Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 70697 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal requirement, and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Act. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it approves a 

state rule implementing a Federal 

standard. 

In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Act. With regard to 

negative declarations for designated 

facilities received by EPA from states, 

EPA’s role is to notify the public of the 

receipt of such negative declarations 

and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. 

In this context, in the absence of a prior 

existing requirement for the State to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 

EPA has no authority to disapprove a 

section 111(d)/129 plan submission or 

negative declaration for failure to use 

VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a section 111(d)/129 plan or negative 

declaration submission, to use VCS in 

place of a section 111(d)/129 plan or 

negative declaration submission that 

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 

Act. Thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. 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 rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 15, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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. This action 

approving Michigan’s section 111(d)/

129 plan for SSI sources or negative 

declaration for SMWC units may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sewage sludge 

incinerators, Small municipal waste 

combustors. 

Dated: October 29, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: 

PART 62—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS 

FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart X—Michigan 

■ 2. Add two undesignated center 

headings and §§ 62.5620, 62.5621, 

62.5622, and 62.5630 to subpart X to 

read as follows: 

Control of Air Emissions From Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators 

§ 62.5620 Identification of plan. 

On September 21, 2015, Michigan 

submitted a State Plan for implementing 

the emission guidelines for Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators (SSI). The 

enforceable mechanism for this State 

Plan is a State rule codified in R 

336.1972, ‘‘Emission standards for 

existing sewage sludge incineration 

units,’’ and R 336.1902 ‘‘Adoption of 

standards by reference.’’ The State’s 

final rule became effective on May 20, 

2015. 

§ 62.5621 Identification of sources. 

The Michigan State Plan for existing 

Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) 

applies to all SSIs for which 

construction commenced on or before 

October 14, 2010 or for which a 

modification was commenced on or 

before September 21, 2011 primarily to 

comply with this rule. 

§ 62.5622 Effective date. 

The Federal effective date of the 

Michigan State Plan for existing Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators is January 15, 2016. 

Control of Air Emissions From Small 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

§ 62.5630 Identification of plan—negative 

declaration. 

On July 27,2015, the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted a negative declaration letter 

to EPA certifying that there are no 

existing Small Municipal Waste 

Combustors (SMWC) units in the State 

of Michigan subject to the emissions 

guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

BBBB. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28911 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0421; FRL–9936–25] 

Tamarind Seed Gum, 2-Hydroxypropyl 

Ether Polymer; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of tamarind seed 

gum, 2-hydroxypropyl ether polymer 

(CAS Reg. No. 68551–04–2) when used 

as an inert ingredient in a pesticide 

chemical formulation. Lamberti USA, 

Incorporated submitted a petition to 

EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 

tamarind seed gum, 2-hydroxypropyl 

ether polymer on food or feed 

commodities. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
70698 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 16, 2015. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 15, 2016, 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–2015–0421, 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), 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 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: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; 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 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. 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–2015–0421 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 January 15, 2016. 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– 

2015–0421, 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. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of August 26, 

2015 (80 FR 51759) (FRL–9931–74), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

announcing the receipt of a pesticide 

petition (PP IN–10807) filed by Lamberti 

USA, Incorporated, 161 Washington 

Street Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1000 

Conshohocken, PA 19428. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be 

amended by establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymers (CAS 

Reg. No. 68551–04–2). That document 

included a summary of the petition 

prepared by the petitioner and solicited 

comments on the petitioner’s request. 

The Agency did not receive any 

comments. 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of 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 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 

use 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 an 

exemption from the requirement of 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 . . .’’ and specifies 

factors EPA is to consider in 

establishing an exemption. 

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory 

Findings 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be shown that the 

risks from aggregate exposure to 

pesticide chemical residues under 

reasonably foreseeable circumstances 

will pose no appreciable risks to human 

health. In order to determine the risks 

from aggregate exposure to pesticide 

inert ingredients, the Agency considers 

the toxicity of the inert in conjunction 

with possible exposure to residues of 

the inert ingredient through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. If 

EPA is able to determine that a finite 

tolerance is not necessary to ensure that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the inert ingredient, an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance may be established. 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 70699 

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. In the 

case of certain chemical substances that 

are defined as polymers, the Agency has 

established a set of criteria to identify 

categories of polymers expected to 

present minimal or no risk. The 

definition of a polymer is given in 40 

CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion 

criteria for identifying these low-risk 

polymers are described in 40 CFR 

723.250(d). Tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymers conforms 

to the definition of a polymer given in 

40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the 

following criteria that are used to 

identify low-risk polymers. 

1. The polymer is not a cationic 

polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated 

to become a cationic polymer in a 

natural aquatic environment. 

2. The polymer does contain as an 

integral part of its composition the 

atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and 

oxygen. 

3. The polymer does not contain as an 

integral part of its composition, except 

as impurities, any element other than 

those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 

4. The polymer is neither designed 

nor can it be reasonably anticipated to 

substantially degrade, decompose, or 

depolymerize. 

5. The polymer is manufactured or 

imported from monomers and/or 

reactants that are already included on 

the TSCA Chemical Substance 

Inventory or manufactured under an 

applicable TSCA section 5 exemption. 

6. The polymer is not a water 

absorbing polymer with a number 

average molecular weight (MW) greater 

than or equal to 10,000 daltons. 

7. The polymer does not contain 

certain perfluoroalkyl moieties 

consisting of a CF3- or longer chain 

length as specified in 40 CFR 

723.250(d)(6). 

Additionally, the polymer also meets 

as required the following exemption 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). 

8. The polymer’s minimum number 

average MW is greater than or equal to 

10,000 daltons. The polymer contains 

less than 2% oligomeric material below 

MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric 

material below MW 1,000. 

Thus, tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer meets the 

criteria for a polymer to be considered 

low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based 

on its conformance to the criteria in this 

unit, no mammalian toxicity is 

anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or 

dermal exposure to tamarind seed gum, 

2-hydroxypropyl ether polymer. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

For the purposes of assessing 

potential exposure under this 

exemption, EPA considered that 

tamarind seed gum, 2-hydroxypropyl 

ether polymer could be present in all 

raw and processed agricultural 

commodities and drinking water, and 

that non-occupational non-dietary 

exposure was possible. The number 

average MW of tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer is 10,000 

daltons. Generally, a polymer of this 

size would be poorly absorbed through 

the intact gastrointestinal tract or 

through intact human skin. Since 

tamarind seed gum, 2-hydroxypropyl 

ether polymer conform to the criteria 

that identify a low-risk polymer, there 

are no concerns for risks associated with 

any potential exposure scenarios that 

are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency 

has determined that a tolerance is not 

necessary to protect the public health. 

V. 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 tamarind seed 

gum, 2-hydroxypropyl ether polymer to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and tamarind 

seed gum, 2-hydroxypropyl ether 

polymer does not appear to produce a 

toxic metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer 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. 

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the 

Protection of Infants and Children 

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

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold 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 data base unless 

EPA concludes that a different margin of 

safety will be safe for infants and 

children. Due to the expected low 

toxicity of tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer, EPA has 

not used a safety factor analysis to 

assess the risk. For the same reasons the 

additional tenfold safety factor is 

unnecessary. 

VII. Determination of Safety 

Based on the conformance to the 

criteria used to identify a low-risk 

polymer, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer. 

VIII. Other Considerations 

A. Existing Exemptions From a 

Tolerance 

There are no existing tolerance 

exemptions for tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer. 

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

C. 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 not established a MRL 

for tamarind seed gum, 2-hydroxypropyl 

ether polymer. 

IX. Conclusion 

Accordingly, EPA finds that 

exempting residues of tamarind seed 

gum, 2-hydroxypropyl ether polymer 

from the requirement of a tolerance will 

be safe. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
70700 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes a tolerance 

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). 

XI. 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: November 5, 2015. 

G. Jeffrey Herndon, 

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 § 180.960, add alphabetically the 

polymer in the table to read as follows: 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

* * * * * 

Tamarind seed gum, 2- 

hydroxypropyl ether polymer, minimum number average molecular weight (in 

amu), 10,000 ..................... 68551–04–2 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–29169 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2014–0021; 

FXES11130900000; 4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of the Delmarva 

Peninsula Fox Squirrel From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The best available scientific 

and commercial data indicate that the 

Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel 

(Sciurus niger cinereus) has recovered. 

Therefore, under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Wildlife Service (Service), remove the 

Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel 

(commonly called the Delmarva fox 

squirrel) from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List). This determination is based on a 

thorough review of all available 

information, which indicates that the 

subspecies is now sufficiently abundant 

and well distributed to withstand 

foreseeable threats and no longer meets 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

This rule removes the Delmarva fox 

squirrel from the List throughout its 

range, including the experimental 

population designated for Assawoman 

Wildlife Management Area in Delaware. 

It also announces the availability of a 

post-delisting monitoring plan for the 

subspecies. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the postdelisting monitoring plan are available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R5–ES–2014–0021. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in rule 

preparation, will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field 

Office, 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive, 

Annapolis, MD 21401; and on the 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office Web site 

at: http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Field Office Supervisor, Genevieve 

LaRouche, by telephone at 410–573– 

4573; or Cherry Keller, Wildlife 

Biologist, at 410–573–4532, or by email 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES