Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20333 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS—Continued 

Indiana citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

2–2–1 .............. Definitions ......... 9/16/2011 4/7/2022, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

(ff)(1) only. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT 

PROGRAMS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In appendix A to part 70 the entry 

for ‘‘Ohio’’ is amended by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs 

* * * * * 

Ohio 

* * * * * 

(e) The Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency submitted an operating permits 

program amendment on February 4, 2008. 

The program amendment contained in the 

February 4, 2008 submittal revises the 

definition of major source to exclude ethanol 

production facilities that produce ethanol by 

natural fermentation from the chemical 

process plant source category. The state is 

hereby granted approval effective on May 9, 

2022. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–07285 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0154; FRL–9648–01– 

OCSPP] 

Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of 

cyantraniliprole in or on sugarcane, 

cane. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC 

requested this tolerance under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

7, 2022. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 6, 2022 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–2021–0154, is 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton 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 Reading Room and the OPP 

Docket is (202) 566–1744. 

Due to the public emergency, the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading 

Room is closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (202) 566–2659; 

email address: RDFRNotices@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 Office of the Federal Register’s eCFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/ 

current/title-40. 

To access the OCSPP test guidelines 

referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to https://

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

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–2021–0154 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 June 

6, 2022. 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– 

2021–0154, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20334 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of April 22, 

2021 (86 FR 21317) (FRL–10022–59), 

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 0F8868) by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. 

Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.672 

be amended by establishing a tolerance 

for inadvertent residues of the 

insecticide, cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1- 

(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2- 

methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl] 

phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide in 

or on sugarcane at 0.01 parts per million 

(ppm). That document referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the 

registrant, which is available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0154), 

http://www.regulations.gov. One 

comment was received on the notice of 

filing. EPA’s response to this comment 

is discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has revised 

the commodity definition for sugarcane. 

The reason for this change is explained 

in Unit IV.D. 

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 

sufficient data to assess the hazards of 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for cyantraniliprole 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerance established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with cyantraniliprole 

follows. 

In an effort to streamline its 

publications in the Federal Register, 

EPA is not reprinting sections that 

repeat what has been previously 

published for tolerance rulemakings of 

the same pesticide chemical. Where 

scientific information concerning a 

particular chemical remains unchanged, 

the content of those sections would not 

vary between tolerance rulemakings, 

and EPA considers referral back to those 

sections as sufficient to provide an 

explanation of the information EPA 

considered in making its safety 

determination for the new rulemaking. 

EPA has previously published 

tolerance rulemakings for 

cyantraniliprole in which EPA 

concluded, based on the available 

information, that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm would result 

from aggregate exposure to 

cyantraniliprole and established 

tolerances for residues of that chemical. 

EPA is incorporating previously 

published sections from those 

rulemakings as described further in this 

rulemaking, as they remain unchanged. 

Toxicological Profile. For a discussion 

of the Toxicological Profile of 

cyantraniliprole, see Unit III.A of the 

cyantraniliprole tolerance rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register of 

November 13, 2018, 83 FR 56262 (FRL– 

9985–32). 

Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern. For a discussion of 

the Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern used for the safety 

assessment of cyantraniliprole, see Unit 

III.B of the February 5, 2014, rulemaking 

(79 FR 5826) (FRL–9388–7). 

Exposure Assessment. Much of the 

exposure assessment for 

cyantraniliprole remains unchanged 

from the discussion in Unit III.C of the 

November 13, 2018, rulemaking, except 

as described below. 

EPA’s current exposure assessment 

has been updated to include the 

additional exposure from this 

petitioned-for tolerance for residues of 

cyantraniliprole on sugarcane. The 

rotational crop use does not result in an 

increase in the estimated residue levels 

in drinking water or in exposure from 

residential sources relative to those used 

in the last assessment. EPA’s aggregate 

exposure assessment incorporated this 

additional dietary exposure, as well as 

exposure from drinking water and from 

residential sources. There are no 

changes to EPA’s conclusions in the 

November 13, 2018, rulemaking 

concerning cumulative effects. 

Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children. EPA continues to conclude 

that there is reliable data showing that 

the safety of infants and children would 

be adequately protected if the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety 

factor were reduced from 10X to 1X. 

The reasons for that decision are 

articulated in Unit III.D of the November 

13, 2018, rulemaking. 

Assessment of aggregate risks. 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). 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 margin of exposure (MOE) 

exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA 

calculates the lifetime probability of 

acquiring cancer given the estimated 

aggregate exposure. Acute dietary risks 

are below the Agency’s level of concern. 

Since no effects of concern have been 

identified for cyantraniliprole resulting 

from 1-day or single exposures, a 

qualitative acute dietary exposure 

assessment is unnecessary. Chronic 

dietary risks are likewise below the 

Agency’s level of concern: 64% of the 

cPAD for all infants (<1 year old), the 

group with the highest exposure. EPA 

has concluded the combined short-term 

food, water, and residential exposures 

result in aggregate margins of exposure 

above the level of concern of 100 for all 

scenarios assessed and are not of 

concern. All risk estimates for 

intermediate-term aggregate risk are not 

of concern. An aggregate cancer risk 

assessment was not conducted because 

cyantraniliprole is not considered to be 

a carcinogen. The chronic aggregate 

assessment did not result in risk 

estimates of concern. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20335 

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 

cyantraniliprole residues. 

Further information about EPA’s risk 

assessment and determination of safety 

supporting the new cyantraniliprole 

tolerance can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov in the document 

titled ‘‘Cyantraniliprole. Human Health 

Risk Assessment for an Inadvertent 

Tolerance on Sugarcane’’ in docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0154. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(liquid chromatography with tandem 

mass spectroscopy (LC/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). 

There are no Codex MRLs established 

for residues of cyantraniliprole on 

sugarcane. 

C. Response to Comments 

EPA received one comment in 

response to the April 22, 2021, notice of 

filing. The comment seems to express 

general concern about pesticides, and 

specifically requests that EPA not 

permit the use of ‘‘cyanide’’—a 

completely unrelated chemical—on 

‘‘sugar’’. No specific concerns about 

EPA’s current evaluation were raised. 

While the agency recognizes that some 

people oppose the use of pesticides in 

or on food commodities, the FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish tolerances for 

residues of pesticides in or on food as 

long as the Agency can determine those 

tolerances are safe. The Agency has 

evaluated the aggregate exposures of 

cyantraniliprole and has determined 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population, or to infants and children, 

from aggregate exposure to 

cyantraniliprole residues. The 

commenter has provided no information 

to support a conclusion that the 

tolerance is not safe. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

The Agency is establishing a tolerance 

for the commodity ‘‘sugarcane, cane’’ 

rather than ‘‘sugarcane’’, as requested, to 

be consistent with the food commodity 

nomenclature. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, a tolerance is established 

for inadvertent residues of 

cyantraniliprole in or on sugarcane, 

cane at 0.01 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action 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 action 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 action 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 action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (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 (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: March 31, 2022. 

Marietta Echeverria, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.672, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a table heading; and 

■ b. Adding the commodity ‘‘Sugarcane, 

cane’’ to the table in alphabetical order. 

The additions read as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20336 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for 

residues. 

(d) * * * 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (d) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Sugarcane, cane ........................ 0.01 

[FR Doc. 2022–07277 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2022–0024; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BG21 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Emergency Listing of the 

Dixie Valley Toad as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency 

action. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), exercise our 

authority pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 

to emergency list the Dixie Valley toad 

(Anaxyrus williamsi) as endangered. 

Due to the imminent development of a 

geothermal project in Dixie Meadows, 

Nevada, and the potential resulting 

effects to the geothermal springs relied 

upon by the Dixie Valley toad, there is 

a significant risk to the well-being of the 

species. We find that emergency listing 

is necessary in order to provide the 

protective measures afforded by the Act 

to the Dixie Valley toad. This emergency 

action (emergency rule) provides 

Federal protection pursuant to the Act 

for a period of 240 days. A proposed 

rule to list the Dixie Valley toad as 

endangered is published concurrently 

with this emergency rule in the 

Proposed Rules section of this issue of 

the Federal Register. 

DATES: This temporary rule is effective 

April 7, 2022, through December 2, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: This temporary rule, the 

species status assessment report and 

other materials related to this temporary 

rule, and the proposed rule are available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc Jackson, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial 

Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502; 

telephone 775–861–6300. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

We received a petition from the 

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) on 

September 18, 2017, requesting that the 

Dixie Valley toad be listed as a 

threatened or endangered species and 

that the petition be considered on an 

emergency basis (CBD 2017, entire). The 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

does not provide a process to petition 

for emergency listing; therefore, we 

evaluated the petition to determine if it 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We published a 90-day finding in the 

Federal Register on June 27, 2018 (83 

FR 30091), stating that the petition 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Dixie Valley toad may be 

warranted. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Dixie Valley toad. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other scientific 

experts. The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species and its habitat. In 

accordance with our joint policy on peer 

review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we will seek expert opinions of at least 

three appropriate specialists regarding 

the SSA concurrent with the open 

comment period identified in the 

proposed rule that is published 

concurrently with this emergency action 

(emergency rule) and found in the 

Proposed Rules section of this issue of 

the Federal Register. The SSA report 

and other materials related to this 

emergency rule, including the proposed 

rule, can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0024. We note that, 

because we were already conducting a 

status review of the species, we had 

completed an SSA prior to publishing 

this emergency listing rule. Therefore, 

we have incorporated the information 

from the SSA here. However, given the 

purpose of emergency listing rules, they 

do not require this level of detail and 

analysis. 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the Dixie 

Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) is 

presented in the SSA report (Service 

2022, entire). 

The Dixie Valley toad was described 

as a distinct species in the western toads 

(Anaxyrus boreas) species complex in 

2017 due to morphological differences, 

genetic information, and its isolated 

distribution (Gordon et al. 2017, entire). 

Forrest et al. (2017, entire) also 

published a paper describing Dixie 

Valley toad and came up with similar 

results but stopped short of concluding 

it is a unique species. We evaluated 

both papers and concluded that the 

Gordon et al. (2017, entire) paper 

provided a better sampling design to 

answer species-level genetic questions 

and included a more thorough 

morphological analysis. Additionally, 

the Dixie Valley toad has been accepted 

as a valid species by the two leading 

authoritative amphibian internet sites: 

(1) Amphibiaweb.org (AmphibiaWeb 

2022, website) and (2) Amphibian 

Species of the World (Frost 2021, 

website). Because both the larger 

scientific community and our own 

analysis of the best available scientific 

information indicate that the findings of 

Gordon et al. (2017 entire) are well 

supported, we are accepting their 

conclusions that the Dixie Valley toad is 

a unique species (Anaxyrus williamsi). 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

Dixie Valley toad is a listable entity 

under the Act. 

Fourteen different morphological 

characteristics of Dixie Valley toads 

were measured and compared to several 

other species within the western toads 

species complex (Gordon et al. 2017, pp. 

125–131). While all 14 morphological 

characteristics measured for Dixie 

Valley toad were significantly different 

from the other species within the 

western toads species complex, the most 

striking differences were the average 

size of adults (the mean snout-to-vent 

length (SVL) is 54.6 millimeters (mm) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES