establish two new ROFR contract terms that require PQS holders to provide community entities holding ROFRs with information on transfers of IPQ or PQS and use of IPQ. These new ROFR contract terms would ensure that the eligible crab community entity has adequate information to track the use of IPQ and transfers of PQS, as needed, to protect the community's interests under the ROFR. Currently, eligible crab community entities have little information on the use of IPQ or transfers of PQS that are subject to the ROFR.
        To address these issues, Amendment 44 would add a ROFR contract term that requires the PQS holder to notify the eligible crab community entity of any proposed transfer of IPQ or PQS, regardless of whether the PQS holder believes the transfer triggers the right. Second, Amendment 44 would add a ROFR contract term that requires the PQS holder to annually notify the eligible crab community entity of the location at which IPQ derived from PQS subject to a ROFR was used and whether the IPQ was used by the PQS holder. Both of these proposed notifications would allow the eligible crab community entity to be more aware of what is occurring with the PQS for which they hold a ROFR.
        The Council determined that while these notices would impose a small burden on the PQS holder, they would ensure that the eligible crab community entities and the communities they represent would have better information concerning the status of the ROFR. For additional detail on these notices, see section 3.2.5 of the RIR/IRFA.
        In recommending Amendment 44, the Council largely intended to assist communities in maintaining historical processing interests in, and revenues from, the crab fisheries. These actions create community benefits that are expected to be relatively small but positive. The regional economic stability, equity, and community welfare benefits of these actions outweigh the possible production efficiency losses, transaction costs, and administrative expenditures arising from implementation of these actions.

        Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 44 to the FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement the accompanying regulations for Amendment 44, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 44 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 44. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 44, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the FMP amendment approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 5, 2015.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-25677 Filed 10-8-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-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.

        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 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


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
        [WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90; Report No. 3142; FRS 16493]
        Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for Reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by L. Charles Keller, on behalf of Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation dba Viya.

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before March 4, 2020. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 16, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alexander Minard, email: Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3142, released February 6, 2020. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect America USVI Fund, Connect America Fund; DA 19-1300, released by the Commission on December 19, 2019, in WC Docket Nos. 18-143, 10-90. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene Dortch,
          Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2020-03148 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P