[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34429-34431]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the Link Union Station
Project, Los Angeles, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U. S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: Through this NOI, FRA announces it will prepare an EIS and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) jointly with the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for the Link Union
Station Project (Link US Project). FRA and Metro will develop the EIS/
EIR in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). FRA invites the public and Federal, state, and
local agencies to provide input into the scope of the EIS and will
consider all information developed during outreach activities when
preparing the EIS/EIR.

DATES: Persons interested in providing written comments on the scope of
the Link US Project must do so by June 30, 2016.
    A Public scoping meeting is scheduled on Thursday, June 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES:  Interested persons should send written comments to FRA's
Office of Program Delivery, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (Mail Stop 20),
Washington, DC 20590, or Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) Headquarters, One Gateway Plaza (Mail Stop 99-13-1),
Los Angeles, California, 90012, or via email to Mark Dierking,
Community Relations Manager, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should
include ``Link Union Station--NOI Scoping Comments'' in the subject
line.
    Interested persons may also provide comments orally or in writing
at the scoping meeting. FRA and Metro will hold the scoping meeting
between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at: Metro Headquarters: One Gateway
Plaza, Los Angeles, California, 90012. Metro Headquarters is an
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) accessible facility.
Spanish and Mandarin translation will be provided. You may call 213-
922-2499 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to request other
ADA accommodations or translation services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stephanie Perez, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
to Mark Dierking, Community Relations Manager, One Gateway Plaza (Mail
Stop 99-13-1), Los Angeles, CA 90012; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Scoping materials and information concerning the scoping meeting is
available through Metro's Web site: metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is an operating administration of DOT
and is responsible for overseeing the safety of railroad operations,
including the safety of any proposed rail ground transportation system.
FRA is also authorized to provide, subject to appropriations, funding
for intercity passenger and rail capital investments and to provide
loans and other financial support for railroad investment. FRA may
provide funding or financing for the Link US Project in the future.
    FRA is the lead agency under NEPA. Metro will be the joint lead
agency under NEPA and the lead state agency under CEQA. FRA and Metro
will prepare the EIS/EIR consistent with NEPA, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA in 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, and FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts in 64 FR 28545, dated May 26, 1999 (Environmental Procedures).
FRA and Metro will

prepare the EIS consistent with 23 U.S.C. 139 (titled ``Efficient
environmental reviews for project decisionmaking''). FRA and Metro will
also prepare the EIS/EIR consistent with CEQA.
    The EIS will also document FRA's compliance with other applicable
Federal, state, and local laws including, Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108), Section 4(f) of the U.S.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303(c)), Section
309(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609(a)), and Executive Order
12898 and U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(a) on Environmental Justice.

Project Background

    The Link US Project would improve operational flexibility and
expand capacity at Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS). FRA and Caltrans
first studied potential capacity improvements in a 2002 EIS/EIR known
as the Run-Through Tracks Project. In 2005, FRA issued a Final EIS and
Caltrans certified the Final EIR for the Run-Through Tracks Project.
Since 2005, Metro identified new components and changes to the local
and regional operational and capacity requirements at LAUS. The
following new components and changed circumstances now need to be
studied in the Link US Project EIS/EIR:
     Coordinated activities between Metro and the California
High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to facilitate the planned High Speed
Rail (HSR) system;
     A new passenger concourse as a component of the LAUS
Master Plan (LAUSMP). The passenger concourse will include new vertical
circulation elements (stairs, escalators, and elevators) and up to
600,000 square feet dedicated for passenger circulation and waiting
areas, passenger support functions and amenities (up to 100,000 square
feet), and building functional support areas to meet the demands of a
multi-modal transit station;
     Integration of run-through tracks on an elevated rail yard
to accommodate the new passenger concourse, consistent with the LAUSMP;
     Incorporation of a single loop track;
     Compatibility with other planned or completed Metro and
public projects;
     Property ownership and valuation changes; and
     Land use changes since 2005 within the study area.
    FRA and Metro will prepare the Link US Project EIS/EIR to analyze
these new components and address the changed circumstances.

Project Location

    LAUS is located at 800 North Alameda Street, City of Los Angeles,
California 90012. LAUS is generally bounded by U.S. Highway 101 (U.S.
101) to the south, Alameda Street to the west, Cesar E. Chavez Avenue
to the north, and Vignes Street to the east and is located in an urban
setting, northeast of downtown Los Angeles and west of the Los Angeles
River. The Link US Project limits within the railroad corridor extend
from Control Point (CP) Chavez in the north (near North Main Street) to
CP Olympic in the south (near the Interstate 10/State Route 60/U.S. 101
interchange).

Project Need

    LAUS is a stub-ended terminal station dating from 1939 that is the
central hub for regional transportation in Southern California. Metro
operates multiple modes of transit including bus, subway (Red and
Purple Lines), and light rail transit (Gold Line) at LAUS. Metrolink
(the commuter rail operator governed by the Southern California
Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)) and Amtrak are responsible for
operating commuter and intercity rail services, respectively, and
maintaining a safe and reliable level of service on existing rail
lines, including the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo railroad
corridor (primarily commuter ridership). CHSRA is responsible for
construction and operation of a statewide HSR system in California. FRA
and CHSRA are preparing NEPA/CEQA documents for the Burbank to Los
Angeles and Los Angeles to Anaheim sections of the HSR System both of
which include a common station at LAUS, including consideration of an
at-grade concept. However, LAUS's operational functionality is becoming
increasingly limited due to a forecasted increase in ridership on
multiple transit and rail lines and the potential for new passenger
rail and HSR service in the future.
    Between 2000 and 2014, the population in the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) region increased by 2 million people
(approximately 12.3 percent increase). By 2040, employment and
population growth within the SCAG region is forecasted to increase by
16 percent. According to a 2015Metro Transforming LAUS Summary Report
about LAUS, there are approximately 110,000 passenger trips travelling
through LAUS each weekday. Metro anticipates continued increases in
population and employment will nearly double the demand on existing and
planned modes of transportation; resulting in over 200,000 passenger
trips through LAUS each weekday by 2040.
    By 2030, Metrolink and Amtrak anticipate they will need to nearly
double the number of overall train operations to provide additional
commuter and intercity passenger service throughout the region. This
includes an increase in ``through'' trains between Los Angeles and San
Diego making all stops; an increase in commuter and intercity passenger
service to Ventura and Santa Barbara counties; intercity passenger
service to San Luis Obispo; and the addition of a ``through'' intercity
passenger service to San Francisco (California State Rail Plan,
Caltrans 2013). In addition, Metro is working with the CHSRA to
facilitate the planned HSR system at LAUS.
    FRA and Metro have identified Link US Project as a critical
transportation project to respond to the forecasted ridership increases
in the region. Link US Project also represents a critical first step in
the implementation of regional transportation solutions identified in
the following SCAG planning documents:
     Federally Approved Transportation Improvement Program,
(2015);
     Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (2008); and
     Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities
Strategy (2016).

Project Purpose and Objectives

    Due to the forecasted increase in ridership on existing transit and
rail modes combined with the potential for new passenger rail and HSR
service in the future, the overall purpose of the Link US Project is to
improve the functionality and operational capacity of LAUS in a cost-
effective manner while maintaining existing transit/rail operations
during construction. Metro is also working with the CHSRA to facilitate
the planned HSR system at LAUS within the limits of the Link US
Project. The purpose of the Link US Project is to improve mobility,
travel times, and safety in the following ways:
     Improve operational efficiencies and scheduling
reliability for trains using LAUS by reducing the train movement
constraints that results from ``stub-end'' operation by constructing
new ``run-through'' tracks and an operational loop;
     Improve pedestrian access to, and functionality of, the
passenger platforms while also improving connectivity with other
transit serving amenities (retail, food service, and waiting areas) by
expanding the passenger concourse;

     Increase the operational capacity of LAUS by over 40
percent to accommodate planned growth of Metrolink and Amtrak train
services, and potential HSR service, while not precluding other planned
improvements at LAUS by developing an expanded passenger concourse
located below the elevated platforms;
     Preserve space and connections for future rail and transit
options, including potential HSR service;
     Enhance accessibility to all transit and rail services for
passengers with disabilities;
     Minimize service disruptions to existing transit service
during construction; and
     Minimize adverse effects to the environment, including
historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
    The Link US Project would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
over 40 percent and thereby meet the air pollution and greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets mandated by California Assembly Bill 32,
known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as amended, and
California Senate Bill 375, known as the California's Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. These two laws
establish the basis for SCAG and Metro to accommodate regional growth
through increased and more frequent access to alternative modes of
transit for local communities.

Proposed Project Alternatives

    The Link US Project would transform LAUS from a ``stub-end tracks
station'' into a ``run-through tracks station'' while increasing
operational capacity to meet the demands of the broader rail system.
The EIS/EIR will consider the No Action/No Build Alternative and a
number of Build Alternatives.
    Each of the Build Alternatives would result in enhanced operational
capacity from CP Chavez in the north (near North Main Street) to CP
Olympic in the south (near the Interstate 10/State Route 60/U.S. 101
interchange). Major project components are described below.
     Throat and Elevated Rail Yard--The Link US Project would
include new track and subgrade improvements to increase the elevation
of the tracks leading to LAUS known as the ``throat'' and an elevated
rail yard including new longer, elevated passenger platforms and
canopies.
     New Passenger Concourse--The Link US Project would include
a new passenger concourse, up to 600,000 square feet (passenger
circulation and waiting areas, passenger support functions and
amenities, and building functional support areas), including 100,000
square feet of transit serving amenities to meet the demands of a
multi-modal transit station. The new passenger concourse would enhance
ADA accessibility at LAUS and include new vertical circulation elements
(stairs, escalators, and elevators) for passengers between the elevated
platforms and the new passenger concourse under the rail yard.
     Run-Through Tracks--The Link US Project would include up
to 10 run-through tracks with a new viaduct or viaducts over U.S. 101
that extend run-through tracks for regional/intercity rail (Metrolink/
Amtrak) and potentially HSR south along the west bank of the Los
Angeles River, and a separate overhead viaduct for a single loop track
turning north to the existing Keller Yard.
    The Link US Project would also require modifications to existing
bridges at city streets to accommodate new elevated tracks;
modifications to U.S. 101 and local streets to accommodate the run-
through tracks overhead viaducts; railroad signal, Positive Train
Control, and communications-related improvements; modifications to the
SCRRA West Bank main line tracks; modifications to the existing Keller
Yard and BNSF Railway West Bank Yard; modifications to the Amtrak lead
track; new access roadways to the railroad right-of-way (ROW);
additional ROW; and utility relocations, replacements, and
abandonments.

Probable Effects

    The EIS/EIR will consider the potential environmental effects of
the Link US Project alternatives in detail. FRA and Metro will analyze
the following environmental issue areas in the EIS/EIR: Air Quality and
Global Climate Change; Biological and Wetland Resources; Cultural and
Historic Resources; Economic and Fiscal Impacts; Energy; Environmental
Justice; Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality; Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity; Hazardous Waste and Materials; Land Use, Planning, and
Communities; Noise and Vibration; Parklands, Community Services, and
Other Public Facilities; Safety and Security; Section 4(f) Resources;
Transportation; and Visual Quality and Aesthetics.

Scoping and Comments

    FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during
scoping and review of the resulting environmental documents. FRA
invites all interested agencies, Native American Tribes, and the public
at large to participate in the scoping process to ensure the EIS/EIR
addresses the full range of issues related to the proposed action,
reasonable alternatives are addressed, and all significant issues are
identified. FRA requests that any public agency having jurisdiction
over an aspect of the Link US Project identify the agency's permit or
environmental review requirements and the scope and content of the
environmental information germane to the agency's jurisdiction over the
Link US Project. FRA requests that public agencies advise FRA if they
anticipate taking a major action in connection with the proposed
project and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the Link US
Project EIS/EIR.
    FRA will coordinate with participating agencies during development
of the Draft EIS under 23 U.S.C. 139. FRA will invite all Federal and
non-Federal agencies and Native American Tribes that may have an
interest in the Link US Project to become participating agencies for
the EIS. If an agency or Tribe is not invited and would like to
participate, please contact FRA at the contact information listed
above. FRA will develop a Coordination Plan summarizing how it will
engage the public, agencies, and Tribes in the process. The
Coordination Plan will be posted to the Link US Project Web site
metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip and to FRA's Web site
fra.dot.gov.
    FRA and Metro have scheduled a public scoping meeting as an
important component of the scoping process for both the state and
Federal environmental review. The scoping meeting described in the
ADDRESSES section will also be advertised locally and included in
additional public notification. The format of the meeting will consist
of a short presentation describing the proposed Link US Project,
objectives, and existing conditions.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 26, 2016.
Jamie Rennert,
Director, Office of Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2016-12813 Filed 5-26-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20032-20035]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07642]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0043; FRL-9380-5]

Styrene-Ethylene-Propylene Block Copolymer; 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 styrene-ethylene-propylene block
copolymer (CAS Reg. No. 108388-87-0) when used as an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. AgroFresh Inc., 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 styrene-ethylene-propylene block copolymer on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 3, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 3, 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-2013-0043, 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 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: David Lieu, 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.
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://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-2013-0043 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 3, 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-2013-0043, 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.htm.

    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 February 15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL-
9378-4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10540)
filed by AgroFresh Inc., 100 Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA
19105. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of styrene-ethylene-propylene block copolymer (CAS Reg. No.
108388-87-0). The 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 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). Styrene-ethylene-propylene block
copolymer 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 number average MW of 125,000 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, styrene-ethylene-propylene block copolymer 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 styrene-
ethylene-propylene block copolymer.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that styrene-ethylene-propylene block
copolymer 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 styrene-ethylene-
propylene block copolymer is 125,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of
this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal
tract or through intact human skin. Since styrene-ethylene-propylene
block copolymer 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 styrene-ethylene-propylene block copolymer to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
styrene-ethylene-propylene block copolymer does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that styrene-ethylene-
propylene block copolymer 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 styrene-ethylene-
propylene block copolymer, 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 styrene-ethylene-propylene block
copolymer.

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 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 styrene-ethylene-propylene
block copolymer.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of styrene-ethylene-
propylene block copolymer from the requirement of a tolerance will be
safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule 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 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) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    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, 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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

    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 26, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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, alphabetically add the following polymer to the
table to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

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

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Styrene-ethylene-propylene block copolymer, minimum          108388-87-0
 number average molecular weight (in amu), 125,000......

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

[FR Doc. 2013-07642 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3584]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP15-101-000, RP15-101-001]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Technical
Conference

    Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Thursday,
February 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in a room to
be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    At the technical conference, the Commission Staff and the parties
to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for
technical conference as established in the November 28, 2014 Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 149 FERC ] 61,188
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Robert McLean at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01142 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60262-60264]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82309; File No. SR-OCC-2017-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Liquidity for Same Day
Settlement

December 13, 2017.
    On October 13, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-007 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on November 1, 2017.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-81956 (Oct. 26,
2017), 82 FR 50705 (Nov. 1, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-017) (``Notice'').
OCC also filed an Advance Notice with the Commission in connection
with the proposed change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
82056 (Nov. 13, 2017), 82 FR 54430 (Nov. 17, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-
806).

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

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Background

    OCC filed the proposed rule change to modify the tools available to
OCC to provide a mechanism for addressing the risks of liquidity
shortfalls, specifically, in the extraordinary situation where OCC
faces a liquidity need to meet its same-day settlement obligations
resulting from the failure of a bank or securities or commodities
clearing organization (``Settlement Entity'') to achieve daily
settlement. As stated in the Notice, OCC's By-Laws currently grant OCC
the authority to borrow against its Clearing Fund where a Settlement
Entity fails to make timely settlement with OCC due to bankruptcy,
insolvency, resolution, suspension of operations, or a similar event of
such Settlement Entity.\4\ The proposed rule change seeks to expand
this borrowing authority to circumstances that include a temporary
failure of a Settlement Entity to achieve daily settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC By-Laws, Article VIII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article VIII, Section 5(e) of OCC's By-Laws provides OCC with the
authority to borrow against the Clearing Fund in two circumstances.
First, the By-Laws provide OCC the authority to borrow where OCC
``deems it necessary or advisable to borrow or otherwise obtain funds
from third parties in order to meet obligations arising out of the
default or suspension of a Clearing Member or any action taken by the
Corporation in connection therewith pursuant to Chapter XI of the Rules
or otherwise.'' Second, the By-Laws provide OCC the authority to borrow
against the Clearing Fund where OCC ``sustains a loss reimbursable out
of the Clearing Fund pursuant to [Article VIII, Section 5(b) of OCC's
By-Laws] but [OCC] elects to borrow or otherwise obtain funds from
third parties in lieu of immediately charging such loss to the Clearing
Fund.'' In order for a loss to be reimbursable out of the Clearing Fund
under Article VIII, Section 5(b) of OCC's By-Laws, the loss must arise
from a situation in which any Settlement Entity has failed ``to perform
any obligation to [OCC] when due because of its bankruptcy, insolvency,
receivership, suspension of operations, or because of any similar
event.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To the extent that a loss resulting from any of the events
referred to in Article VIII, Section 5(b) is recoverable out of the
Clearing Fund pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5(a), the provisions
of Article VIII, Section 5(a) control and render the provisions of
Article VIII, Section 5(b) inapplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under either of the circumstances above, OCC is authorized to
borrow against the Clearing Fund for a period not to exceed 30 days,
and during this time, the borrowing would not affect the amount or
timing of any charges otherwise required to be made against the
Clearing Fund pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the By-Laws.
However, if any part of the borrowing remains outstanding after 30
days, then at the close of business on the 30th day (or the first
Business Day thereafter) the amount must be considered an actual loss
to the Clearing Fund, and OCC must immediately allocate such loss among
its Clearing Members in accordance with Article VIII, Section 5.

B. The Proposed Rule Change to OCC's By-Laws

    The proposed rule change seeks to expand OCC's authority to borrow
against its Clearing Fund to instances where a Settlement Entity
suffers an event relatively less extreme than bankruptcy, insolvency,
or a similar event, but is still temporarily unable to timely make
daily settlement with OCC. Such an event might include a scenario where
the ordinary operations of a settlement bank are disrupted in a manner
that temporarily prohibits the bank from timely effecting settlement
payments in accordance with OCC's daily settlement cycle. OCC believes
that such authority would only be used in extraordinary circumstances,
and any funds obtained from any such transaction could only be used for
the stated purpose of satisfying a need for liquidity for same-day
settlement.
    Pursuant to the proposed change, any ability to borrow under this
expanded authority would not exceed thirty (30) days. During this
period, the funds obtained would not be deemed to be charges against
the Clearing Fund and would not affect the amount or timing of any
charges otherwise required to be made against the clearing fund under
Article VIII of OCC's By-Laws.\6\ Should the borrowing unexpectedly
remain outstanding after thirty (30) days, at the close of business on
the 30th day (or the first Business Day thereafter), the amount
outstanding would be considered an actual loss to the Clearing Fund.
However, OCC would also have discretionary authority to declare a
borrowing outstanding for less than thirty (30) days as an actual loss
chargeable against the Clearing Fund to be collected from Clearing
Members.\7\ If the amount outstanding becomes an actual loss to the
Clearing Fund, OCC, in accordance with its By-Laws, would then charge
all of its Clearing Members to make pro rata contributions to the
Clearing Fund to cover the deficit arising from the loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Assets contained in the Clearing Fund, including those
assets pledged by OCC pursuant to its authority under this proposed
expansion of borrowing authority, would remain in OCC's possession.
    \7\ OCC states that such discretionary authority could be
exercised in a circumstance where, depending on the size of the
borrowing, OCC must ensure that it maintains financial resources
necessary to meet a ``Cover 1'' liquidity resource standard. OCC
must establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, effectively
identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to
participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and
settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial
resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully
with a high degree of confidence, and, to the extent not already
maintained pursuant to the foregoing, maintaining additional
financial resources at the minimum to enable it to cover a wide
range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not
limited to, the ``default of the participant family that would
potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for the
covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market
conditions.'' 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement the proposed change, OCC proposed to amend Sections
1(a), 5(b) and 5(e) of Article VIII of its By-Laws to give effect to
the expanded borrowing authority. First, Article VIII, Section 5(e) of
the By-Laws would be amended to permit OCC to borrow against the
Clearing Fund if it reasonably believes such borrowing is necessary to
meet its liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a result of the
failure of any Settlement Entity to achieve daily settlement. Second,
Article VIII, Section 1(a) of the By-Laws would be amended to include
conforming changes stating that the purpose of the Clearing Fund
includes borrowing against the Clearing Fund as permitted under Article
VIII, Section 5(e).
    Next, Article VIII, Section 5(b) of the By-Laws would be amended to
include conforming changes that would declare that any borrowing
remaining outstanding for less than 30 days may be considered, in OCC's
discretion, an actual loss to the Clearing Fund to be charged
proportionately against all Clearing Members' computed contributions.
Further, any borrowing remaining outstanding on the 30th day shall be
considered an actual loss to the Clearing Fund and the amount of any
such loss shall be charged proportionately against all Clearing
Members' computed contributions to the Clearing Fund as fixed at the
time.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such

proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii) \10\
thereunder, as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    The Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. The Commission understands that the proposed rule change
constitutes a limited expansion of OCC's ability to address liquidity
needs that arise from scenarios that, while relatively less extreme
than a Settlement Entity suffering a bankruptcy, insolvency,
resolution, suspension of operations, or similar event, nevertheless
can prevent daily settlement from occurring. The Commission therefore
believes that the proposed rule change is designed to enhance OCC's
ability to access liquid resources under such circumstances, which, in
turn, would allow OCC to continue to meet its settlement obligations to
its Clearing Members in a timely fashion, thereby promoting prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is designed to expand OCC's existing borrowing authority in a scenario
where a Settlement Entity is temporarily unable to achieve daily
settlement, but is not facing bankruptcy, insolvency, resolution,
suspension of operations, or similar event. Therefore, the proposed
rule change is designed to provide OCC with an alternative tool with
which to address what OCC describes as an ``extraordinary
circumstance'' that would enable OCC to borrow against the Clearing
Fund in order to avoid disrupting its ordinary settlement cycle. The
Commission believes that the authority to take such action is designed
to avoid imposing a disruption on Clearing Members and reduce the need
to extend the settlement window, which could allow OCC to settle
transactions in a more timely fashion. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
is therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii) Under the Act

    The Commission further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii), which requires that a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable,
effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk that arises in
or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring,
monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing
and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum,
addressing foreseeable liquidity shortfalls that would not be covered
by its liquid resources and seek to avoid unwinding, revoking, or
delaying the same-day settlement of payment obligations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed
to improve OCC's ability to address a temporary liquidity need
resulting from the failure of a Settlement Entity to achieve timely
settlement. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
designed to provide OCC with additional tools to address a foreseeable,
temporary liquidity shortfall to prevent the unwinding, revoking, or
delaying of same-day settlement should that scenario materialize, and
is therefore consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii) under the Act.

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \14\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2017-017) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27228 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75464-75465]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0376; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Montpelier, VT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: A final rule was published in the Federal Register on December
5, 2022, amending Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Edward F. Knapp
State Park Airport, Montpelier, VT, by creating a cutout of the
airspace around Warren-Sugarbush Airport. This action corrects the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
description by adding Warren-Sugarbush Airport to the Class E
description header.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

History

    The FAA published a final rule correction in the Federal Register
(87 FR 74302, December 5, 2022) for Doc. No. FAA-2022-0376, adding a
cutout of the Class E airspace of Edward F. Knapp

State Park Airport for Warren-Sugarbush Airport. Warren-Sugarbush
Airport was inadvertently omitted from the airspace description header.
This action corrects this error.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will subsequently be
published in FAA Order JO 7400.11G.

Correction to Final Rule

    This action amends (14 CFR) part 71 by adding Warren-Sugarbush
Airport to the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface description header for Edward F. Knapp State Park Airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraphs 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances warrant the preparation of an environmental
assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Correction to the Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
amendment of Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for Edward F. Knapp State Park
Airport, Montpelier, VT, in Docket No. FAA-2022-0376, as published in
the Federal Register of December 5, 2022 (87 FR 74302), FR Doc. 2022-
26285, in 14 CFR part 71, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 74303, in the second column, correct the description for ANE
VT E5 Montpelier, VT [Amended] to read:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE VT E5 Montpelier, VT [Amended]

Edward F. Knapp State Airport, VT
    (Lat. 44[deg]12'13'' N, long. 72[deg]33'44'' W)
Warren-Sugarbush Airport
    (Lat. 44[deg]07'03'' N, long. 72[deg]49'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 13-mile radius of Edward F. Knapp State Airport, excluding
that airspace within a 1\3/4\-mile radius of Warren-Sugarbush
Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 5, 2022.
Lisa Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-26719 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US

05/04/2007 03:22 PM	To

"Winek, Michael"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

bcc

Subject

RE: Meeting today with the Portland Cement Industry and the Portland

Cement Association

		Here are four of them.  I'll send the rest Monday.

		Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

919-541-5605

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>