Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-06-28 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

23,214 words·~106 min read·/register/2006/06/28/06-5851

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0561; FRL-8075-5] Phosphorous Acid; Proposed Amendment to Exemption From Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the existing tolerance exemption for residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium, and potassium salts in or on all food commodities to allow for post-harvest application to stored potatoes at 35,600 ppm or less phosphorous acid. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0561, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0561. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Hollis, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8733; e-mail address: *hollis.linda@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in the entities listed above. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background and Statutory Findings Pursuant to section 408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), EPA is proposing, on its own initiative, to amend the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium and potassium salts, in or on all food commodities when applied as an agricultural fungicide by adding the post-harvest treatment of stored potatoes. 40 CFR 180.1(i) states, “unless otherwise specified, tolerances and exemptions established under the regulation in this part apply to residues from only pre harvest application of the chemical.” As a result, a tolerance exemption must specify post-harvest application where the Agency intends to exempt such applications. The existing tolerance exemption for phosphorous acid (40 CFR 180.1210) does not expressly allow for post-harvest application of this chemical. Therefore, the Agency has, of its own initiative, prepared this proposed amendment to the tolerance exemption for phosphorous acid to allow post-harvest applications of this active ingredient. As discussed below, in order to determine the exposure and risks resulting from post- harvest treatment of potatoes with phosphorous acid, the Agency conducted a conservative dietary exposure and risk assessment and has concluded that the use of phosphorous acid as a post-harvest treatment on stored potatoes presents no new risks as an agricultural fungicide because the fungicide is applied at very dilute levels, the lack of acute oral toxicity for the tested end use product at >5,000 mg/kg body weight, and the rapid degradation of phosphorous acid. The Agency concludes that the use of phosphorous acid as a post harvest treatment at these application rates meets the FFDCA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Section 408(c)(1)(B) of the FFDCA allows the EPA to modify a regulation on its own initiative under section 408(e). Section 408(e) requires the EPA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide a public comment period of not less than 60 days. However, this provision also allows the EPA to shorten the comment period “if the Administrator for good cause finds that it would be in the public interest to do so and states the reasons for the finding in the notice of proposed rulemaking.” For this particular rule, EPA has shortened the public comment period to 30 days because the Agency believes that it is in the public interest to do so. Potatoes are an important commodity to the agricultural food supply. Post harvest treatment of potatoes using fungicides will be initiated in late summer. Phosphorous acid provides a safe alternative to other fungicides used on stored potatoes. It is therefore important to expedite this tolerance exemption on order for phosphorous acid to be applied post harvest to potatoes this use season. EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . III. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The toxicity profile for phosphorous acid and its ammonium, potassium and sodium salts has already been assessed for its pesticidal use by the Agency and published in support of the tolerance exemption for residues of phosphorous acid in or on all food commodities when used as an agricultural fungicide. See the **Federal Register** of October 5, 2000 (65 FR 59346) (FRL-6599-1). For the purposes of this tolerance exemption amendment, the Agency has relied on the data and/or information previously submitted and has reassessed that data in order to evaluate the request to add post harvest uses to the tolerance exemption. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed publicly available data and information on phosphoric acid, which is chemically and structurally similar to phosphorous acid. The Agency believes that in combination, the data and other information relied upon for this tolerance exemption supports its conclusion that there is reasonable certainty of no harm that will result from the post harvest treatment of potatoes with phosphorous acid when used according to the recommended application rate. The technical grade of the active ingredient of phosphorous acid has also been fully characterized and assessed by the Agency in the Mineral Acids RED (December 1993) since it is an ingredient which falls within the class of compounds known as the mineral acids. Information on phosphorous acid indicates that it is classified in Toxicity Category III for the oral and dermal routes of exposure, and that it is corrosive to the eyes and skin. The corrosive nature of concentrated or technical grade phosphorous acid is not of a concern because phosphorus acid is applied at very dilute solutions such as 0.25 pounds of phosphorus acid per ton of stored potatoes. Phosphorous acid as applied at such very dilute rates is only slightly irritating to the skin. Further, when applied at such permissible application rate, the residues of the applied phosphorous acid solution have an acute toxicity that is several hundred times lower than the acute toxicity of phosphorous acid in a 100% pure form. As mentioned above, the Agency, on its own initiative, re-examined the previously reviewed toxicity data on an end use product that contains 35.6% phosphorus acid by weight and would be applied at 0.25 pounds of active ingredient per ton of stored potatoes. The results demonstrated that there is a margin of exposure of nearly 1,000 for children or the equivalent of a 30 kg child consuming 932 pounds of potatoes at one time. This large margin of exposure provides reasonable certainty of no harm at application rates in excess of that for the reviewed end use product. Specifically, an end use product containing 53.8% phosphorous acid by volume (or 35.6% phosphorus acid by weight) was tested on rats at > 5,000 mg/kg bodyweight. The total amount of phosphorous acid that would be consumed for each kg of potatoes based on a 30 kg child was calculated. Based on these calculations the acute oral toxicity was estimated to be equivalvent to 1,780 mg PA/kg bodyweight for a 30 kg child. This is a conservative scenario which assumes that all of the phosphorous acid that is applied to stored potatoes will remain on the crop such that a 30 kg child would need to consume 424 kg of potatoes (to include peel and flesh) in one sitting. The Agency further assumed that there are 2.2lbs/kg of potatoes which would mean that a child would need to consume 932 pounds of potatoes that have been treated post harvest with phosphorous acid in one sitting to achieve the equivalent of a limit dose in laboratory animals. This is a margin of exposure of nearly 1,000-fold. The toxicological profile of a solution containing 53.8% phosphorous acid is briefly summarized below. *Acute oral
(rat)449404-04* . LD <sup>50</sup> >5,000mg/kg body weight (53.8% phosphorous acid aqueous solution). The test material is classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute oral toxicity which demonstrates low toxicity. These results also demonstrates that a dilution of the active ingredient significantly decreases the order of toxicity as compared to the TGAI and supports the Agency conclusion that use of the proposed end-use product eliminates the potential of the active ingredient to cause acute toxic effects. There were no adverse effects reported at 5,000 mg/kg. *Acute dermal
(rat)449404-05* . LD <sup>50</sup> >5,000mg/kg body weight (53.8% phosphorous acid aqueous solution). The test material is classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute dermal toxicity and demonstrates that a dilution of the active ingredient significantly decreases the order of toxicity as compared to the TGAI and supports the Agency conclusion that use of the proposed end-use product will be slightly irritating to the skin. *Acute inhalation
(rat)449404-06* . LC <sup>50</sup> >2.06 mg/L (53.8% phosphorous acid aqueous solution). The test material is classified as a Toxicity Category IV for acute inhalation toxicity and demonstrates that a dilution of the active ingredient to a level that is comparable to concentration of phoshporous acid in the proposed end use product will not cause acute inhalation effects at greater than 2.06 mg/L. *Developmental/reproductive effects, chronic effects and carcinogenicity* . There is adequate information available from literature sources to characterize the toxicity of phosphorous acid. Phosphorous acid can affect human health through inhalation of mist, ingestion, and contact with the skin and eyes. In a concentrated form, it will cause corrosive effects (burns or irreversible damage) to the eyes, skin, throat, digestive tract, upper respiratory tract and nose. Signs of overexposure to this chemical are severe burning of eyes and skin, possible nausea and vomiting, coughing, burning and tightness of the chest and shortness of breath. Based on corrosivity and the current use patterns for the mineral acids, EPA did not require these studies as part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)on the Mineral Acids (EPA 738-R-029; December 1993). A typical end use product was tested for acute toxicity. As described above, a 53.8% phosphorous acid product did not cause acute toxicity at >5,000 mg/kg bodyweight. This product would be further diluted when applied to stored potatoes so that something on the order of a quarter of a pound of phosphorous acid would be applied to a ton of stored potatoes. Calculated estimates of the residue from such an application would give a margin of exposure near 1,000 for young children The Agency concludes therefore that the primary hazards such as corrosivity and irritation that are associated with concentrated phosphorous acid are significantly reduced when used as a post harvest treatment on potatoes at dilute application rates such as those in the typical end use product tested and evaluated by the Agency. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). The primary issue for adding post-harvest applications to a tolerance exemption is whether such application causes any new exposure that would not be safe. In order to evaluate that issue, the Agency relied on the existing toxicology data already reviewed on phosphorous acid to conduct a conservative dietary exposure and risk assessment to evaluate any additional risk that might result from post-harvest application of this chemical. In the absence of acute oral studies and any magnitude of residue data, the Agency based it's risk assessment on default assumptions, (i.e. information from the inhalation data base was used to compare to dietary risks, a common approach in the Agency), to ensure that the maximum application rates will not result in unacceptable dietary risks. As a result of this risk assessment, the Agency concludes that the use of phosphorous acid as a post harvest treatment to stored potatoes at the recommended application rate will not add any new exposures or risks and is considered safe. Phosphorous acid rapidly dissociates to form hydrogen and phosphite ions when applied to growing crops in the environment and therefore, it has already been established that no dietary exposure is expected from pre-harvest applications. The degredates of phosphorous acid, hydrogen and phosphite ions are important nutrients for plants and animals. Formation of these degredates however, may be compromised when phosphorous acid is applied as a post harvest treatment. Since post harvest treatment of phosphorous acid to potatoes is likely to occur in indoor storage facilities, the oxidation process of phosphorous acid will most likely be slowed down. The fact that the phosphorous acid at the time of post harvest treatment has not been oxidized to its degradates is clear and it is unknown how much this oxidation process reduces the potential dietary exposure to phosphorous acid under the conditions of post harvest treatment. However, even with these uncertainties, the Agency believes that when phosphorous acid is used as a post harvest treatment at the recommended application rate, the remaining residues of PA on stored potatoes will not increase toxicity or add any new dietary exposure or risks and the toxicity of phosphorous acid would still be classified in category IV (which is low toxicity) and will be safe. 1. *Dietary exposure* . The Agency has determined that post harvest treatment of phosphorous acid to stored potatoes at the typical application rate evaluated by the Agency may reduce any new anticipated exposure to phosphorous acid. However, even if dietary exposure is not reduced, the Agency believes, based on its reassessment of the data and information, that post harvest application of phosphorous acid to potatoes is safe. 2. *Drinking water exposure* . No significant drinking water exposure is expected to result from phosphorous acid when applied a post harvest treatment to potatoes because phosphorous acid rapidly degrades, is very soluble in water and is applied in storage facilities. 3. *Other non-occupational exposure* . There are no residential, school or day care uses proposed for this product. Since the proposed use pattern is for agricultural food crops and post-harvest treatment on potatoes, the potential for non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to phosphorous acid by the general population, including infants and children, is highly unlikely. Further, even if persons were exposed via the non-occupational route, the Agency believes that the low toxicity from a dilute application such as the one evaluated by the Agency is safe and the primary hazards associated with concentrated phosphorous acid (corrosivity and irritation) will be significantly reduced because the end use products are diluted and the residues following application are very low. V. Cumulative Effects Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” These considerations include the possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children. BPPD has considered the potential for cumulative effects of phosphorous acid and other substances in relation to a common mechanism of toxicity. Phosphorous Acid may share a common metabolic mechanism with other salts of phosphorous acid (such as calcium); however, due to the low order of toxicity associated with and lack of reported dietary toxicity associated with the use of phosphorous fertilizers on crops, no cumulative effect from the use of phosphorous acid is expected. VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children 1. *U.S. population* . There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of phosphorous acid as a result of preharvest and post-harvest uses, as that toxicity and exposure is expected to be minimal. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. This chemical will be applied as a fungicide to agricultural food crops and as a post-harvest treatment potatoes to stored potatoes at 35,600 ppm or less. There is very little potential for dietary exposure to phosphorous acid, exposure in drinking water, and from non-dietary, non-occupational exposures. Once released into the environment, the chemical rapidly dissociates to form hydrogen and phosphite ions, important nutrients for plants and animals. While the formation of these degredates may be compromised when phosphorous acid is applied as a post harvest treatment, the recommended application rate will significantly reduce any new dietary exposure or risks and is considered to be safe. Many phosphite salts are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Therefore, the health risk to humans is negligible based on the low toxicity of these ions and a low application rate and magnitude of dilution for post-harvest use of the active ingredient, and one can conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to phosphorous acid. 2. *Infants and children* . FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure
(MOE)for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different MOE will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure which are often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly, or through the use of a MOE analysis, or by using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk. In this instance, based on all reliable available information the Agency has reviewed on Phosphorous Acid, the Agency concludes that the additional MOE is not necessary to protect infants and children and that not adding any additional MOE will be safe for infants and children. Aggregate exposure to phosphorous acid is expected to be minimal. There is very little potential for exposure to phosphorous acid in drinking water and from non-dietary, non-occupational exposures. This chemical will be applied preharvest to agricultural food crops and as a post harvest treatment on potatoes. Once released into the environment, the chemical rapidly dissociates to form hydrogen and phosphite ions. The hydrogen ions affect pH, but this is moderated by natural means. Many phosphite salts are GRAS. Therefore, the health risk to humans is negligible based on the low toxicity of dilute applications of phosphorous acid. One can conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to phosphorous acid residues. VII. Other Considerations Phosphorous acid and its salts are rapidly dissociated in the environment to yield hydrogen and phosphite ions. Release of hydrogen ions will increase the pH of the plant's surface, which will be moderated by the amount of neutralizing ions present, the buffering capacity, and the amount of dilution possible. Phosphite ions are available for uptake by plants usually in the form of ammonium, calcium, and potassium and sodium phosphites (phosphite salts). A. Endocrine Disruption EPA is required under section 408(p) of the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally-occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen- and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). At this time, the Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine effects of this active ingredient, phosphorous acid. Based on the weight of the evidence of available data and the absence of any reports to the Agency of sensitivity or other adverse effects, no endocrine system related effects are identified for phosphorous acid and none is expected because of its use. To date there is no evidence that phosphorous acid affects the immune system, functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disruptor. Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on the Agency's safety finding set forth in this proposed rule amending the phosphorous acid exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. B. Analytical Method Through this action, the Agency proposes to amend the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for phosphorous acid to include post harvest treatment on potatoes for the reasons stated above which include low toxicity to mammals and negligible exposure from the pesticidal use of products containing phosphorous acid. For the same reasons, the Agency concludes that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for phosphorous acid. C. Codex Maximum Residue Level No maximum residue levels
(MRLs)have been established for phosphorous acid by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX). VIII. Conclusions The Agency concludes that if products containing phosphorous acid as an active ingredient are used in accordance with label directions, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to residues of phosphorous acid, when used as an agricultural fungicide on all food commodities or when used as a post-harvest treatment on potatoes. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This proposed rule amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under section 408(e) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Pub. Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since this Agency initiated amendment to an exemption from tolerance requirement, issued section 408(e) of the FFDCA, requires the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) apply. The Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 20, 2006. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.1210 is revised to read as follows: § 180.1210 Phosphorous acid; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance . An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium, and potassium salts in or on all food commodities when used as an agricultural fungicide and in or on potatoes when applied as a post-harvest treatment at 35,600 ppm or less phosphorous acid. [FR Doc. E6-10031 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-8188-9] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of intent for partial deletion of the Ellsworth Air Force Base Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
(EPA)announces its intent to delete portions of the Ellsworth Air Force Base
(AFB)Site located in Meade and Pennington Counties, South Dakota, from the National Priorities List
(NPL)and requests public comment on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The EPA has determined, with the concurrence of the State of South Dakota through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) that for the parcels proposed for deletion, all appropriate actions under CERCLA have been implemented to protect human health, welfare and the environment and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate. This partial deletion pertains to surface soil, unsaturated subsurface soil, surface water, and sediments at Operable Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, and excludes the ground water medium at these parcels. The ground water medium at the Ellsworth AFB Site (OU-11, Basewide Ground Water), and the soil medium (surface and unsaturated subsurface soils) at OU-1, Fire Protection Training Area, will remain on the NPL and response activities will continue for those OUs. Two additional areas not associated with an operable unit, the Gateway Lake Ash Study Area and the Pride Hangar Study Area, are currently under investigation and are also not part of this partial deletion. DATES: Comments concerning this proposed partial deletion may be submitted on or before July 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *dalton.john@epamail.epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 303-312-6961. • *Mail:* Mr. John Dalton, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466. • *Hand Delivery:* 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EAFB Information Repository located at the Rapid City Public Library and at the Ellsworth AFB Holbrook Library. The Rapid City Library is located at 610 Quincy Street, Rapid City, SD 57701. For hours of operation, call
(605)394-4171. Holbrook Library is located at 2650 Doolittle Dr. Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706, between the Base commissary and the Base Theater. For hours of operation, call
(605)385-1686. All CERCLA and Environmental Restoration Program
(ERP)documents, including those not kept at the Information Repositories, and the Docket for this proposed partial deletion are kept in the Administrative Record. The Administrative Record is available for public viewing at the Base Environmental Management Flight, 2103 Scott Drive, Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706. To schedule an appointment or for Base access call
(605)385-2680. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Dalton, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466, Phone:
(303)312-6633. Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction The EPA announces its intent to delete portions of the Ellsworth AFB Site (CERCLIS ID #SD2571924644), from the NPL and requests comments on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to the NCP, 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9605. The NPL is a list of facilities which EPA determined may pose a significant threat to public health, welfare, or the environment. 40 CFR 300.425(e) authorizes deletion of facilities, or portions of facilities, from the NPL provided that facility meets certain criteria. Deletion from the NPL does not necessarily preclude further remedial action. If a significant release occurs at a facility deleted from the NPL, that facility is restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System. Federal facilities are not eligible for Superfund-financed remedial action. However, all Federal facilities, whether listed on the NPL or not, have a continuing statutory duty to conduct further remediation, if required, even after the Federal property is transferred to non-Federal owners. When a release attributable to a Federal facility's historical activities is discovered after a property transfer, CERCLA section 120(b)(3)(A)(i) requires the federal entity to conduct further remediation if necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. An environmental assessment was conducted at Ellsworth AFB on the parcels proposed for deletion. All media were sampled. Results of the sampling were reported in Remedial Investigation
(RI)reports which were used to conduct Risk Assessments. Feasibility Studies
(FS)were generated which evaluated potential remedies required to address the contamination. The remedies were summarized in a public notice soliciting comments on the remedies. All public comments received during the public comment periods were considered by the Air Force and EPA before the final remedy was selected. The parcels proposed for deletion are described in more detail later in this document. EPA proposes deleting these parcels from the NPL because no further CERCLA response is appropriate. The remaining portions of the property comprising the Ellsworth AFB Site will remain on the NPL. This notice will be published in the **Federal Register** to solicit public comments on the proposed partial deletion. The public comment period is thirty
(30)days beginning on the date of publication. Section II of this action explains the criteria for the partial deletion of sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the history of the Ellsworth AFB Site and explains how the portions of the Site proposed for deletion meet deletion criteria. Section V states EPA's intention to delete the portions of the Site from the NPL unless dissenting comments are received during the comment period. II. NPL Deletion Criteria The NCP establishes the criteria that are used to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate to protect human health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following have been met:
(1)Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or
(2)Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(3)Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to human health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As explained below, portions of the Ellsworth AFB Site meet the NCP's deletion criteria listed above. Therefore, partial deletion is being proposed. III. Deletion Procedures Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in 40 CFR 300.425(e) of the NCP has been met, EPA may formally begin deletion procedures. The following procedures were used for the proposed partial deletion of portions of Ellsworth AFB:
(1)All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented and no further action is appropriate for the identified areas;
(2)The State of South Dakota through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources concurred with this proposed partial deletion decision via a letter dated February 10, 2006;
(3)Concurrent with this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, notice has been published in the Rapid City Journal (the newspaper of record) and has been distributed to appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, and other interested parties. These notices announce a thirty
(30)day public comment period on the deletion package, which commences on the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** and the Rapid City Journal; and
(4)All relevant documents have been made available for public review at the local information repositories listed previously. Upon completion of the 30-day comment period, EPA will evaluate all comments received before issuing the final decision on partial deletion. If appropriate, EPA will prepare and issue a Responsiveness Summary for comments received during the public comment period and will address concerns presented in the comments. The Responsiveness Summary will be made available to the public at the information repositories. Members of the public are encouraged to contact EPA to obtain a copy of the Responsiveness Summary. If, after review of all public comments, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the NPL is appropriate, EPA will publish a Final Notice of Partial Deletion in the **Federal Register.** As stated in 40 CFR 300.425, a site, or portion of a site, deleted from the NPL, remains eligible for future response actions if conditions warrant. IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion The following site summary provides EPA's rationale for the proposed partial deletion. It also includes information demonstrating satisfaction of the deletion criteria specified under 40 CFR 300.425(e). Background Ellsworth AFB is a U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command
(ACC)installation located 12 miles east of Rapid City, South Dakota, and adjacent to the small community of Box Elder. The main Air Base covers approximately 4,858 acres within Meade and Pennington counties and includes runways, airfield operations, industrial areas, housing, and recreational facilities. The site was officially activated in July 1942 as the Rapid City Army Air Base, a training facility for B-17 bomber crews. Ellsworth AFB has been the headquarters of operations for a variety of aircraft, the Titan I Intercontinental Ballistic Missile system and the Minuteman I and Minuteman II Missile systems. The Base has historically provided support, fueling, training, maintenance, and/or testing facilities. Operations at Ellsworth AFB over the years generated a variety of waste materials including municipal solid waste, wastewater treatment plant sludge, industrial wastes including waste oils, solvents, paints, spilled fuels, waste pesticides, shop waste, metal remains from ordnance disposal (shell casings and bomb fragments but not unexploded ordnance) and radiological wastes. Contaminants of concern at Ellsworth AFB include chlorinated solvents, waste fuels and metals. Ellsworth AFB is located within the following Sections, Townships, and Ranges, in Pennington and Meade Counties, South Dakota: Sections 35 and 36, Township 3 North, Range 8 East, Meade County; Section 31, Township 3 North, Range 9 East, Meade County; Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, Township 2 North, Range 8 East, Pennington and Meade Counties; and Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, Township 2 North, Range 9 East, Pennington and Meade Counties. Ellsworth AFB was placed on the NPL August 30, 1990 (55 FR 35509) and is therefore subject to the provisions of Section 120 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9620. At that time the entire base, approximately 4,858 acres, was included in the listing (“fence line to fence line”). The Department of Defense, EPA and the State of South Dakota entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement
(FFA)which formalizes the process for environmental response actions and the relative roles of the Air Force, the EPA and the State of South Dakota under CERCLA and the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The FFA was signed by the Air Force, the EPA, and the State of South Dakota in January, 1992 and became effective on April 1, 1992. Upon listing, the facility began identifying sites where activities involving hazardous substances may have occurred. The sites requiring further investigations were grouped into Operable Units (OUs). Twelve OUs have been identified at Ellsworth AFB. The OUs include: OU-1, Fire Protection Training Area; OU-2, Landfills Nos. 1 and 6; OU-3, Landfill No. 2; OU-4, Landfill No. 3; OU-5, Landfill No. 4; OU-6, Landfill No. 5; OU-7, Weapons Storage Area; OU-8, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area; OU-9, Old Auto Hobby Shop Area; OU-10, North Hangar Complex; OU-11, Basewide Ground Water; and OU-12, Hardfill No. 1. Records of Decision
(RODs)have been finalized for all of these OUs. Appropriate response actions for soil media have been completed per ROD decisions at the 10 OUs proposed for deletion. The RI/FS process did not identify any unacceptable risks for surface water and sediment at these OUs. Therefore, remedial actions were not required for surface water and sediment. Remedial activities for areas where there has been a release or disposal of petroleum products have been deferred to action under the SDDENR petroleum release program. The portions of the Ellsworth AFB Site to be deleted from the NPL include surface soil, unsaturated subsurface soil, surface water and sediment media at OU-2, OU-3, OU-4, OU-5, OU-6, OU-7, OU-8, OU-9, OU-10 and OU-12 (approximately 542 acres) and the surface soil, unsaturated subsurface soil, surface water and sediment media of an additional 4,300 acres which are not associated with an operable unit and are not identified as posing a risk to human health or the environment. Of the approximately 4,858 acres originally included in the Ellsworth AFB site NPL listing in 1990, there are four areas that are *not* being deleted. These areas are: • OU-1 (all media) [generally described by the following coordinates: N667749.88/E1242611.11; N667496.84/E1242812.29; N667330.75/E1242852.01; N666933.49/E1242558.40; N667158.53/E1242265.75; N667787.47/E1242276.80; N667749.88/E1242611.11] • OU-11 (Basewide Ground Water) [including all ground water plumes located within the Base boundary (described earlier) and those described as emanating from the Base] • Gateway Lake Ash Study Area [generally described by the following coordinates: N667944.01/E1248056.74; N667694.15/E1248058.87; N667695.57/E1247811.84; N667947.55/E1247834.49; N667944.01/E1248056.74] • Pride Hanger Study Area [generally described by the following coordinates: N673538.32/E1243066.96; N673267.45 /E1243270.27; N673228.21/E1243223.95; N673113.04/E1243308.87; N673021.04/E1243204.65; N673409.00/E1242911.91; N673538.32/E1243066.96] Maps identifying all areas are available for review in the partial deletion docket. Operable Unit 2 The OU-2 study area consists of Landfill No. 1, Landfill No. 6, the drainage channel in the western portion of Landfill No. 1, and the drainage channel near Landfill No. 6, which includes Pond 002. Landfill No. 1 is approximately 21.5 acres in size and is located at the southern boundary of Ellsworth AFB. The landfill was active from the early 1940s to 1964 and was used to dispose of a variety of wastes including Base refuse, incinerator ash, sludge, oil, and possibly liquid industrial wastes. Hardfill debris was also disposed of at Landfill No. 1. Landfill No. 6 is approximately 0.5 acres in size and is located northeast of Landfill No. 1 on the north side of Kenney Road. Landfill No. 6 was used from 1962 to 1965 and primarily received general Base refuse. Waste oil, fuel, and solvents may also have been disposed of at this location. However, no direct physical evidence of these chemicals was found at Landfill No. 6 during the 1993/1994 remedial investigation field activities. Within OU-2, soils contained chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes (BTEX), pesticides, inorganic compounds, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The concentrations of several inorganic compounds exceed background concentrations. This is believed to be a combination of landfill activities and variations in the concentrations of naturally-occurring compounds in the soil. Jet fuel contamination caused by a leak in a fuel line was identified along the southern boundary of OU-2. This jet fuel contamination has been remediated under the SDDENR petroleum release program. Sediment samples collected at OU-2 contained semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), primarily PAHs, pesticides and inorganic compounds. Low concentrations of three SVOCs were detected in surface water samples at OU-2, as well as numerous inorganic compounds. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds exceeded State and Federal water quality standards. However, the results of the risk assessment indicated that risk due to exposure to contaminants in sediments at OU-2 was within the acceptable risk range, and that surface water was not a media of current concern. Therefore, it was determined that remedial action was not warranted for surface water or sediment. Two removal actions were completed at this OU. A site in the southwest corner of Landfill 1 identified during RI geophysical investigations was excavated in 1997. This location contained low-level radioactive waste material. A second removal action was completed for remnants of chemical weapons training materials located in the same general area. The identified materials were excavated and moved off Site for disposal at a licensed waste disposal facility. The ROD was signed in May of 1996. The selected alternative for Landfill No. 1 was a vegetated soil cover and institutional controls. This alternative includes institutional controls, storm-water channel realignment and lining, in conjunction with physical modification of the OU to reduce potential risk. The selected alternative for Landfill No. 6 was institutional controls. This alternative uses access restriction, monitoring, and other controls to reduce potential risk. Construction for the storm-water channel was completed in October 1996. The landfill cover was completed in May 1997. Ground water remediation and monitoring are part of OU-11. Operable Unit 3 OU-3, located in the northeast portion of Ellsworth AFB, consists of Landfill 2, (approximately one acre), the four identified trenches to the north and two disturbed soil areas in the southeast and southwest corners. The landfill was active for approximately one year (1964-1965). Combustible trash, described as shop wastes, was burned daily in a burn pit. Four trenches located north of the fill area were used for the disposal of metal and industrial and household refuse. A sign located within the boundary of OU-3 indicates a missile disposal/burial site. The missile disposal site contains scrap metal salvaged from a test flight. Contaminants identified in soil at this OU include, VOCs, jet fuel, numerous SVOCs, pesticides and inorganic compounds. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds exceed background concentrations. The ROD was signed in June of 1996. The selected remedial action was a vegetated soil cover. This alternative includes institutional controls in conjunction with physical modification of the OU to reduce potential risk. The landfill cover was completed in May 1997. Ground water monitoring is part of OU-11. Operable Unit 4 OU-4 (Landfill No. 3) is approximately 40 acres in size and is located in the southwestern corner of Ellsworth AFB. The landfill was active between 1965 and 1976 as a trench and fill operation. The landfill was also used for disposal of construction demolition debris during the mid-1980s, digested wastewater treatment plant biomass, shop wastes (liquids and paints), industrial sewer sludge and oils, soil containing Pramitol and sodium chromate, and miscellaneous refuse. The contents of approximately 100 55-gallon drums containing waste oil and fuel were placed in a waste-oil pit on site. OU-4 was also used as a staging area for 55-gallon drums containing waste oil and fuel. In addition, the southwest corner of OU-4 was used to stage asphalt rubble. Contaminants in soil at the OU include VOCs, PAHs, jet fuel, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), inorganic compounds, dioxins and furans. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds exceed background concentrations. Contaminants in sediment include acetone, PAHs, pesticides, and inorganic compounds. However, it was determined in the risk assessment that those levels of contaminants fell within the acceptable risk range and therefore, no remedial action was warranted for sediment. The ROD was signed in May of 1996. The selected remedial action was a vegetated soil cover for the landfill, and extraction and treatment for ground water. This alternative includes institutional controls in conjunction with physical modification of the OU to reduce potential risk. The landfill cover was completed in December 1996. Ground water remediation and monitoring are part of OU-11. Operable Unit 5 OU-5 (Landfill No. 4) is a 10-acre site located adjacent to the north perimeter of Ellsworth AFB. From the 1940s through 1990, the landfill was used primarily for the disposal of construction demolition and hardfill materials, general refuse and drums. Contaminants in soil at OU-5 include PAHs, pesticides, inorganic compounds, and jet fuel. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds exceed background concentrations. One surface water and one sediment sample were collected at OU-5 from an ephemeral surface water source. These samples contained VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganic compounds. However, it was determined in the risk assessment that those levels of contaminants fell within the acceptable risk range and therefore, no remedial action was warranted for surface water or sediment. The ROD was signed in June of 1996. The selected remedial action was a vegetated soil cover. This alternative includes institutional controls in conjunction with physical modification of the OU to reduce potential risk. The landfill cover was completed in May 1997. Ground water monitoring is part of OU-11. Operable Unit 6 OU-6 (Landfill No. 5) is a 7-acre site located in the southeastern corner of Ellsworth AFB. From 1960 to 1980, demolition debris and hardfill materials were placed in the landfill along with miscellaneous refuse, dried sewage sludge, and possibly shop wastes. Construction and demolition debris was initially placed along the rail line to stabilize erosion, and was later expanded to the east. OU-6 was used for stockpiling wastewater treatment plant sludge. Contaminants in soil at OU-6 include PAHs, pesticides, and inorganic compounds. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds exceed background concentrations. Contaminants in surface water and sediment include VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides and inorganic compounds. However, it was determined in the risk assessment that those levels of contaminants fell within the acceptable risk range and therefore, no remedial action was warranted for surface water or sediment. The ROD was signed in October of 1995. The selected remedial action was a vegetated soil cover, and long-term surface water and sediment sampling. This alternative includes institutional controls in conjunction with physical modification of the OU to reduce potential risk. The landfill cover was completed in July 1996. Ground water monitoring is part of OU-11. Operable Unit 7 OU-7 (Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Site) is located in the Munitions Storage Area (MSA), formerly identified as the Weapons Storage Area (WSA), at the northernmost end of Ellsworth AFB. The MSA covers approximately 65 acres. Radioactive wastes were generated at Ellsworth AFB between 1952 and 1962. During that time the WSA was under the control of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). After 1962, control of the WSA was transferred to the Air Force. Contaminants in soil at OU-7 include VOCs and inorganic compounds. Contaminants in surface water and sediment include VOCs and inorganic compounds. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds in soil and sediment exceed background concentrations. Radionuclides detected in all media were within the normal background range due to natural variations in soil types and geological characteristics. The results of the risk assessment indicated that risk due to exposure to contaminants in surface water and sediments at OU-7 was within the acceptable risk range. Therefore, it was determined that remedial action was not warranted for surface water or sediment. The ROD was signed in June of 1996. The selected remedial action was application of institutional controls for soil and ground water, completion of detailed records searches and long term ground water monitoring. Ground water monitoring is part of OU-11. Operable Unit 8 OU-8 (Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area) is located in the northeastern portion of Ellsworth AFB. OU-8 consists of two distinct areas, the Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD)Area and the Debris Burial Area. The EOD Area is approximately 600 feet by 1,350 feet, and the Debris Burial Area is approximately 300 feet by 150 feet. The EOD Area includes: A Pramitol (an herbicide) spill area, a burn pit area, a burn furnace area, and a detonation site. This detonation area was formerly used for the detonation of active explosives. The Debris Burial Area was used for the burial of debris generated from detonation of explosives at the demolition area. Contamination in soil at this OU includes VOCs, SVOCs (primarily PAHs), jet fuel, pesticides, dioxins/furans, and inorganic compounds. The concentrations of several inorganic compounds in soil and sediment exceed background concentrations. One pesticide was detected in sediment samples. However, it was determined in the risk assessment that those levels of contaminants fell within the acceptable risk range and therefore, no remedial action was warranted for sediment. The ROD was signed in June of 1996. The selected remedial action was installation of vegetated soil covers, application of institutional controls and long term sediment sampling. The soil covers over the EOD Area and the Debris Burial Area were completed in June 1997. Ground water monitoring is part of OU-11. Operable Unit 9 OU-9 encompasses 90 acres surrounding the Old Auto Hobby Shop. The types of potential contaminant source areas at OU-9 include: Building Operations, underground storage tanks, the former Quartermaster Gasoline Dispensing Area, the former fuel transfer line, industrial waste lines, jet engine test facilities and upgradient source areas. There is no known documentation of major spills or releases at OU-9. Small volumes of fuels, oils, and solvents may have been released to the environment over time through incidental spills, leaks, and/or poor waste handling and disposal practices. Contaminants in soil at this OU include VOCs (primarily BTEX), SVOCs (primarily PAHs), jet fuel, and inorganic compounds. Several inorganic compounds were detected in surface water and sediment samples. PAHs were also reported in sediment samples. It was determined that OU-9 did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. In May 1996, a ROD was signed for no further action. Remediation of soils contaminated by petroleum will be performed under the SDDENR petroleum release program. Ground water remediation was deferred to OU-11. Operable Unit 10 OU-10 is the North Hangar Complex, a 75-acre site located in the central portion of Ellsworth AFB, northeast of the primary instrument runway. The North Hangar complex was constructed in the 1950s and is composed of five rows of aircraft repair and maintenance hangars. Most of OU-10 is paved with concrete with some grassy areas between the hanger rows. OU-10 contains a system of underground jet fuel hydrant lines that deliver fuel to docked aircraft, and underground industrial waste lines associated with aircraft maintenance. It was reported that waste products used for aircraft maintenance may have been washed down floor drains in the maintenance buildings. Contaminants at this OU included VOCs, SVOCs and jet fuel. The predominant VOCs were BTEX compounds. It was determined that OU-10 did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. In May 1996, a ROD was signed for no further action. Remediation of soils contaminated by petroleum will be performed under the SDDENR petroleum release program. Ground water remediation was deferred to OU-11. Operable Unit 12 OU-12 (Hardfill No. 1) is located in the southern half of Ellsworth AFB and is approximately 14 acres in size. OU-12 was identified as a hardfill, rather than a landfill, because disposal records indicated that it only received construction debris such as wood, metal, concrete, and asphalt. The remedial investigation identified the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, jet fuel and pesticides, but through site characterization it was found that these contaminants were related to flightline runoff rather than landfill disposal practices. The ROD was signed in May of 1996. The selected remedial action was a vegetated soil cover. This alternative includes institutional controls in conjunction with physical modification of the OU to reduce potential risk. The soil cover was completed in May 1997. Ground water monitoring is part of OU-11. Five-Year Review The initial five-year review for Ellsworth AFB base was completed in September 2000. The second five-year review was completed in September 2005. The reviews focused on the final remedial activities at each OU. Discussions and recommendations were included for the long-term ground water actions at the OUs and for Operation and Maintenance issues with landfill covers. V. Deletion Action EPA, with the State of South Dakota's concurrence, has determined that no additional response is necessary at Ellsworth AFB for surface soil, unsaturated subsurface soil, surface water and sediment media at OU-2, OU-3, OU-4, OU-5, OU-6, OU-7, OU-8, OU-9, OU-10 and OU-12 (approximately 542 acres) and the surface soil, unsaturated subsurface soil, surface water and sediment media of an additional 4,300 acres which are not associated with an operable unit and are not identified as posing a risk to human health or the environment. No further CERCLA response is appropriate or necessary to provide protection of human health and the environment other than the ongoing inspection, maintenance and monitoring activities. Therefore EPA is deleting these portions of the Ellsworth AFB Site. OU-1, OU-11, the Pride Hanger Study Area and the Gateway Lake Ash Study Area will remain on the NPL. Dated: June 8, 2006. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. [FR Doc. E6-10105 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1227; MB Docket No. 06-88; RM-11254] Radio Broadcasting Services; Boonville and Wheatland, MO AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Bittersweet Broadcasting, Inc. to upgrade its Station KWJK-FM, Boonville, Missouri, from Channel 226A to Channel 226C3. *See* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 31, 2006, and reply comments on or before August 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Bittersweet Broadcasting, Inc., 1600 Radio Hill Road, Boonville, Missouri 65233 (Petitioner); and Frederick A. Polner, Esq., Rothman, Gordon Foreman & Groudine, P.C., Third Floor, Grant Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2203 (Counsel to Petitioner). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 06-88, adopted June 7, 2006, and released June 9, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Pursuant to Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, we shall not accept competing expressions of interest pertaining to the use of Channel 226C3 at Boonville, Missouri. Channel 226C3 can be allotted at Boonville at proposed reference coordinates of 38-51-17 NL and 92-38-17 WL. To accommodate the upgrade at Boonville, the document also proposes the substitution of Channel 272A for vacant but applied for Channel 226A at Wheatland, Missouri. Comment is requested from both the rulemaking petitioner and World Radio Link, Inc. (“WRL”), the applicant for Channel 226A, Wheatland, on the tentative conclusion that WRL's application is not entitled to cut-off protection vis-à-vis the Boonville rulemaking petition and that WRL can be required to amend its application to specify Channel 272A, Wheatland, at a rule-compliant site because the application was filed after the rulemaking petition. The proposed reference coordinates for Channel 272A at Wheatland, MO, are 37-58-44 NL and 93-26-49 WL. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri, is amended by removing Channel 226A and adding Channel 226C3 at Boonville and by removing Channel 226A and adding Channel 272A at Wheatland. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-10007 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1230; MB Docket No. 05-295; RM-11280] Radio Broadcasting Services; Cumberland, KY; Glade Spring, Marion, and Weber City, VA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; denial. SUMMARY: The staff denied a petition for rulemaking filed by JBL Broadcasting, Inc. to upgrade, reallot, and change the community of license its Station WVEK-FM, from Channel 274A, Cumberland, Kentucky, to Channel 274C3, Weber City, Virginia, because one of the required channel changes to accommodate this proposal is short-spaced in violation of Section 73.207(a) of the Commission's rules. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-295, adopted June 7, 2006 and released June 9, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This rulemaking petition was proposed in a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order to Show Cause.* *See* 70 FR 70777, November 11, 2005. To accommodate the upgrade and reallotment of Station WVEK-FM to Weber City, it also proposed
(1)the substitution of Channel 263A for then vacant Channel 274A at Glade, Spring, VA; and
(2)the substitution of Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, VA, and the modification of Station WOLD-FM's license accordingly. The rulemaking petition was denied because the proposed allotment of Channel 273A at Marion, Virginia is 6.6 and 0.6 kilometers short-spaced to two mutually exclusive applications for a new FM station on Channel 273A at Shawsville, Virginia. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule was denied.) Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-10008 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 10, 13, 17, and 23 RIN 1018-AD87 Revision of Regulations for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), give notice that we are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to revise the regulations for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We are reopening the public comment period to allow interested parties additional time to comment on the proposed rule. The proposed rule was published and the public comment period initially opened on April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20168). In response to requests, we are reopening the public comment period for an additional 30 days. DATES: Comments must be received by July 28, 2006. If you previously submitted comments on this proposed rule, you do not need to resubmit them during this comment period. Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final determination on the proposal. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by RIN 1018-AD87, by one of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: part23@fws.gov.* • *Fax:*
(703)358-2280. • *Mail or hand delivery:* Dr. Peter Thomas, Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203. See Public Comments Solicited at the end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about submitting comments. All comments received will be available for public inspection by appointment from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the above address. Comments specific to the information collection aspects of this proposed rule should be submitted to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA via facsimile or e-mail using the following fax number or e-mail address:
(202)395-6566 (fax); *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* (e-mail). Please provide a copy of your comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Information Collection Officer, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 222 ARLSQ, Arlington, Virginia 22203;
(703)358-2269 (fax); or *hope_grey@fws.gov* (e-mail). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter Thomas, at the above address (telephone,
(703)358-2093; fax,
(703)358-2280). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background CITES is a treaty that regulates international trade in certain protected species. The United States was one of the original signatories to the Treaty, which has been in effect since July 1, 1975. CITES uses a system of permits and certificates to help ensure that international trade is legal and does not threaten the survival of wildlife or plant species in the wild. Currently 169 countries have ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to CITES; these countries are known as Parties. In the United States, CITES is implemented under the Endangered Species Act, and implementation authority for CITES has been delegated to the Service. We implement CITES through regulations in 50 CFR part 23. Changes to the interpretation and implementation of CITES and amendments to the listing of species in the CITES Appendices occur at meetings of the Conference of the Parties (CoP), which are held every 2 to 3 years. We published a proposed rule on May 8, 2000 (65 FR 26664) (2000 proposal), to incorporate in the CITES regulations at 50 CFR part 23 needed changes resulting from CoP2 through CoP10. The 2000 proposal was never finalized. On April 19, 2006, we published a new proposed rule (71 FR 20168) to incorporate, as appropriate, applicable resolutions adopted at CoP2 through CoP13. We reviewed all of the comments received on the 2000 proposal and addressed them where appropriate in the current proposed rule. The initial comment period on this proposed rule closed on June 19, 2006. In response to requests we received, we are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days. Public Comments Solicited We invite interested organizations and the public to comment on the proposed rule, which generally reflects the way we currently implement CITES. We have drafted the proposal as part of our ongoing permits reform effort to simplify procedures, use risk assessment to reduce paperwork while still ensuring effective species conservation, and help people understand how to conduct international trade in CITES species. We are seeking comments, in particular, on whether the provisions of the proposed rule allow the affected public to effectively comply with CITES. When providing comments, to the extent possible, reference the section of the proposed regulations on which you are commenting and give the category of your comments. Select one of the following categories:
(1)International organization;
(2)government;
(3)nongovernmental conservation organization;
(4)humane or animal welfare organization;
(5)wildlife/pet business;
(6)other business; or
(7)private citizen. You may send comments via e-mail to: *part23@fws.gov.* Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Also, please reference in your e-mail message the following information: “IN 1018-AD87”; your name and mailing address; and the category of your comments. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Any person commenting may request that we withhold their name and home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we may also withhold a commenter's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address or e-mail address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection by appointment, from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., at the Division of Management Authority (see ADDRESSES section). Authority The authority for this action is 27 U.S.C. 1087 and 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: June 19, 2006. Matt Hogan, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E6-10150 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of Finding on a Petition To Delist the Morelet's Crocodile From the List of Threatened and Endangered Species AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of petition finding. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 90-day finding for a petition to delist the Morelet's crocodile ( *Crocodylus moreletii* ) throughout its range from the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Service finds that the petitioner has presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted. A status review of the species is initiated. We seek comments on the petition or information on status of the species, particularly in Guatemala and Belize. DATES: This finding was made on June 21, 2006. Comments and information may be submitted until September 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, information, and questions to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, VA 22203, USA; or by fax (703-358-2276) or by e-mail ( *ScientificAuthority@fws.gov* ). Comments and supporting information will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of Scientific Authority at the above address; or by telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, *ScientificAuthority@fws.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires the Service to make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species has presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. This finding is to be based on all information available to us at the time the finding is made. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following receipt of the petition (this finding is referred to as the “90-day finding”) and published promptly in the **Federal Register.** If the finding is that substantial information was presented indicating that the requested action may be warranted, Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to commence a status review of the species if one has not already been initiated under the Service's internal candidate-assessment process. The Service has made a 90-day finding on a petition to remove from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) the Morelet's crocodile ( *Crocodylus moreletii* ), currently listed as endangered under the Act. The petition was submitted by Mexico's Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO; National Commission for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity), and was received by the Service on May 26, 2005. The documents provided by the petitioner to substantiate the petition included: the raw data and results of a recent population survey and a population viability analysis for the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico with extrapolations for Belize and Guatemala; a detailed analysis of the species against the five factors to be considered by the Service in determining whether to add, reclassify, or remove a species from the list of endangered and threatened species, as per Section 4(a)(1) of the Act; a reevaluation of the risk category assignable to the Morelet's crocodile under the current criteria of The World Conservation Union (IUCN); a reevaluation of the current status of the Morelet's crocodile under Mexican law; information on the Mexican legal framework as related to the conservation and sustainable use of the Morelet's crocodile; and information on conservation actions in Mexico that support the improved status of the Morelet's crocodile. Most of the information provided by the petitioner emphasizes Mexican field studies and species management, with little direct information on the species in the other range countries, but 85 percent of the species' range is in Mexico. Thus, the petition represents substantial information for a significant portion of the species' range. The Morelet's crocodile was listed as endangered throughout its entire range under the predecessor of the Act on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495). The species is found naturally along the Atlantic coast of Mexico and northern Central America ( *i.e.,* Belize and Guatemala), where it inhabits freshwater habitats such as marshes, swamps, ponds, lagoons, and slow-moving rivers (Ross 1998). Throughout the Morelet's crocodile's range, modification of wetlands for agriculture, ranching, development, aquaculture, and plague control previously contributed to significant declines in the species during the 1950s and 1960s (Ross 1998). To reduce the overall impact of habitat loss on biodiversity, all three range countries of the Morelet's crocodile have established protected areas, many of which are inhabited by the Morelet's crocodile. In Mexico, approximately 20 protected areas, comprising an area of 51,867 square kilometers, are inhabited by the Morelet's crocodile (CONABIO 2005). Furthermore, using field data and computer models, CONABIO has recently estimated that, in Mexico alone, a little over 200,000 square kilometers of suitable habitat remain available for the species (CONABIO 2005). Whether or not all suitable habitat contains Morelet's crocodiles is unknown. However, the species was found to be widespread and abundant based on sampling at 62 localities where the computer model identified suitable habitat and, therefore, is likely to occur in unsampled localities with suitable habitat. Although habitat destruction and deterioration continue to occur throughout the range of the Morelet's crocodile, available information suggests that the impact of these activities on wild populations of this species may vary according to the type of activity and its location (Alvarez 1998; CONABIO 2005). For example, although agriculture and ranching reduce forest cover, local farmers and ranchers usually set aside bodies of water for use by cattle and other domesticated animals, indirectly protecting some Morelet's crocodile habitat. In some parts of Mexico, establishment of Morelet's crocodiles in these water sources is not only tolerated, but in some instances encouraged, by ranchers themselves who actively transfer crocodiles to these sites because of their belief that bodies of water inhabited by crocodiles do not dry up. Oil companies in Mexico have further modified wetlands by constructing canals to access oil-drilling rigs. Although the creation of these canals results in fragmentation and reduction of coastal wetlands used by crocodiles, they indirectly increase the amount of habitat available to Morelet's crocodiles, which are able to occupy these artificially created aquatic environments. In addition to habitat destruction, the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group identified over-exploitation as the second major factor responsible for the decline of the Morelet's crocodile (Ross 1998). Uncontrolled hunting for hides greatly reduced wild populations of Morelet's crocodile during the 1940s and 1950s, which prompted the inclusion of this crocodile species in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) on July 1, 1975. Listing in CITES Appendix I prohibits international trade (including importation into the United States) in the species for primarily commercial purposes. Limited trade for non-commercial purposes may be allowed if it is not detrimental to the survival of the species. In addition to the international ban on commercial trade by CITES, all three range countries have enacted laws, still in place, protecting the Morelet's crocodile within their territories (Ross 1998; CONABIO 2005). Whereas a policy of strict protection once appeared to be the best and only way to conserve endangered species, many countries now see that an appropriate means of protecting some species is through farming, ranching, or controlled harvest, and then trade. Such an approach can provide incentives for conservation of species if properly implemented. Although no ranching or farming is known to exist in either Belize or Guatemala (Ross 1998), the Government of Mexico has developed a comprehensive conservation and management program (Proyecto de Conservación, Manejo y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de los Cocodrilos [Project for the Conservation, Management and Sustainable Use of Crocodiles]) for its three crocodilian species (Morelet's crocodile, American crocodile [ *Crocodilus acutus* ], and common caiman [ *Caiman crocodylus fuscus* ]), which includes sustainable use of the species through captive breeding (Alvarez 1998). Under Mexican law, live specimens of Morelet's crocodile may be removed from the wild only to establish parental stock for captive-breeding operations registered with the Government of Mexico. Of all Morelet's crocodile hatchlings produced in captivity, ten percent of them must be set aside for reintroductions into the wild or as breeding stock for other crocodile farms in the country. Only operations capable of breeding Morelet's crocodiles in captivity to the F2 generation are given authorization to kill their crocodiles for commercial purposes. Thus, registered breeding farms reduce harvest pressure on the wild population and augment the wild population through reintroduction of captive-reared young. Adherence to CITES crocodile-marking requirements minimizes the potential for substitution of illegal skins or other parts, and reduces the trade-control problems caused by the similarity in appearance of skins and products from different species of crocodilians. Existing regulatory mechanisms such as CITES and Mexican domestic legislation controlling the harvest and export of Morelet's crocodile skins, parts, and products are playing a role in the recovery of this species. Between 1982 and 2005, the global risk status of the Morelet's crocodile has changed considerably. In 1982, it was categorized as “endangered” by the IUCN. By 1996, the species had been reassigned to the “low risk, conservation dependent” category (Ross 1998), a categorization still in place. However, a preliminary reevaluation of the risk status of the Morelet's crocodile conducted by Mexico using the revised IUCN criteria indicates that the species may qualify for categorization as of “least concern” (CONABIO 2005). To better assess the risk status of the species in the wild, during 2002-2004, CONABIO financed a field survey in 10 Mexican states to determine the relative abundance of the Morelet's crocodile in the wild and gather new information on habitat quality. Based on that study, other available scientific literature, and a workshop of experts, CONABIO has estimated the current global wild Morelet's crocodile population to be around 102,400 animals, with 79,700 in Mexico and, by extrapolation, 13,900 in Guatemala and 8,800 in Belize (CONABIO 2005). Furthermore, a population viability analysis indicates that the probability of the species going extinct over the next 500 years, using a global population of 30,000 (less than 1/3 of the actual population estimate), is 13.8 percent (CONABIO 2005). Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. Specifically, the petitioner has presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the Morelet's crocodile is abundant and widely distributed, particularly in Mexico (the largest part of its range), and that the national and international regulatory mechanisms currently in place may have eliminated the danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(A), we hereby commence a review of the status of the Morelet's crocodile. We encourage the submission of appropriate data, opinions, and publications regarding the subject petition or the status of the species. In particular, we seek information on the status of the species in Guatemala and Belize. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we may also withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that we make a finding within 12 months of receipt of the petition as to whether removal of the Morelet's crocodile from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals. References Cited Alvarez, J. 1998. Conservation and management of *Crocodylus moreletii* in Mexico. Trip Report—July 1998. Unpublished document. CONABIO (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad). 2005. Proposal for the reclassification of Morelet's crocodile ( *Crocodylus moreletii* ) in the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)of the United States of America. Ross, J.P. 1998. Crocodiles: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Second Edition. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Author The primary author of this proposed rule is Dr. Javier Alvarez, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Dated: June 21, 2006. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-10149 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU58 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have determined that the proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard ( *Phrynosoma mcallii* ) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
(Act)of 1973, as amended, is not warranted and, thus, we withdraw our November 29, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 62625). As stated in our January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the species as threatened (68 FR 331), we have made this determination because threats to the species as identified in the November 29, 1993, proposed rule are not significant, and available data do not indicate that the threats to the species and its habitat, as analyzed under the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, are likely to endanger the species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The analyses and conclusions contained in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal (68 FR 331) are incorporated herein by reference subject to the revisions contained in this notice. In this revised withdrawal, we have re-examined the lost historical habitat of the flat-tailed horned lizard in relation to our January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule and have determined that the lost historical habitat is not a significant portion of the flat-tailed horned lizard's range and does not result in the species likely becoming endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation for this rulemaking is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, at the above address (telephone, 760-431-9440, or fax, 760-431-9624). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information on the biology and ecology of this species, factors affecting the species, and current conservation measures applicable to this species can be found in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule (68 FR 331). This document primarily contains information relevant to the current and historical range of this species and the issue of the significance of the lost habitat. We also address the status of several projects and ongoing actions as they relate to the flat-tailed horned lizard and provide an update on several of the actions outlined in the 1997 Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Conservation Agreement ( *see* “Summary of Comments and Recommendations” section). The flat-tailed horned lizard is most commonly found in sandy flats and valleys within creosote ( *Larrea tridentata* ) and white bursage ( *Ambrosia dumosa* ) plant associations or series (Turner *et al.* 1980; Muth and Fisher 1992; Foreman 1997). This series is generally found on alluvial fans and upland slopes with well-drained soils that often have a pavement surface (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995), but flat-tailed horned lizards are usually found in areas with windblown sand deposits. The flat-tailed horned lizard is endemic to the northern Sonoran Desert in southern California, southwestern Arizona, and adjoining portions of northwestern Sonora and Baja California Norte, Mexico (Turner and Medica 1982). Within California, the flat-tailed horned lizard currently ranges in the Colorado Desert portion of the Sonoran Desert, from the Coachella Valley (the northernmost extent of its range), south along both sides of the Imperial Valley. On the west side of the Imperial Valley, the species ranges into the Borrego Valley, Ocotillo Wells area, West Mesa, and Yuha Basin. On the east side of Imperial Valley, the species occurs in the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)Dos Palmas Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), but predominantly occurs in East Mesa and in areas adjoining the Algodones Dunes ( *i.e.* , Imperial Sand Dunes, Glamis Sand Dunes). In Arizona, the flat-tailed horned lizard is found in the Yuma Desert portion of the Sonoran Desert, south of the Gila River and west of the Gila and Butler Mountains (Rorabaugh et al. 1987). The flat-tailed horned lizard is patchily distributed at varying densities throughout its range, and although the species was once recorded at 1,706 feet
(ft)(520 meters (m)) above sea level, it is more commonly found below 820 ft (250 m) in flat areas or areas with gentle slopes (Turner et al. 1980). The range of the flat-tailed horned lizard extends into Mexico from the international border in the Yuha Basin in California, south along the west side of Laguna Salada in Baja California; and from the international border in the Yuma Desert in Arizona, south and east through the Pinacate Region to the sandy plains around Puerto Penasco and Bahia de San Jorge, Sonora (Johnson and Spicer 1985, Gonzales-Romero and Alvarez-Cardenas 1989). Most of the range of the flat-tailed horned lizard in California and Baja California Norte is in the Salton Trough, a low-lying depression that is an extension of the Gulf of California. The lowest areas of the Salton Trough are below sea level and are protected from inundation from the ocean by the Colorado River delta. The geological record indicates that, as the Colorado River meandered across its river delta, it would periodically flow into the Salton Trough and form Lake Cahuilla in the bottom of the Trough. Over time, the river would again flow into the Gulf of California, and Lake Cahuilla would evaporate (Waters 1983). As a result of dams, channelization, and water usage, such flooding no longer occurs. As discussed in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule (68 FR 331), the range of this species in the United States has been analyzed by Hodges
(1997)and the range of the species in the United States and Mexico has been analyzed by Johnson and Spicer (1985). The 2003 revision of the 1997 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy (herein referred to as the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy) is the most recent analysis of the species' range in the United States and Mexico (FTHL-ICC 2003). Hodges
(1997)estimated that the flat-tailed horned lizard historically (prior to agricultural or urban development of either the Coachella or Imperial Valleys) occupied up to 2,419,200 acres
(ac)(979,037 hectares (ha)) in Arizona and California. Approximately 51 percent (1,243,339 ac (503,161 ha)) of the historical habitat identified by Hodges remains in the United States, with about 140,300 ac (56,770 ha) in Arizona and 1,103,040 ac (446,390 ha) in California (Hodges 1997). Hodges
(1997)included the Salton Sea as historical habitat. However, we noted in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal that the Salton Sea area could arguably be considered ephemeral historical habitat, present or absent at times, as the area changed through time as a result of intermittent flooding and drying. At that time we did not consider the effect of the larger Lake Cahuilla. We estimated that if the area now occupied by the Salton Sea was not considered historical habitat, then, using Hodges'
(1997)numbers, approximately 57 percent of historical habitat remains in the United States. Hodges'
(1997)analysis did not include current or historical habitat for this species in Mexico. Johnson and Spicer
(1985)analyzed the current range and threats to the species in the United States and Mexico at that time. They estimated that in 1981 approximately 59 percent of the species' range occurred in Mexico (569,578 ac (230,500 ha)), with the majority of the range in Mexico occurring in the state of Sonora (492,975 ac (199,500 ha)). Johnson and Spicer
(1985)also estimated that 50 percent of the species' habitat in California, Arizona, and Baja California Norte and 14 percent of the species' habitat in Sonora was in danger of conversion to agriculture or urban development and/or degradation due to factors such as off-highway vehicle recreation. Overall, 21 percent of the species' habitat throughout its range was considered in danger of being lost or degraded (Johnson and Spicer 1985). The 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy contained updated information on the current and historical range of the species in the United States and Mexico and made available data on historical and current range in geographic information system
(GIS)format (FTHL-ICC 2003). We analyzed the GIS data used in the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy and estimated the size of the historical and current ranges. We estimated the extent of historic Lake Cahuilla by using a GIS digital elevation model and the estimated elevation the lake reached. We estimated the historical range of the flat-tailed horned lizard in the United States and Mexico to be 4,875,624 ac (1,973,095 ha). Previous Federal Actions On November 29, 1993, we published in the **Federal Register** a proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species pursuant to the Act (58 FR 62624). On May 16, 1997, in response to a lawsuit filed by the Defenders of Wildlife to compel us to make a final listing determination on the flat-tailed horned lizard, the District Court in Arizona ordered the Service to issue a final listing decision within 60 days. A month after the District Court's order, seven State and Federal agencies signed the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Conservation Agreement (referred to herein as the 1997 Conservation Agreement) to implement a Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy to protect the flat-tailed horned lizard on Federal lands. Pursuant to the 1997 Conservation Agreement, cooperating parties agreed to take voluntary steps aimed at “reducing threats to the species, stabilizing the species” populations, and maintaining its ecosystem.” On July 15, 1997, we published in the **Federal Register** a final decision to withdraw the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species (62 FR 37852). We based the withdrawal on three factors:
(1)Population trend data did not conclusively demonstrate significant population declines;
(2)some of the threats to the flat-tailed horned lizard habitat were misunderstood previously; and
(3)we believed that the recently approved “conservation agreement w[ould] ensure further reductions in threats.” Six months following our withdrawal of the proposed listing rule, the Defenders of Wildlife filed a lawsuit challenging our decision. On June 16, 1999, the District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in our favor upholding our decision not to list the flat-tailed horned lizard. However, on July 31, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and directed the District Court to remand the matter back to us for further consideration in accordance with the legal standards outlined in its opinion. The case was remanded back to the Service because
(1)the withdrawal did not expressly consider whether the flat-tailed horned lizard is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range; and
(2)the withdrawal did not “address the lizard's viability in a site-specific manner with regard to the putative benefits of the Conservation Agreement.” On October 24, 2001, the District Court ordered the Service to reinstate the previously effective proposed listing rule within 60 calendar days and, thereafter, commence a 12-month statutory time schedule for a final listing decision, and render our final listing determination in compliance with the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court's order. Accordingly, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** on December 26, 2001, announcing the reinstatement of the November 29, 1993, proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened and the opening of a 120-day public comment period on the reinstated proposed rule (66 FR 66384). On January 3, 2003, we again published in the **Federal Register** a decision to withdraw the November 29, 1993, proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species (68 FR 331). The Service found the lizard to be in danger of extirpation in the Coachella Valley; however, we determined that the Coachella Valley is not a significant portion of the species' range. We concluded in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal that the flat-tailed horned lizard populations on either side of the Imperial Valley/Salton Sea and in Arizona were not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and that listing the species was not warranted. The Tucson Herpetological Society and other environmental organizations and individuals filed a lawsuit challenging our January 3, 2003, withdrawal. On August 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona set aside our withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as a threatened species on the grounds that our withdrawal violated the Act because it failed to determine whether the lost historical habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard was a significant portion of the range for this species. With this exception, all other aspects of the January 3, 2003, withdrawal were upheld by the District Court. On November 17, 2005, the District Court ordered the Service to submit for publication in the **Federal Register** by November 23, 2005, or as soon thereafter as was practicable, a notice advising the public that the January 3, 2003, withdrawal was vacated and that the November 29, 1993, proposed listing rule was reinstated. On December 7, 2005, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** vacating the January 3, 2003, withdrawal and restoring proposed status to the flat-tailed horned lizard (70 FR 72776). The November 17, 2005, order limited the scope of the remand to specifically address whether the lost historical habitat is a significant portion of the range for the flat-tailed horned lizard. The Court further required the Service to publish a determination in the **Federal Register** by April 30, 2006, as to whether the lost historical habitat of the flat-tailed horned lizard constitutes a significant portion of the species' range based on the best scientific and commercial data available. On March 2, 2006, we published a notice announcing the reopening of a 14-day public comment period on the November 29, 1993, proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard under the Act (71 FR 10631). To ensure the public was provided with an adequate opportunity to comment on the matters identified by the Court, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation with the Court on March 28, 2006, to allow for an additional public comment period. On March 29, 2006, the Court granted our request for an extension of the April 30, 2006, deadline, and ordered us to submit the new final listing determination for the flat-tailed horned lizard to the **Federal Register** on or before the date 6 weeks after the close of the second comment period. The second comment period was opened from April 21, 2006 to May 8, 2006 (71 FR 20637). This withdrawal of the November 29, 1993, proposed listing rule complies with the Court's August 30, 2005, and November 17, 2005, orders. For your convenience, here is a list of the primary **Federal Register** documents pertaining to the proposed listing of the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened: Action Date FR citation Proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard as threatened November 29, 1993 58 FR 62624 Withdrawal of proposed rule July 15, 1997 62 FR 37852 Reinstatement of proposed rule; reopening of comment period December 26, 2001 66 FR 66384 Withdrawal of proposed rule January 3, 2003 68 FR 331 Reinstatement of proposed rule December 7, 2005 70 FR 72776 Reopening of comment period March 2, 2006 71 FR 10631 Reopening of comment period April 21, 2006 71 FR 20637 Summary of Comments and Recommendations During both public comment periods on the December 7, 2005 reinstatement of the proposed rule to list, we requested all interested parties to submit information pertaining to the flat-tailed horned lizard's lost historical habitat. We requested this information to make a reexamination based on the best scientific and commercial data currently available. We also reopened the comment period to admit into the record the 2003 revision of the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy. During the public comment periods, we received written comments from a total of 29 entities. Nineteen entities advocated listing of the species, 5 entities advocated not listing the species, and 5 entities did not advocate either decision. As stated previously, in its November 17, 2005 Order, the Court ordered that “on remand the agency need only address the matters on which the court's August 30, 2005 Order * * * found the January 3, 2003 Withdrawal unlawful, which may summarily be identified as whether the lizard's lost historical habitat renders the species in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range.” We received two comments directly related to the issue of the flat-tailed horned lizard's lost historical habitat. However, for informational purposes, we have also provided responses to comments on other substantive issues as well. Similar comments are grouped together. *Comment 1:* One commenter stated that there does not appear to be strong scientific evidence to establish the extent of the historical range of the lizard. The commenter stated that claims that east Imperial County and west Yuma County were historically occupied by flat-tailed horned lizards are unsupportable. The commenter indicates that the present range seems adequate to prevent the extinction of this species. *Our Response:* Delineation of historical habitat is retrospective and not testable in the way that other scientific models are. However, based on knowledge of habitat preference for the species, early descriptions of habitat before development, and early museum records, a reasonable and defensible theoretical estimation of the broad-scale historical range of the species is possible. While there are a number of records of flat-tailed horned lizards from the Imperial Valley and the Yuma Valley in areas that are now developed, locality records do not fully delineate the theoretical range of the flat-tailed horned lizard. Historical museum records are summarized in Funk (1981). *Comment 2:* One commenter stated that the habitat destroyed by human mediated processes and no longer available for the flat-tailed horned lizard in the Imperial, Coachella, and Yuma valleys was significant to the species from a metapopulation dynamics perspective because the availability of large, continuous patches of potentially available habitat provides areas for species to persist as resources ( *i.e.* food, water, and habitat) shift geographically over time. *Our Response:* We interpreted the commenter's statements to pertain to the importance of maintaining large-scale metapopulation dynamics between populations in the Imperial, Coachella, and Yuma valleys. Metapopulation dynamics refers to the process exhibited when local populations become extirpated in response to local conditions but are later recolonized by adjacent patches. We acknowledge that large-scale metapopulation dynamics and gene flow have been disrupted by the loss of connectivity between populations in these areas; however, this loss of connectivity endangers primarily Coachella Valley populations because the other populations are large enough to be self-sustaining. We recognized the precarious status and possibility of extinction of the flat-tailed horned lizard in the Coachella Valley in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal, further acknowledging that if the Coachella Valley populations go extinct, there is no connectivity for repopulation from other areas ( *e.g.* , Imperial Valley). However, we determined that the Coachella Valley populations are not a distinct vertebrate population segment and that the Coachella Valley is not a significant portion of the species' range. Relevant to the importance of maintaining large-scale metapopulation dynamics between Imperial and Yuma Valley populations, most of the intermittent and permanent habitat that has been lost due to human mediated processes ( *e.g.* , urbanization and agriculture) was lost early in the 20th century. This lost habitat is not considered significant because of its small size relative to the entire range and because this area has been lost for nearly a century and the flat-tailed horned lizard has persisted in these areas. As discussed in detail in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule (68 FR 331), the available data concerning population abundance, trends, and threats do not suggest, outside the Coachella Valley, that flat-tailed horned lizard populations are declining in any of the geographic areas, or that because of this habitat loss and degradation the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. As discussed below, recent estimates of population sizes in several management areas in the Imperial Valley (Ocotillo Wells Research Area, West Mesa, Yuha Basin, and East Mesa) and Yuma Valley (Yuma Desert Management Areas) since the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule indicate that, overall, no large decline in population size has occurred between 2003 and 2005 in areas for which we have more than one year of data. Therefore, we do not believe the lost habitat is significant to the species from a large-scale metapopulation perspective, because populations in the Imperial and Yuma valleys appear to be large enough to be self-sustaining despite the loss of habitat between these valleys that occurred early in the 20th century. *Comment 3:* Several commenters stated that this species needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act. *Our Response:* As stated in our January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the species as threatened (68 FR 331), we have made this determination because threats to the species as identified in the November 29, 1993, proposed rule are not significant, and available data do not indicate that the threats to the species and its habitat, as analyzed under the five listing factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, are likely to endanger the species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Also, we have determined, as discussed in this notice, that the lost historical habitat does not render the species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Commenters did not provide new information or data during either comment period on additional threats not already considered in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal. *Comment 4:* Several commenters noted the impacts to the flat-tailed horned lizard that would be associated with the construction of the proposed Yuma Area Service Highway. *Our Response:* The Yuma Area Service Highway has been discussed at many Arizona Interagency Coordinating Committee
(ICC)meetings. Arizona ICC members met repeatedly with Arizona Department of Transportation
(DOT)engineers to ensure compliance with the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy. The Arizona DOT already had long-term plans to construct this highway when the 1997 Conservation Agreement was signed. Therefore, the western border of the Yuma Desert Management Area was defined as the edge of the right-of-way of the future Yuma Area Service Highway. Until the highway is built, the lands under jurisdiction of the signatories of the Conservation Agreement will be managed as part of the Yuma Desert Management Area. The highway, as proposed, would destroy 623 ac (252 ha) of flat-tailed horned lizard habitat and isolate 3,734 ac (1,511 ha) from the Yuma Desert Management Area. Thus, the Yuma Area Service Highway shrinks the 131,000-ac (53,000-ha) Yuma Desert Management Area by a relatively small amount. It is our understanding from the Arizona members of the ICC that Arizona DOT intends to pay compensation for 4,277 ac (1,731 ha) of flat-tailed horned lizard habitat impacted or isolated by the project and that fencing will be installed to deter lizards from crossing the pavement where they may be subject to mortality because of traffic. *Comment 5:* Several commenters noted that the Bureau of Reclamation plans to construct a new reservoir, the All American Canal Drop 2 reservoir, on East Mesa in flat-tailed horned lizard habitat. *Our Response:* The All American Canal Drop 2 reservoir, proposed for construction in Imperial County, California, was discussed extensively at the flat-tailed horned lizard ICC meetings. The 621-acre (251-ha) reservoir, as proposed, will be built on the site formerly used for the Brock Ranch Experimental Research Station and will be adjacent to, but outside the boundaries of the 115,300-acre (46,660-ha) East Mesa Management Area. A map released by the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR)showed that half of the reservoir would be within the boundaries of the East Mesa Management Area. However, according to the BLM, that map was in error. The input canal from the Coachella Canal to the Drop 2 reservoir will cross BLM land in the East Mesa Management Area, along the southern boundary, and will directly impact 295 ac (119 ha) in the Management Area. The input canal will also isolate two small areas of the Management Area; however, these areas are of limited value to flat-tailed horned lizards. The first area is 120 ac (49 ha) in the southeast corner of the Management Area that is already highly impacted by off-highway vehicle
(OHV)activity. The second area is 320 ac (129 ha) on private land that is currently an abandoned jojoba farm and not suitable habitat for flat-tailed horned lizards. It is our understanding from BLM staff that all areas impacted, including the areas to be isolated, will be compensated for by BOR at the ratio dictated by the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy. Since this Management Area is not fenced, the location of the input canal will benefit the Management Area by creating a barrier that will discourage illegal OHV activity. The amount of habitat impacted will fall below the 1 percent of Federal lands allowed by the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy. *Comment 6:* Several commenters pointed out plans for geothermal plants in flat-tailed horned lizard habitat. *Our Response:* It is our understanding from BLM staff that several applications for geothermal leases in the West Mesa Management Area and the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicle Recreation Area have been submitted. At this point in time, the construction of geothermal plants is speculative. A lease allows a project applicant to evaluate the site for geothermal energy. If it is then suitable, the applicant and the BLM must go through the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)process prior to constructing the geothermal facilities. The NEPA requires the Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts, including impacts to listed and sensitive species, of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. *Comment 7:* Several commenters noted the proposal for a large solar energy plant in flat-tailed horned lizard habitat in Imperial Valley. *Our Response:* The solar plant was originally proposed to be built in the West Mesa Management Area, but because of the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy the BLM asked that it be moved out of the West Mesa Management Area and the project proponents agreed. According to the BLM, the current proposed site is on BLM land, is not within any Management Area occupied by the flat-tailed horned lizard, and compensation for any flat-tailed horned lizard lost habitat will be applied, if applicable. *Comment 8:* Several commenters noted the extensive Border Patrol activity in flat-tailed horned lizard habitat. *Our Response:* The Border Patrol is not a signatory of the 1997 Conservation Agreement; however, the ICC works with them on conservation issues. In California, new Border Patrol agents are educated on the impacts to biological and archaeological resources by driving off-road. Recently, an educational video paid for by flat-tailed horned lizard compensation funds was distributed to Border Patrol offices and they agreed to show the video to all existing agents as well as incorporate it into the training for new agents. It is our understanding that the ICC intends to continue working with the Border Patrol to minimize impacts to flat-tailed horned lizard and its habitat associated with the performance of their duties along the border. *Comment 9:* Several commenters stated that the 1997 Conservation Agreement and Rangewide Management Strategy are not working. *Our Response:* Progress toward the goals of the 1997 Rangewide Management Strategy was evaluated during the 2003 revision of the Rangewide Management Strategy and yearly in annual reports. Some of the progress made includes the following: Between 1997 and 2003, surface disturbance was kept well below the 1 percent cap in each of the five Management Areas. Designation of the Management Areas has occurred and the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy has become an official part of the BLM California Desert Conservation Area plan. The Management Areas comprise 485,000 ac (196,273 ha) or 758 square miles (1,963 square kilometers) of presumably the best flat-tailed horned lizard habitat on Federal lands. Compensation funds have been collected for projects in flat-tailed horned lizard habitat and will continue to be collected. These funds have been used to purchase private lands within Management Areas. As outlined in the 1997 Conservation Agreement, research and monitoring for this species have been funded. Research on basic biology such as significant predators, home range size, diet, and reproduction has been conducted since the 1997 Conservation Agreement was signed. Research on impacts such as edge effects and OHV effects has also been conducted. Studies have also been conducted, or are planned, on the efficacy of mitigation measures such as relocation of lizards from project sites and use of under-highway culverts by this species. Methods to monitor this species, such as scat counts, mark-recapture, presence/absence, trapping webs, distance sampling, and occupancy estimation have been tested for this species, and population estimates have been obtained for four Management Areas and the Research Area. Based on these actions as well as others not explicitly mentioned above, we believe that the 1997 Conservation Agreement is helping to conserve the flat-tailed horned lizard and its habitat. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 ( *et seq.* ) and the regulations (50 CFR part 424) that implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. They provide that a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened if one or more of the following five factors are met: 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. E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. As stated above, the November 17, 2005, Court Order limited the scope of the remand to specifically address whether the lost historical habitat is a significant portion of the range for the flat-tailed horned lizard. ( *See* the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule [68 FR 331] for the full discussion of the five factors and their application to the flat-tailed horned lizard.) Therefore, the sole purpose of this withdrawal is to reexamine and expand upon our previous discussions of the five factors in order to address whether the lost historical habitat is a significant portion of the range for the flat-tailed horned lizard. The analysis in this document will primarily reflect lost historical habitat as a component of factor A because factor A requires an analysis of whether the *curtailment* of a species' habitat or range is a threat to its continued existence. Historical and Current Range, and Temporal Baseline We consider the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy to be the best scientific and commercial information available on the historical and current range of the species. The 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy builds on previous information on the range of the species ( *i.e.,* Johnson and Spicer 1985; Hodges 1997) and bases the delineation of historical and current range on the presence of suitable habitat, known localities, and elevation (flat-tailed horned lizards have rarely been found above 750 ft in elevation). As stated above, we analyzed the GIS data used in the 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy, which depicted the approximate current and historical distribution of the flat-tailed horned lizard. We also used GIS to estimate the extent of historic Lake Cahuilla, which was subtracted from the current and historical range of the species. We used our analysis to estimate the historical range of the flat-tailed horned lizard in the United States and Mexico to be 4,875,624 ac (1,973,095 ha). Temporal Baseline In the memorandum of support for the District Court order of August 30, 2005, the Court “found that the Service had failed to satisfy the Ninth Circuit's mandate in a prior phase of this case, by failing to examine whether lost historical habitat constituted a ‘significant portion' of the species' range.” In citing the Ninth Circuit, the District Court noted that the Service ‘has discretion to choose the point in time at which to examine the range because neither the Ninth Circuit nor the [Endangered Species Act] provide ‘a temporal baseline for assessing a species' total range' * * *. The point in time must be sometime in the past, however, and cannot be the current range.” In identifying the lost historical habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard, we determined it was appropriate to consider the available recorded historical information. Lake Cahuilla Lake Cahuilla is an important consideration in determining the historical range of the flat-tailed horned lizard. From prehistoric times to the formation of the current-day Salton Sea, Lake Cahuilla intermittently filled a portion of the Salton Trough. Thus, the lakebed was intermittent habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard. Lake Cahuilla completely filled and evaporated 4 times between 700 to 1580 AD (Waters 1983). At other times, spring floods on the Colorado River would partially fill the trough. During the 1800s, reported episodes of inundation occurred in 1828, 1840, 1849, 1852, 1859, 1862, 1867, and 1897 (Littlefield 1966). A flood in 1891 created a water body of approximately the same surface area as the current Salton Sea (Sykes 1914). The 2003 Rangewide Management Strategy, in discussing the historical range of the flat-tailed horned lizard, states: “The Salton Basin [Salton Trough] had been subjected to frequent inundation from the Colorado River even prior to the accidental flooding from 1905 through 1907, and it is questionable whether this area can be considered historic habitat.” Flat-tailed horned lizards were likely killed during floods as the water rushed into the basin and recolonization occurred as the water evaporated. Even when the lake was dry, a large portion of the dry lakebed was likely unsuitable habitat for flat-tailed horned lizards. The lowest point of the trough was covered in a thick deposit of salt left behind when the water evaporated (Free 1914), which was likely devoid of plant and animal life. This area is now covered by the Salton Sea. Desert sinks and playas like the Salton Trough are typically inhabited by a salt-tolerant community dominated by *Atriplex* (saltbush) species (Baldwin et al. 2002). In the saltiest and wettest parts of a desert sink, *Atriplex* is replaced by more salt-tolerant plants such as pickleweed ( *Salicornia* ), iodine bush ( *Allenrolfea* ), and seepweed ( *Suaeda* ). Parish
(1914)defined the “Salton Sink” as the area between the shoreline of Lake Cahuilla and the then-shrinking Salton Sea. He characterized the vegetation within the Salton Sink as the *Atriplex* zone, because of the domination by *Atriplex* in the sink. “Of this general flora of the Colorado Desert the xerophytic vegetation of the Sink is a part, differentiated mainly by the great preponderance of *Atriplex* spp. in its composition, so that it may be fittingly denominated the *Atriplex* zone” (Parish 1914, p. 89). Creosote, a typical habitat associate for flat-tailed horned lizards, was characterized as “frequent in arid soil throughout the Sink, but scattered and seldom dominant” (Parish 1914, p. 109). Parish described white bursage, another typical habitat associate for flat-tailed horned lizards, as “frequent in detrital soil and occasional in light alluvium. [Locations:] Mecca, Caleb, Durmid, Westmorland.” He described detrital soils as primarily occurring on the northeast margin of the Sink. Thus, the lakebed of Lake Cahuilla was not the typical creosote-bursage habitat association as has been described for this species (Turner and Medica 1982, Turner et al. 1980, FTHL-ICC 2003). The *Atriplex* community in the lakebed was, at best, likely marginal habitat for flat-tailed horned lizards. Flat-tailed horned lizards have been found in association with *Atriplex* in the Dos Palmas area and San Sebastian Marsh area, but a mark-recapture plot in desert sink scrub with no sand in the Dos Palmas ACEC found no flat-tailed horned lizards (Mark Massar, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Palm Springs, pers. comm. 2005). The area surrounding San Sebastian Marsh is in the lakebed of Lake Cahuilla and mirrors the vegetation associations described by Parish
(1914)with areas of *Atriplex,* iodine bush, and mesquite, but the San Sebastian Marsh area has yielded very few flat-tailed horned lizards (FTHL-ICC 2003). Turner *et al.*
(1980)recognized that the lakebed appeared to be lesser quality habitat: “In Imperial County, habitats above the old shoreline of Lake Cahuilla are better than those below the shoreline, possibly because soils above the old shoreline tend to be sandier.” The first known historical record of a flat-tailed horned lizard from the lakebed of Lake Cahuilla was collected near the present-day city of Calexico (Klauber 1932). Other flat-tailed horned lizards were collected early in the 20th century near the present-day cities of Westmorland and Holtville and from the edges of the Salton Sea (Klauber 1932; Funk 1981; Turner et al. 1980). These areas are now urban or agricultural areas. Turner and others (1980), noting the few flat-tailed horned lizards found in association with *Atriplex,* suggested they may represent dispersing individuals. In most cases, flat-tailed horned lizard populations in *Atriplex* habitat appear to be sparse. The exception to this rule may be the high densities of flat-tailed horned lizards found associated with *Atriplex* in the Coachella Valley (FTHL-ICC 2003). However, the windblown sand preferred by flat-tailed horned lizards is found in adequate amounts in the Coachella Valley Preserve (Barrows 1996). The San Sebastian Marsh and Dos Palmas areas described above have little windblown sand. Parish
(1914)describes the soils of the southern part of the sink (south of the current-day Salton Sea) as “loams of very fine compact grain * * * with very small percentages of sand. They are permeable by water only to a slight degree.” No information has been found on the amount of wind-deposited sand that was present in the lakebed. Free
(1914)alludes to accretion dunes in the lakebed that may have been good flat-tailed horned lizard habitat. But Parish (1914), describing the vegetation of the Imperial Valley, reported “wide expanses absolutely devoid of a single plant save in the infrequent furrows and channels which constitute the drainage system.” The precise proportion of the lakebed that historically was habitat, and the quality of that habitat, is difficult to accurately determine. We do not know the precise proportions of specific plant communities that were present in the Salton Sink. We do not know the patterns of windblown sand deposition. Despite the difficulty in accurately determining historic conditions in the dry lakebed, we believe that it contained only a limited amount of suitable habitat, most of which is likely to have been marginal at best. Thus, even if the lakebed were considered historical habitat, it would not be significant to the species. Additionally, recent work on the genetics of the flat-tailed horned lizard suggests that gene flow across the lakebed between the east and west sides of the Salton trough was low even before the current fragmentation due to development and agriculture (Mulcahy *et al.* 2006). The authors state: “* * * suggesting that there has not been substantial gene flow across the Imperial Valley since the drying of Lake Cahuilla. Although historic localities exist in the Imperial Valley, genetic differences suggested limited gene flow across this region prior to human development.” Lost Habitat As discussed above, the area of the historical range periodically inundated by Lake Cahuilla was not important to the long-term viability of the flat-tailed horned lizard because this area was frequently unavailable and likely contained little quality habitat. Much of the area within the former Lake Cahuilla lakebed likely was not only intermittent, but low-quality habitat for the flat-tailed horned lizard, particularly the central salt deposit and saltier, less sandy portions of the *Atriplex* community. Thus, we determined this area should not be considered part of the species' historical habitat. The remainder of this analysis considers the historical habitat outside the area of the former Lake Cahuilla to be the appropriate baseline for assessing the species' total range. Using our estimate that the former Lake Cahuilla was 1,309,409 ac (529,899 ha) based on a 39 ft (12 m) shoreline (Waters 1983) calculated with a GIS digital elevation model, the baseline for assessing the species' range (which excludes the former Lake Cahuilla) was approximately 4,875,624 ac (1,973,095 ha). Below we describe the significance of lost habitat within this delineated historical habitat (outside the area of the former Lake Cahuilla). Approximately 1,103,201 ac (446,450 ha) have been lost, nearly entirely within two areas: the Coachella Valley, and Mexicali and Yuma areas. In the January 3, 2003, withdrawal, we determined that the Coachella Valley, including its lost associated habitat, is not a significant portion of the range. Near Mexicali, agriculture extends from Mexicali south to near the Gulf of California and east to the Colorado River. This block of lost habitat is contiguous (across the Colorado River) with the block of lost habitat in the Yuma area. The block of habitat that encompasses northeastern Baja California Norte and southwestern Arizona is the largest block of lost habitat. These habitat areas were likely converted to agriculture early in the 20th century, similar to that described for the Imperial Valley (Imperial Irrigation District 2002). The lost habitat is not significant because of its small size relative to the entire range and because this area has been lost to agriculture for nearly a century and the flat-tailed horned lizard has persisted. Since the early 20th century, the species has persisted on East Mesa and West Mesa, and in the Yuha Basin over many generations. Flat-tailed horned lizards rarely live more than 4 years in the wild and can reproduce in their first or second year (FTHL-ICC 2003). If the median generation time is 2 years, then more than 25 generations of flat-tailed horned lizards have come and gone since most of the habitat conversion to agriculture production took place. This continued persistence over a span of nearly 100 years is a strong indication that the species will continue to persist into the foreseeable future despite the loss of historical habitat. We do not expect additional conversion of flat-tailed horned lizard habitat to agriculture in the future in the Imperial Valley and elsewhere along the Colorado River given the existing limitations on the availability of water for irrigation (Imperial Irrigation District 2002). In fact, a recent water transfer agreement with San Diego required some fields to remain fallow (unirrigated); therefore, agricultural use may even decrease in this area (Imperial Irrigation District 2006). Though the lost habitat is situated between the Arizona-Sonora and California-Baja California Norte populations, the Colorado River already isolated these populations to some degree. The lost habitat of the flat-tailed horned lizard in the United States and Mexico is not viable for flat-tailed horned lizards in the foreseeable future. Much of this habitat has been permanently lost due to urbanization and/or flooding of the Salton Sea. Habitat lost due to agricultural uses may be restored in certain cases in the future, though most agricultural fields are isolated from existing flat-tailed horned lizard populations by irrigation canals like the Coachella Canal, Highline Canal, and All-American Canal. We do not anticipate any significant amount of previously lost habitat could become viable habitat in the future. In sum, we believe the lost habitat does not represent a significant portion of the range of the flat-tailed horned lizard because the lost habitat was lost decades ago and the species has persisted. Most of the lost habitat was lost early in the century and that lost habitat was not significant enough to lead to the species' extirpation within intact habitat through edge effects or fragmentation. There were no attributes or specific uses of the lost habitat by flat-tailed horned lizards that made it any more significant than any other habitat. For example, a significant part of a range for a species might be a breeding ground or lek site, but there is nothing of the sort for flat-tailed horned lizards. Additionally, as discussed in detail in the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule (68 FR 331), the available data concerning population abundance, trends, and threats do not suggest, outside the Coachella Valley, that flat-tailed horned lizard populations are declining in any of the geographic areas, or that because of this habitat loss and degradation the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Recent estimates of population sizes have been conducted in the West Mesa, Yuha Basin, East Mesa, and the Yuma Desert Management Areas and Ocotillo Wells Research Area since the January 3, 2003, withdrawal of the proposed listing rule (Young et al. 2004; Hollenbeck, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Parks and Recreation, pers. comm. 2005; Grant 2005). Overall, no large decline in population size occurred between 2003 and 2005 in areas for which we have more than one year of data (Grant 2005, Hollenbeck, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Parks and Recreation, pers. comm. 2005). Finding On January 3, 2003 (68 FR 331), the Service issued a decision to withdraw the proposal to list the flat-tailed horned lizard. The Tucson Herpetological Society and other environmental organizations and individuals filed a lawsuit to challenge our decision. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona upheld our decision with the exception that we had failed to consider whether the lost historical range of the flat-tailed horned lizard constituted a significant portion of the range. This notice addresses this issue. We reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available and determined that the lost habitat is not a significant portion of the species range, and does not render the species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We conclude that the lost habitat is not significant because the species has persisted despite a large amount of habitat loss in the early 20th century, the species remains viable throughout most of its current extant range, and there were no particular attributes of the lost habitat that made it any more significant than any other part of the range. Therefore, based on the above reasoning and the reasoning presented in the January 3, 2003 withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard (68 FR 331), we have determined that the flat-tailed horned lizard is not likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. References Cited A complete list of all references cited is available at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above). Author The primary author of this document is the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above). Authority The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: June 20, 2006. Marshall Jones, Jr., Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-10138 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 124 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number FV-06-311] United States Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), is soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng. AMS received a request from the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin (GBW), to develop the standards. The proposed standards would provide a common language for trade and a means of measuring value in the marketing of cultivated ginseng, thus promoting orderly and efficient marketing of ginseng. DATES: Comments must be received by August 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, e-mail *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.* Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The proposed United States Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng are available either from the above address or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185, E-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is proposing to establish the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Background AMS received a request from the GBW to develop United States Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng. The GBW represents shippers, processors and all the cultivated ginseng growers in Wisconsin. AMS met with members of the GBW on a number of occasions to develop the proposed U.S. Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng. The proposal would establish the following grades, as well as a range of numerical values for each grade: U.S. Premium, U.S. Select, U.S. Medium and U.S. Standard. In addition, proposed basic requirements for all grades, size, sample size, color, wrinkle and a definitions section would be established. The proposal will provide a common language for trade and a means of measuring value in the marketing of cultivated ginseng. The official grade of a lot of cultivated ginseng covered by the standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1 to 51.61). This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on changes to the standards. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: June 23, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 06-5851 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 17
22 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 180.1(i)
  • 40 CFR 180.1210
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 40 CFR 300.425(e)
  • 40 CFR 300.425
  • 47 CFR 73
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
  • 47 CFR 1.415
  • 50 CFR 23
  • 27 USC 1087
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 17.11
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 7 USC 1621-1627
  • 7 CFR 36
  • 7 CFR 51.1
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 346a
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 272
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Cite40 CFR 180
Cite40 CFR 2
Cite40 CFR 180.1(i)
Cites 39 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.