Draft Peer Review Charge Review of Environmental Impact Modeling for Phase III of the Section 316( b) Rulemakings for Cooling Water Intake Structures Introduction The purpose of this peer review is to solicit input from an expert panel on the use of a population projection matrix ( PPM) model to support the national benefit analysis for Phase III of the 316( b) rulemakings. EPA used a static yield per recruit ( YPR) model ( also referred to as the foregone yield model) to estimate benefits from Phase II of the 316( b) regulations and has used the same approach for a draft version of the Phase III benefits analysis. EPA is now considering whether the use of a PPM model would produce more reliable and scientifically defensible estimates of population changes associated with regulatory options for the Phase III analysis. The following website contains information about the three phases of the regulations and the supporting analysis:

http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ basic. htm Attachments include:

The report describing the models you are to review: " Population Level Impacts on Fish of Cooling Water Intake Withdrawals." ( 2005 03 10 Population level impacts of I& E. pdf)

The actual fish population models in Matlab. ( b316models. zip)

For more background, we also included:

A memo titled " Background Information for Peer Review of Aspects of Benefit Analysis for Phase III of the 316( b) Rulemakings." ( background memo 030905. wpd)

Chapters 5 and 6 from the Phase 2 report. ( chapter 5 Phase II report. pdf AND chapter 6 Phase II report. pdf)

Strange, Lipton, Beltman, and Snyder. 2002. " Scientific and Societal Considerations in Selecting Assessment Endpoints for Environmental Decision Making." TheScientificWorldJournal 2( S1): 12 20. ( Ecological. Endpoints. SciWorld. pdf)

Myers, Bowen, and Barrowman. 1999. " Maximum Reproductive Rate of Fish at Low Population Sizes." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 2404 2419. ( Myers et al 1999 Max reproductive rate of fish. pdf)

To facilitate the review process, we have organized the peer review charges under three main categories ( 1) comparing the PPM model to the YPR model, ( 2) appropriateness of the PPM approach to support the 316( b) national rulemaking, and ( 3) technical review and recommendations for alternative modeling approaches or improvements/ enhancements to the PPM model. Under each category heading, we have provided specific peer review charges that we believe will be useful in guiding your review. 2 Comparing the PPM to the YPR Model An earlier peer review examined EPA's use of the YPR model for Phase II of the 316( b) regulations and provided input with regard to several technical deficiencies of the modeling approach. EPA made modifications to its approach in response to this review. Therefore, under this category, we request that you focus your comments on the predictive capabilities of the PPM model relative to the YPR model. We anticipate that the panel will establish explicit criteria within the context of the Phase III national benefits analysis to determine whether the PPM model constitutes a significant improvement over the YPR model. We regard the establishment of explicit criteria to compare the two models ( as well as other approaches) as a critical component of this review process and encourage the panel to consider these criteria in developing recommendations.

Charge # 1  Given the intended purpose of predicting population changes and environmental impacts associated with impingement and entrainment under the 316( b) regulations, what should be the minimal requirements for biological realism and precision for the population model? Please consider data availability as well as treatment of significant sources of uncertainty in developing your response.

Charge # 2  What are the principle advantages of the PPM over the YPR with respect to the predictive ability of the respective models? Does the PPM model have any limitations relative to the YPR model? Do you think the PPM model approach should be used to complement predictions by the YPR model for the analysis, or should the PPM model be used to replace the YPR model? Please consider the following factors in your response:

  feasibility of implementing the model for a national benefits analysis   the types of species impacted by cooling water intake structures   model structure   data availability   treatment of uncertainty Appropriateness of the PPM Model to the Phase III 316( b) National Benefit Analysis In developing the PPM model, we recognized that there were a number of alternative approaches and models that could also satisfy the goals for the Phase III 316( b) national benefit analysis. Consequently, we are soliciting feedback on the appropriateness of the overall technical approach and PPM model described in the supporting documentation that was provided.

Charge # 3  Given the intended purpose of the population model in supporting the Phase III 316( b) benefit analysis, is the PPM model the most appropriate choice to predict population impacts associated with impingement and entrainment? For example, does the fact that the PPM model is not a spatially explicit model represent a significant weakness in our approach? Put 3 another way, does the PPM model satisfy the minimal requirements for biological realism and expected accuracy for this application?

Charge # 4  Are sufficient data available for commercially important species ( i. e., species that are harvested) to conduct a national analysis of impingement and entrainment impacts using the PPM model? For the species affected by impingement and entrainment, do you think percent change in harvest can be an appropriate index for percent change in population for the purposes of a national benefits analysis?

Charge # 5  Is the PPM model formulation appropriate given the accuracy and precision of available data? Given available data and current biological understanding of aquatic ecosystems, how would you characterize the reasonableness of the model's main assumptions?

Technical Review and Recommendations Under this category, the panel is encouraged to provide recommendations to improve and enhance the proposed PPM model assuming that such changes would ensure that the PPM model satisfies the minimum requirements for biological realism and accuracy. We are seeking feedback on specific technical issues; however, the panel should not feel constrained by these charges in developing its recommendations.

Charge # 6  Taking into account both model structure and the available data, can you comment on the uncertainty, accuracy, and precision of the results from the model? How amenable is the PPM modeling approach to a representation of uncertainty?

Charge # 7  Based on your knowledge of the species that are impinged and entrained at cooling water intake structures, what is your opinion of the importance of density dependence dynamics of the affected populations? What is the importance of including density dependence in the impingement and entrainment assessment for the national benefits analysis? How sensitive do you think model results are to assumptions about density dependence?

Charge # 8  For the purposes of the national benefits analysis, could the PPM model, or some variation thereof, address impingement and entrainment impacts for harvested species and forage species? What changes to the PPM model would be required to predict changes in forage fish populations due to impingement and entrainment? Is appropriate data available for forage species for such a model?

Charge # 9  Do you think any particular data uncertainties will have a substantial effect on the utility or reliability of the model for a national benefits analysis? When empirical data are unavailable, are appropriate calibration methods used for the unknown parameters in the PPM model ( i. e., R, b)? How sensitive do you think model results are to parameter estimation techniques? 4 Charge # 10  The national benefits analysis for Phase III of the 316( b) rulemakings must be completed within the next several months and a final rule issued by June 1, 2006. Do you see any sources of systematic bias in the model? Can they be addressed? Are there improvements to the PPM modeling approach that would be feasible to implement within the available time frame? If more time was available, how would your answer change?


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20314-20317]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7677]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975; FRL-9339-9]

2-Propenoic Acid, 2-Methyl-, 2-Ethylhexyl Ester, Telomer With 1-
Dodecanethiol, Ethenylbenzene and 2-Methyloxirane Polymer With Oxirane
Monoether With 1,2-Propanediol Mono(2-Methyl-2-Propenoate), Hydrogen 2-
Sulfobutanedioate, Sodium Salt, 2, 2'-(1,2-Diazenediyl)Bis[2-
Methylpropanenitrile]-Initiated; 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 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-
ethylhexyl ester, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, ethenylbenzene and 2-
methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monoether with 1,2-propanediol
mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate), hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt,
2, 2'-(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylpropanenitrile]-initiated, CAS Reg.
No. 1283712-50-4; when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation. Clariant Corporation 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 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, telomer
with 1-dodecanethiol, ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane polymer with
oxirane monoether with 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate),
hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2'-(1,2-
diazenediyl)bis[2-methylpropanenitrile]-initiated on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 4, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 4, 2012, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alganesh Debesai, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. 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://

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&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-2011-0975 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 4, 2012. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of Friday, December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82238)
(FRL-9331-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7932)
filed by Clariant Corporation, 625 E. Catawba Ave., Mt. Holly, NC
28120. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2- methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, telomer
with 1-dodecanethiol, ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane polymer with
oxirane monoether with 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate),
hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2'-(1,2-
diazenediyl)bis[2-methylpropanenitrile]-initiated, CAS Reg. No.
1283712-50-4 which is called ``the polymer'' here after . That notice
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 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). The polymer 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.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,212 is greater than 1,000
and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.

    Thus, the 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 the polymer.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that the 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 the polymer is 1,212 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size
would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or
through intact human skin. Since the polymer conforms 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 the polymer to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that the 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 the 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 the polymer.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. 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.

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 U.N. 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 the polymer.

 IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of the polymer from
the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules 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 involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. 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) (Pub. L.
104-4).
    Although this action does not 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), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement

of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule 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 19, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymers to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, telomer    1283712-50-4
 with 1-dodecanethiol, ethenylbenzene and 2-
 methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monoether with 1,2-
 propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate), hydrogen 2-
 sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2'-(1,2-
 diazenediyl)bis[2-methylpropanenitrile]-initiated,
 minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 1,200

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-7677 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P