82_FR_57009 82 FR 56780 - Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas

82 FR 56780 - Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 229 (November 30, 2017)

Page Range56780-56781
FR Document2017-25620

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017) 
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56780-56781]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25620]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1170]


Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Snohomish County, 
Washington and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing 
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations 
for Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: The proposed rule published on January 7, 2011 at 76 FR 1125 and 
the

[[Page 56781]]

correction published on February 22, 2011 at 76 FR 9714 are withdrawn 
as of November 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1170 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal 
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering 
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 7, 2011, FEMA published a 
proposed rule at 76 FR 1125 and 1126, and a correction on February 22, 
2011 at 76 FR 9714, proposing flood elevation determinations along one 
or more flooding sources in Snohomish County, Washington and 
Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule because FEMA 
has issued a Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map featuring 
updated flood hazard information. A Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard 
Determinations will be published in the Federal Register and in the 
affected community's local newspaper following issuance of the Revised 
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: November 2, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department 
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-25620 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P

56780 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules EPA’s proposed denial and reasoning. In Such a dynamic would likely cause EPA does not agree with the petitioners comments, petitioners were in delays to the investments necessary to in the ACE case that the statute requires agreement that the point of obligation expand the supply of renewable fuels in annual reconsideration of the matter should be moved to ‘‘position holders.’’ the United States, particularly and, to the extent that EPA has investments in cellulosic biofuels, the discretion under the statute to II. Final Denial category of renewable fuels from which undertake such annual reevaluations, The final decision document much of the majority of the statutory EPA declines to do so since we believe describing EPA’s analysis of the volume increases in future years is the lack of certainty that would be petitions seeking a change in the expected. associated with such an approach definition of ‘‘obligated parties’’ under In addition, changing the point of would undermine success in the the RFS program and our rationale for obligation could cause restructuring of program. denying the petitions is available in the the fuels marketplace as newly obligated EPA has determined that this action is docket referenced above (Docket ID No. parties alter their business practices to nationally applicable for purposes of EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0544). In avoid the compliance costs associated CAA section 307(b)(1). since the result evaluating this matter, EPA’s primary with being an obligated party under the of this action is that the current consideration was whether or not a RFS program. We believe these changes nationally-applicable regulation change in the point of obligation would would have no beneficial impact on the defining obligated parties who must improve the effectiveness of the RFS program or renewable fuel volumes comply with nationally applicable program to achieve Congress’s goals. and would decrease competition among percentage standards developed under EPA does not believe the petitioners or parties that buy and sell transportation the RFS program remains in place. In commenters on the matter have fuels at the rack, potentially increasing the alternative, even if this action were demonstrated that this would be the fuel prices for consumers and profit considered to be only locally or case. At the same time, EPA believes margins for refiners, especially those not regionally applicable, the action is of that a change in the point of obligation involved in fuel marketing. In addition, nationwide scope and effect for the would unnecessarily increase the we note that in comments on EPA’s same reason, and because the action complexity of the program and proposed denial, commenters favoring a impacts entities that are broadly undermine the success of the RFS change in the definition of ‘‘obligated distributed nationwide who must program, especially in the short term, as party’’ were predominantly in favor of comply with the nationally-applicable a result of increasing instability and designating position holders as RFS percentage standards, as well as uncertainty in programmatic obligated parties. However, position other entities who are broadly obligations. holders are not all refiners, importers or distributed nationwide that could We believe that the current structure blenders. Therefore, EPA believes the potentially have been subject to such of the RFS program is working to petitioners’ proposal is not well aligned requirements if EPA had elected to grant incentivize the production, distribution, with the authority provided EPA in the the petitions seeking a change in the and use of renewable transportation statute to place the RFS obligation on definition of obligated parties. fuels in the United States, while ‘‘refineries, importers and blenders, as providing obligated parties a number of appropriate.’’ Dated: November 22, 2017. options for acquiring the RINs they need A number of parties that either E. Scott Pruitt, to comply with the RFS standards. We petitioned EPA to change the definition Administrator. do not believe that petitioners have of ‘‘obligated party,’’ or commented [FR Doc. 2017–25827 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am] demonstrated that changing the point of favorably on those petitions also BILLING CODE 6560–50–P obligation would likely result in challenged the rule establishing RFS increased use of renewable fuels. standards for 2014, 2015 and 2016, Changing the point of obligation would alleging both that EPA had a duty to DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND not address challenges associated with annually reconsider the appropriate SECURITY commercializing cellulosic biofuel obligated parties under the RFS program technologies and the marketplace and that it was required to do so in Federal Emergency Management dynamics that inhibit the greater use of response to comments suggesting that it Agency fuels containing higher levels of could potentially avoid or minimize its ethanol, two of the primary issues that exercise of the inadequate domestic 44 CFR Part 67 inhibit the rate of growth in the supply supply waiver authority if it did so. In of renewable fuels today. Changing the a recent ruling in that litigation, the [Docket ID FEMA–2017–0002; Internal point of obligation could also disrupt Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1170] United States Court of Appeals for the investments reasonably made by District of Columbia Circuit declined to Proposed Flood Elevation participants in the fuels industry in rule on the matter, and instead Determinations for Snohomish County, reliance on the regulatory structure the indicated that EPA could address the Washington and Incorporated Areas agency established in 2007 and matter either in the context of a remand reaffirmed in 2010. While we do not of the rule ordered on other grounds, or AGENCY: Federal Emergency anticipate a benefit from changing the in response to the administrative Management Agency, DHS. point of obligation, we do believe that petitions that are the subject of this ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. such a change would significantly notice. See Americans for Clean Energy nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS increase the complexity of the RFS v. Environmental Protection Agency, SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency program, which could negatively impact 864 F.3d 691 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (‘‘ACE’’). Management Agency (FEMA) is its effectiveness. In the short term we As noted above, EPA is denying the withdrawing its proposed rule believe that initiating a rulemaking to petitions seeking a change in the concerning proposed flood elevation change the point of obligation could definition of ‘‘obligated parties.’’ EPA determinations for Snohomish County, work to counter the program’s goals by also is re-affirming that the existing Washington and Incorporated Areas. causing significant confusion and regulation applies in all years going DATES: The proposed rule published on uncertainty in the fuels marketplace. forward unless and until it is revised. January 7, 2011 at 76 FR 1125 and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:27 Nov 29, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM 30NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules 56781 correction published on February 22, Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier this document. Note that all comments 2011 at 76 FR 9714 are withdrawn as of (NVOCC) Negotiated Rate Arrangements received will be posted without change November 30, 2017. and NVOCC Service Arrangements. The to the Commission’s Web site, unless ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, proposed rule is intended to modernize, the commenter has requested identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1170 update, and reduce regulatory burdens. confidential treatment. to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering DATES: Submit comments on or before Docket: For access to the docket to Services Branch, Federal Insurance and January 29, 2018. read background documents or Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 In compliance with the Paperwork comments received, go to the C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, Reduction Act (PRA), the Commission is Commission’s Electronic Reading Room (202) 646–7659, or (email) patrick. also seeking comment on revisions to at: http://www.fmc.gov/17-10, or to the sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov. two information collections. See the Docket Activity Library at 800 North FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Paperwork Reduction Act section under Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 20573, between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Branch, Federal Insurance and below. Please submit all comments Monday through Friday, except Federal Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 relating to the revised information holidays. Telephone: (202) 523–5725. C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, collection requirements to the FMC and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For (202) 646–7659, or (email) to the Office of Management and Budget questions regarding submitting patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov. (OMB) at the address listed below under comments or petitions for review of the ADDRESSES on or before January 29, FONSI, or the treatment of confidential SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 2018. Comments to OMB are most information, contact Rachel E. Dickon, January 7, 2011, FEMA published a useful if submitted within 30 days of Assistant Secretary. Phone: (202) 523– proposed rule at 76 FR 1125 and 1126, publication. 5725. Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For and a correction on February 22, 2011 Petitions for review of the technical questions, contact Florence A. at 76 FR 9714, proposing flood elevation Commission’s finding of no significant Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade determinations along one or more impact (FONSI) under NEPA must be Analysis. Phone: (202) 523–5796. Email: flooding sources in Snohomish County, submitted on or before December 11, tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. For legal Washington and Incorporated Areas. 2017. questions, contact Tyler J. Wood, FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule ADDRESSES: You may submit comments General Counsel. Phone: (202) 523– because FEMA has issued a Revised and petitions for review of the FONSI, 5740. Email: generalcounsel@fmc.gov. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map featuring updated flood hazard identified by the Docket No. 17–10 by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information. A Notice of Proposed the following methods: Table of Contents Flood Hazard Determinations will be • Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For comments, include in the subject line: I. Executive Summary published in the Federal Register and in II. Background the affected community’s local ‘‘Docket 17–10, Comments on Proposed A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs) newspaper following issuance of the NSA/NRA Regulations.’’ For petitions B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance for review of the FONSI, include in the (NRAs) Rate Map. subject line: ‘‘Docket 17–10, Petition for C. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. Review of FONSI.’’ Comments and Overview of Comments petitions for review should be attached III. The Commission’s Proposed Rule Dated: November 2, 2017. to the email as a Microsoft Word or text- A. Overview Roy E. Wright, searchable PDF document. Only non- B. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance confidential and public versions of Requirements and Mitigation, Department of Homeland C. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and confidential comments and petitions Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking Security, Federal Emergency Management should be submitted by email. IV. Public Participation Agency. • Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices [FR Doc. 2017–25620 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am] Secretary, Federal Maritime BILLING CODE 9110–12–P Commission, 800 North Capitol Street I. Executive Summary NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001. The Commission proposes to amend Comments regarding the proposed its rules at 46 CFR part 531 governing FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION revisions to the relevant information NVOCC Service Arrangements to collections should be submitted to the remove the NSA filing and publication 46 CFR Parts 531 and 532 FMC through one of the preceding requirements. The Commission also [Docket No. 17–10] methods and a copy should also be sent proposes to amend its rules at 46 CFR to the Office of Information and part 532 to permit NRAs to be modified RIN 3072–AC68 Regulatory Affairs, Office of at any time. In addition, an NVOCC may Management and Budget, Attention: provide for the shipper’s acceptance of Amendments to Regulations Desk Officer for Federal Maritime the NRA by booking a shipment Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Commission, 725 17th Street NW., thereunder, subject to the NVOCC Arrangements and NVOCC Service Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: (202) incorporating a prominent written Arrangements 395–5167; or by email: OIRA_ notice to such effect in each NRA or nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV. amendment. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, including II. Background notice of availability of finding of no significant impact. requesting confidential treatment of The Shipping Act of 1984 (the comments, and additional information Shipping Act or the Act) expanded the SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime on the rulemaking process, see the options for pricing liner services by Commission (FMC or Commission) Public Participation heading of the introducing the concept of carriage proposes to amend its rules governing Supplementary Information section of under service contracts filed with the VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:27 Nov 29, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM 30NOP1


Document Created: 2017-11-30 00:35:10
Document Modified: 2017-11-30 00:35:10
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule; withdrawal.
DatesThe proposed rule published on January 7, 2011 at 76 FR 1125 and the correction published on February 22, 2011 at 76 FR 9714 are withdrawn as of November 30, 2017.
ContactRick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]
FR Citation82 FR 56780 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR