Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 28507 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 15, 2013. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 30, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. The table in § 52.770 paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding entries in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Lake and Porter 

Counties 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan’’ and ‘‘Lake and 

Porter Counties 1997 annual PM2.5

maintenance plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

Lake and Porter Counties 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan.

February 1, 2013 ....... May 15, 2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE DOCUMENT 

BEGINS].

Revision to motor vehicle emission 

budgets. 

Lake and Porter Counties 1997 annual 

PM2.5 maintenance plan.

February 1, 2013 ....... May 15, 2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE DOCUMENT 

BEGINS].

Revision to motor vehicle emission 

budgets. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 52.776, revise paragraph (v)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.776 Control strategy: Particulate atter. 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(4) Approval—On February 1, 2013, 

Indiana submitted a request to revise the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(budgets) in the 1997 annual PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Lake and 

Porter County, Indiana maintenance 

area. The budgets are being revised with 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2015 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for Lake and 

Porter County, Indiana are 347.30 tpy 

PM2.5 and 10,486.08 tpy NOX. The 2025 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Lake and Porter County area are 188.73 

tpy PM2.5 and 5,472.34 tpy for NOX. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 52.777, paragraph (pp) is 

amended by redesignating the existing 

text as paragraph (pp)(1) and by adding 

paragraph (pp)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.777 Control Strategy: photochemical 

oxidants. (hydrocarbons). 

* * * * * 

(pp)(1) * * * 

(2) Approval—On February 1, 2013, 

Indiana submitted a request to revise the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(budgets) in the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Lake and 

Porter County, Indiana maintenance 

area. The budgets are being revised with 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2010 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for Lake and 

Porter County, Indiana are 13.99 tpd 

VOC and 47.26 tpd NOX. The 2020 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Lake and Porter County area are 5.99 

tpd VOC and 16.69 tpd for NOX. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–11456 Filed 5–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107; FRL–9382–8] 

Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of spirotetramat 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. This regulation additionally 

removes several permanent and timelimited tolerances, because they are 

superseded by new tolerances 

established by this document. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

15, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 15, 2013, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
28508 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; email address: 

nollen.laura@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. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0107 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before July 15, 2013. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0107, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of April 4, 

2012 (77 FR 20334) (FRL–9340–4), EPA 

issued a document pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

petition (PP 1E7958) by IR–4, 500 

College Road East, Suite 201 W, 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.641 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the insecticide spirotetramat, 

cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl 

carbonate, and its metabolites, cis-3- 

(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one, 

cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decane-2,4- 

dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8- 

methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3- 

(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one, 

calculated as spirotetramat equivalents, 

in or on taro, leaves at 9 parts per 

million (ppm); watercress at 1.5 ppm; 

pomegranate at 0.5 ppm; banana at 4 

ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3–07 at 0.6 

ppm; berry, low growing, except 

strawberry, subgroup 13–07H at 0.3 

ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13–07B at 3 

ppm; artichoke, globe at 2 ppm; 

vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 2.5 

ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 0.7 

ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.6 

ppm; pineapple at 0.3 ppm; pineapple, 

process residue at 0.36 ppm; coffee, 

green beans at 0.2 ppm; and coffee, roast 

beans at 0.32 ppm. The petition 

additionally requested to remove the 

established spirotetramat tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.641 for onion, bulb, 

subgroup 3A–07 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, 

citrus, group 10 at 0.60 ppm; fruit, 

pome, group 11 at 0.70 ppm; okra at 2.5 

ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 

2.5 ppm, because they would be 

superseded by new tolerances. 

That document referenced a summary 

of the petition prepared on behalf of IR– 

4 by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, 

which is available in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. There were 

no comments received in response to 

the notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has revised 

the tolerance levels for several proposed 

commodities. The Agency has also 

determined that the proposed tolerances 

on pineapple, process residue, and 

coffee, roast beans, are not necessary 

and a tolerance on coffee, instant, 

should be established. The reasons for 

these changes are explained in Unit 

IV.C. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 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. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires 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. . . .’’ 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has 

reviewed the available scientific data 

and other relevant information in 

support of this action. EPA has 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 28509 

sufficient data to assess the hazards of 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for spirotetramat 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with spirotetramat follows. 

A. Toxicological Profile 

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability as well as 

the relationship of the results of the 

studies 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 thyroid and thymus glands were 

target organs in oral subchronic toxicity 

studies in dogs, the most sensitive 

species tested. The thyroid effects in 

dogs consisted of lower circulating 

levels of thyroid hormones along with a 

reduction in follicle size, a possible 

indication of reduced amount of colloid. 

Thymus effects in dogs were described 

microscopically as involution, which 

also resulted in decreased organ weight. 

In rats, the testes were the target organs 

following subchronic and chronic oral 

treatments. The effects on the rat testes 

consisted of abnormal spermatozoa and 

hypospermia in the epididymis, 

decreased testicular weights, and 

testicular degenerative vacuolation. 

The 2-generation rat reproductive 

toxicity study showed evidence of male 

reproductive toxicity similar to chronic 

and subchronic studies with adult rats. 

However, development of the sexual 

organs in the offspring (balano-preputial 

separation, vaginal opening) was 

unaffected. In an investigative study 

designed to explore the time of onset of 

testicular toxicity in rats, decreased 

epididymal sperm counts were noted 

after 10 days of exposure. Similar effects 

were observed after repeated dosing 

with the enol metabolite of 

spirotetramat. In the rat developmental 

toxicity study, offspring toxicity 

(reduced fetal weight and increased 

incidences of malformations and 

skeletal deviations) was observed at the 

same dose level (limit dose) as maternal 

toxicity (decreased maternal body 

weight and food consumption). In the 

developmental toxicity study in the 

rabbit, late abortions and other signs of 

systemic toxicity were observed only in 

the presence of impaired maternal food 

and water consumption and body 

weight loss. 

The only evidence of neurotoxicity in 

the rat acute neurotoxicity study was 

based on decreased motor and 

locomotor activity, which occurred only 

at relatively high dose levels. EPA’s 

preliminary review of a recently 

submitted rat subchronic neurotoxicity 

study does not indicate a concern for 

neurotoxicity, even at relatively high 

dose levels. The results of an 

immunotoxicity study in rats do not 

indicate any functional deficits in 

immune function. No evidence of tumor 

formation was found following longterm carcinogenicity studies in mice 

and rats, and spirotetramat was also 

negative for mutagenicity and 

clastogenicity in several standard in 

vivo and in vitro assays. 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by spirotetramat as well 

as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level 

(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document: 

‘‘Spirotetramat. Human-Health Risk 

Assessment for the Proposed Uses in/on 

Taro, Leaves; Watercress; Pomegranate; 

Banana; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3–07; 

Low growing Berry Subgroup 13–07H, 

Except Strawberry and Lowbush 

Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13–07B; 

Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting, 

Group 8–10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11–10; 

Fruit, Citrus, Group 10–10; Pineapple; 

and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S. 

Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel 

Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part 

of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory 

Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot 

Project’’ at pp. 38–43 in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107. 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern 

Once a pesticide’s toxicological 

profile is determined, EPA identifies 

toxicological points of departure (POD) 

and levels of concern to use in 

evaluating the risk posed by human 

exposure to the pesticide. For hazards 

that have a threshold below which there 

is no appreciable risk, the toxicological 

POD is used as the basis for derivation 

of reference values for risk assessment. 

PODs are developed based on a careful 

analysis of the doses in each 

toxicological study to determine the 

dose at which no adverse effects are 

observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ 

safety factors are used in conjunction 

with the POD to calculate a safe 

exposure level—generally referred to as 

a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a 

reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin 

of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold 

risks, the Agency assumes that any 

amount of exposure will lead to some 

degree of risk. Thus, the Agency 

estimates risk in terms of the probability 

of an occurrence of the adverse effect 

expected in a lifetime. For more 

information on the general principles 

EPA uses in risk characterization and a 

complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ 

riskassess.htm. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for spirotetramat used for 

human risk assessment is discussed in 

Unit III. B. Toxicological Points of 

Departure/Levels of Concern of the final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

issue of May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28675) 

(FRL–8865–8). 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to spirotetramat, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing spirotetramat tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.641. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from spirotetramat in food as 

follows: 

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute 

dietary exposure and risk assessments 

are performed for a food-use pesticide, 

if a toxicological study has indicated the 

possibility of an effect of concern 

occurring as a result of a 1-day or single 

exposure. Such effects were identified 

for spirotetramat. 

In estimating acute dietary exposure, 

EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation 

Model software with the Food 

Commodity Intake Database (DEEM– 

FCID) Version 3.16, which uses food 

consumption data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey, What We Eat in 

America (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 

through 2008. As to residue levels in 

food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop 

treated (PCT) and tolerance-level 

residues for all commodities. DEEM 

version 7.81 default processing factors 

were used for processed commodities, 

where provided. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the food consumption data 

from the USDA’s 2003–2008 NHANES/ 

WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, 

EPA used 100 PCT, average field trial 

residues for some commodities, and 

tolerance-level residues for the 

remaining commodities. Empirical 

processing factors were used for apple, 

grape, orange, pineapple, and tomato 

juices; applesauce; and dried apple and 

tomato. DEEM version 7.81 default 

processing factors were used for other 

processed commodities, where 

provided. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
28510 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that spirotetramat does not 

pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, 

a dietary exposure assessment for the 

purpose of assessing cancer risk is 

unnecessary. 

iv. Anticipated residue information. 

Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA 

authorizes EPA to use available data and 

information on the anticipated residue 

levels of pesticide residues in food and 

the actual levels of pesticide residues 

that have been measured in food. If EPA 

relies on such information, EPA must 

require pursuant to FFDCA section 

408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years 

after the tolerance is established, 

modified, or left in effect, demonstrating 

that the levels in food are not above the 

levels anticipated. For the present 

action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 

as are required by FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 

FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be 

required to be submitted no later than 

5 years from the date of issuance of 

these tolerances. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The residues of concern in 

drinking water for risk assessment 

purposes are spirotetramat and the 

metabolites spirotetramat-enol and 

spirotetramat-ketohydroxy. The Agency 

used screening level water exposure 

models in the dietary exposure analysis 

and risk assessment for spirotetramat 

and its metabolites in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

spirotetramat and its metabolites. 

Further information regarding EPA 

drinking water models used in pesticide 

exposure assessment can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/ 

water/index.htm. 

Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and 

Screening Concentration in Ground 

Water (SCI–GROW) model, the 

estimated drinking water concentrations 

(EDWCs) of spirotetramat and its 

metabolites for surface water are 

estimated to be 395 parts per billion 

(ppb) for acute and chronic exposures. 

For ground water, the EDWCs are 

estimated to be 1.24 × 10¥3 ppb for 

acute and chronic exposures. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For the 

acute and chronic dietary risk 

assessments, the water concentration 

value of 395 ppb was used to assess the 

contribution to drinking water. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Spirotetramat is not registered for any 

specific use patterns that would result 

in residential exposure. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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.’’ EPA has not 

found spirotetramat to share a common 

mechanism of toxicity with any other 

substances, and spirotetramat does not 

appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. For the 

purposes of this tolerance action, 

therefore, EPA has assumed that 

spirotetramat does not have a common 

mechanism of toxicity with other 

substances. For information regarding 

EPA’s efforts to determine which 

chemicals have a common mechanism 

of toxicity and to evaluate the 

cumulative effects of such chemicals, 

see EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children (Start) 

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of 

FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 

an additional tenfold (10X) margin of 

safety for infants and children in the 

case of threshold effects to account for 

prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. This additional margin of 

safety is commonly referred to as the 

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 

Safety Factor (SF). In applying this 

provision, EPA either retains the default 

value of 10X, or uses a different 

additional SF when reliable data 

available to EPA support the choice of 

a different factor. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

There was no evidence of increased 

qualitative or quantitative susceptibility 

of rats or rabbits to prenatal or postnatal 

exposure to spirotetramat. In the rat 

developmental toxicity study, offspring 

toxicity was observed at the same dose 

as maternal toxicity, at the limit dose. In 

the developmental toxicity study in the 

rabbit, only maternal toxicity was 

observed. In both reproductive toxicity 

studies, offspring toxicity (decreased 

body weight) was observed at the same 

dose as parental toxicity. Therefore, no 

evidence of increased susceptibility of 

offspring was found across four relevant 

toxicity studies with spirotetramat. 

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined 

that reliable data show the safety of 

infants and children would be 

adequately protected if the FQPA SF 

were reduced to 1X. That decision is 

based on the following findings: 

i. The toxicity database for 

spirotetramat is complete. 

Immunotoxicity and subchronic 

neurotoxicity studies were reported as 

data gaps for spirotetramat in the last 

published final rule, published in the 

Federal Register issue of May 18, 2011. 

Since that final rule, an immunotoxicity 

study in rats has been submitted and 

reviewed by the Agency. Although the 

toxicology database for spirotetramat 

shows effects in the thymus gland in 

dog studies, the results of the rat 

immunotoxicity study do not indicate 

any functional deficits in the immune 

function. Thymus involution has been 

demonstrated to occur when 

hypothyroidism is induced in animals, 

so it is reasonable to conclude that the 

thymus involution in dogs was 

secondary to thyroid effects, rather than 

a direct effect on the immune system. 

The Agency has also recently received 

the subchronic neurotoxicity study in 

rats. Though a complete review of the 

study is pending, a preliminary review 

of the recently submitted subchronic rat 

neurotoxicity study does not indicate a 

concern for neurotoxicity, even at 

relatively high dose levels, which is 

consistent with the Agency’s 

conclusions regarding the potential 

neurotoxicity of spirotetramat in the 

May 18, 2011 final rule, and consistent 

with what the Agency expects for 

structurally related compounds. In the 

available acute neurotoxicity study, the 

only evidence of neurotoxicity was 

based on decreased motor and 

locomotor activity, which occurred only 

at relatively high dose levels (200 

milligrams/kilogram body weight (mg/ 

kg bw)). The observed decreased motor 

activity was not considered evidence of 

direct neurotoxicity because there were 

no effects on movement or gait and 

there were no confirmatory findings of 

neurological pathology observed at 

relatively high doses. Moreover, the 

existing toxicological database indicates 

that spirotetramat is not a neurotoxic 

chemical in mammals. Finally, the 

acute, subchronic, and developmental 

neurotoxicity studies available for 

structurally related compounds 

(spirodiclofen and spiromesifen) do not 

show evidence of neurotoxicity in 

adults or the young. 

ii. There is no evidence that 

spirotetramat results in increased 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 28511 

susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits 

in the prenatal developmental studies or 

in young rats in the 2-generation 

reproduction study. 

iii. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The acute and chronic dietary food 

exposure assessments were performed 

based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level or 

average field trial residues. EPA made 

conservative (protective) assumptions in 

the ground and surface water modeling 

used to assess exposure to spirotetramat 

in drinking water. These assessments 

will not underestimate the exposure and 

risks posed by spirotetramat. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic dietary pesticide exposures are 

safe by comparing aggregate exposure 

estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and 

chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer 

risks, EPA calculates the lifetime 

probability of acquiring cancer given the 

estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, 

intermediate-, and chronic-term risks 

are evaluated by comparing the 

estimated aggregate food, water, and 

residential exposure to the appropriate 

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE 

exists. 

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions discussed in this unit for 

acute exposure, the acute dietary 

exposure from food and water to 

spirotetramat will occupy 16% of the 

aPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to spirotetramat 

from food and water will utilize 76% of 

the cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. There are no residential uses 

for spirotetramat. 

3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. 

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate 

exposure takes into account short- and 

intermediate-term residential exposure 

plus chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). Short- and 

intermediate-term adverse effects were 

identified; however, spirotetramat is not 

registered for any use patterns that 

would result in short- or intermediateterm residential exposure. Short- and 

intermediate-term risks are assessed 

based on short- and intermediate-term 

residential exposures plus chronic 

dietary exposure. Because there are no 

short- or intermediate-term residential 

exposures and chronic dietary exposure 

has already been assessed under the 

appropriately protective cPAD (which is 

at least as protective as the POD used to 

assess short- and intermediate-term 

risk), no further assessment of short- or 

intermediate-term risk is necessary, and 

EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk 

assessment for evaluating short- and 

intermediate-term risk for spirotetramat. 

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Based on the lack of 

evidence of carcinogenicity in two 

adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, 

spirotetramat is not expected to pose a 

cancer risk to humans. 

5. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population, or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to spirotetramat 

residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology, 

a high-performance liquid 

chromatography with tandem mass 

spectrometry (HPLC–MS/MS), is 

available to enforce the tolerance 

expression. 

The method may be requested from: 

Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; 

email address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has established a MRL for 

spirotetramat in or on pome fruit at 0.7 

ppm, which is harmonized with the 

pome fruit group 11–10 tolerance in the 

United States. However, Codex has 

established other MRLs for which the 

United States cannot harmonize 

tolerances: A Codex MRLs on fruiting 

vegetables except chili pepper at 1 ppm, 

chili pepper at 2 ppm, and dried chili 

pepper at 15 ppm are not harmonized 

with the U.S. tolerance on fruiting 

vegetable group 8–10 at 2.5 ppm; and a 

Codex MRL for citrus at 0.5 ppm is not 

harmonized with a U.S. tolerance on 

citrus 0.60 ppm. These MRLs are 

different than the tolerances established 

for spirotetramat in the United States 

because the residue definition in the 

United States includes additional 

metabolites not included in the Codex 

residue definition. Because of the 

differences in the residue definition, the 

residue field trial information in the 

United States results in different 

calculated tolerances than those 

established by Codex; therefore, the 

United States cannot harmonize with 

Codex. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

Based on the data submitted with the 

petition, EPA is revising the proposed 

tolerances in or on watercress from 1.5 

ppm to 2.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 

3–07 from 0.6 ppm to 0.80 ppm; and 

artichoke, globe from 2 ppm to 1.5 ppm. 

The Agency revised these tolerance 

levels based on analysis of the residue 

field trial data using the Organization 

for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) tolerance 

calculation procedures. Additionally, 

the Agency determined that the 

proposed tolerances in or on pineapple, 

process residue, and coffee, roast beans, 

are not necessary because the calculated 

tolerance values for these processed 

commodities are less than the 

recommended tolerances in or on 

pineapple and coffee, green bean. 

Finally, based on the available 

processing data, EPA determined that a 

tolerance should be established in or on 

coffee, instant at 0.50 ppm. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of spirotetramat, cis-3-(2,5- 

dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1- 

azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl 

carbonate, and its metabolites, cis-3- 

(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one, 

cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decane-2,4- 

dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8- 

methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3- 

(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one, in 

or on taro, leaves at 9.0 ppm; watercress 

at 2.0 ppm; pomegranate at 0.50 ppm; 

banana at 4.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
28512 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

group 3–07 at 0.80 ppm; berry, low 

growing, except strawberry, subgroup 

13–07H at 0.30 ppm; bushberry 

subgroup 13–07B at 3.0 ppm; artichoke, 

globe at 1.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11– 

10 at 0.70 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, 

group 8–10 at 2.5 ppm; fruit, citrus, 

group 10–10 at 0.60 ppm; pineapple at 

0.30 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.20 

ppm; and coffee, instant at 0.50 ppm. 

This regulation additionally removes 

established tolerances of spirotetramat 

in or on onion, bulb, subgroup 3A–07 at 

0.30 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.60 

ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.70 ppm; 

okra at 2.5 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, 

group 8 at 2.5 ppm. Finally, this final 

rule removes the time-limited tolerances 

in or on onion, dry bulb at 0.3 ppm and 

watercress at 1.5 ppm because they are 

superseded by new permanent 

tolerances. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) 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 final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

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

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 1, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

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. In § 180.641: 

■ i. Remove from the table in paragraph 

(a)(1) the commodities ‘‘Fruit, citrus, 

group 10,’’ ‘‘Fruit, pome, group 11,’’ 

‘‘Okra,’’ ‘‘Onion, bulb, subgroup 3A– 

07 1,’’ and ‘‘Vegetable, fruiting, group 

8.’’ 

■ ii. Add alphabetically to the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) the following 

commodities. 

■ iii. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*****

Artichoke, globe ........................ 1 .5 

*****

Berry, low growing, except 

strawberry, subgroup 13–07H 0 .30 

*****

Bushberry subgroup 13–07B .... 3 .0 

*****

Coffee, green bean ................... 0 .20 

Coffee, instant .......................... 0 .50 

*****

Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ......... 0 .60 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ......... 0 .70 

*****

Pineapple .................................. 0 .30 

*****

Pomegranate ............................ 0 .50 

*****

Taro, leaves .............................. 9 .0 

Vegetable, bulb, group 3–07 .... 0 .80 

*****

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 2 .5 

*****

Watercress ................................ 2 .0 

*****

* * * * * 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. Tolerances with regional 

registrations are established for residues 

of the insecticide spirotetramat, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the table below. Compliance with the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 28513 

tolerance levels specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of spirotetramat (cis-3-(2,5- 

dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1- 

azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl 

carbonate) and its metabolites cis-3-(2,5- 

dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8-methoxy1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-2-one, cis-3- 

(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-3-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decane-2,4- 

dione, cis-3-(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-8- 

methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en4-yl beta-D-glucopyranoside, and cis-3- 

(2,5-dimethylphenyl)-4-hydroxy-8- 

methoxy-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-2-one, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of spirotetramat, in or on the 

following commodities. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Banana ....................................... 4.0 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–11195 Filed 5–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0002; 

FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E30000] 

RIN 1018–AX59 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of the Magazine 

Mountain Shagreen From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), remove the 

Magazine Mountain shagreen 

(Inflectarius magazinensis) from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (delist). This 

determination is based on a thorough 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial data, which indicate 

that the threats to this species have been 

eliminated or reduced to the point that 

the species has recovered and no longer 

meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective June 

14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in the 

preparation of this rule, are available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov [Docket No. FWS– 

R4–ES–2012–0002]. These materials are 

also available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arkansas Ecological Services Field 

Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 

300, Conway, AR 72032; 501–513–4470 

(phone); 501–513–4480 (fax). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James F. Boggs, Field Office Supervisor, 

Phone: 501–513–4470. Persons who use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. Direct all written 

questions or requests for additional 

information to: MAGAZINE 

MOUNTAIN SHAGREEN QUESTIONS, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arkansas Ecological Services Field 

Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 

300, Conway, AR 72032. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Previous Federal Actions—On April 

17, 1989, we published a final rule in 

the Federal Register (54 FR 15206) 

listing Magazine Mountain shagreen as 

threatened. The final rule identified the 

following threats to Magazine Mountain 

shagreen: loss of habitat due to a 

military proposal to conduct troop and 

heavy equipment movements and 

artillery operations on Magazine 

Mountain; loss of habitat due to 

development of a new State park on 

Magazine Mountain that would include 

construction of new buildings, roads, 

and trails; increased recreational use 

due to development of the State park; 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service (USFS) use of the land; and 

increased vulnerability to collecting and 

adverse habitat modification due to the 

species’ restricted range. On February 1, 

1994, we approved the Magazine 

Mountain Shagreen Recovery Plan 

(Service 1994, 12 pp.). On July 6, 2009, 

we initiated a 5-year status review of 

this species (74 FR 31972). This rule 

completes the status review. On June 19, 

2012, we published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register (77 FR 36460) to 

delist the Magazine Mountain shagreen. 

Additional details on previous Federal 

actions were provided in the proposed 

delisting rule (see 77 FR 36461). 

Species Information—Magazine 

Mountain shagreen (Inflectarius 

magazinensis) is a medium-sized, dusky 

brown or buff-colored snail, measuring 

approximately 0.5 inch (in.; 13 

millimeters (mm)) wide and 0.3 in. (7 

mm) high. Although the species’ 

taxonomic name has changed since it 

was listed in 1989, Magazine Mountain 

shagreen has not been split from or 

combined with any other land snail 

species or subspecies. The entity that is 

now called Inflectarius magazinensis is 

the same entity that was known as 

Mesodon magazinensis. Additional 

details on the taxonomy of the species, 

including the name change, were 

provided in the proposed delisting rule 

(see 77 FR 36461). 

Magazine Mountain shagreen is 

historically known from only the north 

slope of Magazine Mountain, Logan 

County, Arkansas (Pilsbry and Ferriss 

1907, p. 545; Caldwell et al. 2009, p. 4). 

The south slopes of Magazine Mountain 

were surveyed extensively by Caldwell 

(1986 in Service 1994, p. 3) and 

Caldwell et al. (2009, p. 4), but they did 

not find Magazine Mountain shagreen 

on the south slopes. Populations occur 

in the portion of talus (a sloping mass 

of loose rocks) covered by vegetation or 

leaf litter at an elevation of 2,200 feet (ft; 

670.6 meters (m)) to 2,600 ft (792.5 m) 

in the Savanna Sandstone formation 

calved (broken off or splintered into 

pieces) due to weathering and erosion of 

interbedded shales (Caldwell et al. 

2009, p. 4; Service 1994, p. 3). The 

majority of talus is above 2,200 ft (670.6 

m) elevation on the north and west 

slopes, with Magazine Mountain 

shagreen populations occurring between 

2,400 ft (731.5 m) and 2,600 ft (792.5 m). 

In the north slope of Bear Hollow, the 

talus begins at approximately 2,200 ft 

(670.6 m) and in some calved areas 

extends to near 2,265 ft (690.4 m) 

elevation. In Bear Hollow, Magazine 

Mountain shagreen is restricted to the 

upper vegetated elevation end of this 

talus range (Caldwell et al. 2009, pp. 

4–5). 

The rocky slopes formed by the 

removal of softer, more easily eroded 

shale on the steep slopes cause the more 

resistant sandstone capping Magazine 

Mountain to break off and accumulate 

along the flanks. This situation provides 

the ideal habitat for Magazine Mountain 

shagreen (Cohoon and Vere 1988 in 

Caldwell et al. 2009, p. 6). The total 

amount of available habitat for 

Magazine Mountain shagreen consists of 

approximately 21.6 acres (ac; 8.75 

hectares (ha)) at 27 talus habitats on 

Magazine Mountain’s west and north 

slopes (Caldwell et al. 2009, pp. 4–5). 

The geology and forest community of 

Magazine Mountain were summarized 

by Caldwell et al. (2009, pp. 4–12). The 

average annual temperature is 5.9 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES