Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Fort Field Diversion Dam Reconstruction, Utah County, UT, 15278-15279 [E8-5743]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15278
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 56 / Friday, March 21, 2008 / Notices
provide the notice to the borrower.
Therefore, the lender must provide a
new notice to the borrower, even if a
new determination is not required.
73. Is use of the sample form of notice
mandatory?
Answer: No. Although lenders are
required to provide a notice to a
borrower when it makes, increases,
extends, or renews a loan secured by an
improved structure located in an SFHA,
use of the sample form of notice
provided in Appendix A is not
mandatory. It should be noted that the
sample form includes other information
in addition to what is required by the
Act and the Regulation. Lenders may
personalize, change the format of, and
add information to the sample form of
notice, if they choose. However, a
lender-revised notice must provide the
borrower with at least the minimum
information required by the Act and
Regulation. Therefore, lenders should
consult the Act and Regulation to
determine the information needed.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
XVII. Mandatory Civil Money Penalties
74. What violations of the Act can
result in a mandatory civil money
penalty?
Answer: A pattern or practice of
violations of any of the following
requirements of the Act and their
implementing Regulations triggers a
mandatory civil money penalty:
(i) Purchase of flood insurance where
available (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b));
(ii) Escrow of flood insurance
premiums (42 U.S.C. 4012a(d));
(iii) Forced placement of flood
insurance (42 U.S.C. 4012a(e));
(iv) Notice of special flood hazards
and the availability of Federal disaster
relief assistance (42 U.S.C. 4104a(a));
and
(v) Notice of servicer and any change
of servicer (42 U.S.C. 4101a(b)).
The Act states that any regulated
lending institution found to have a
pattern or practice of certain violations
‘‘shall be assessed a civil penalty’’ by its
Federal supervisor in an amount not to
exceed $350 per violation, with a ceiling
per institution of $100,000 during any
calendar year (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(5)).
This limit has since been raised to $385
per violation, and the annual ceiling to
$125,000 pursuant to the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990, as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28
U.S.C. 2461 note. Lenders pay the
penalties into the National Flood
Mitigation Fund held by the Department
of the Treasury for the benefit of FEMA.
75. What constitutes a ‘‘pattern or
practice’’ of violations for which civil
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
money penalties must be imposed under
the Act?
Answer: The Act does not define
‘‘pattern or practice.’’ The Agencies
make a determination of whether one
exists by weighing the individual facts
and circumstances of each case. In
making the determination, the Agencies
look both to guidance and experience
with determinations of pattern or
practice under other regulations (such
as Regulation B (Equal Credit
Opportunity) and Regulation Z (Truth in
Lending)), as well as Agencies’
precedents in assessing civil money
penalties for flood insurance violations.
The Policy Statement on
Discrimination in Lending (Policy
Statement) provided the following
guidance on what constitutes a pattern
or practice:
deficiencies in its flood insurance
compliance; and
• Whether the financial institution
lacks generally effective flood insurance
compliance policies and procedures
and/or a training program for its
employees.
Although these guidelines and
considerations are not dispositive of a
final resolution, they do serve as a
reference point in assessing whether
there may be a pattern or practice of
violations of the Act and Regulation in
a particular case. As previously stated,
the presence or absence of one or more
of these considerations may not
eliminate a finding that a pattern or
practice exists.
End of text of the Interagency
Questions and Answers Regarding
Flood Insurance.
Isolated, unrelated, or accidental
occurrences will not constitute a pattern or
practice. However, repeated, intentional,
regular, usual, deliberate, or institutionalized
practices will almost always constitute a
pattern or practice. The totality of the
circumstances must be considered when
assessing whether a pattern or practice is
present.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
John C. Dugan,
Comptroller of the Currency.
In determining whether a financial
institution has engaged in a pattern or
practice of flood insurance violations,
the Agencies’ considerations may
include, but are not limited to, the
presence of one or more of the following
factors:
• Whether the conduct resulted from
a common cause or source within the
financial institution’s control;
• Whether the conduct appears to be
grounded in a written or unwritten
policy or established practice;
• Whether the noncompliance
occurred over an extended period of
time;
• The relationship of the instances of
noncompliance to one another (for
example, whether the instances of
noncompliance occurred in the same
area of a financial institution’s
operations);
• Whether the number of instances of
noncompliance is significant relative to
the total number of applicable
transactions. (Depending on the
circumstances, however, violations that
involve only a small percentage of an
institution’s total activity could
constitute a pattern or practice);
• Whether a financial institution was
cited for violations of the Act and
Regulation at prior examinations and
the steps taken by the financial
institution to correct the identified
deficiencies;
• Whether a financial institution’s
internal and/or external audit process
had not identified and addressed
Dated at Washington, DC, this 14th day of
March, 2008. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
By order of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, March 12, 2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
Dated: February 5, 2008.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
John M. Reich,
Director.
Dated: March 13, 2008.
Roland E Smith,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
By the National Credit Union
Administration Board, on March 13, 2008.
Mary F. Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8–5787 Filed 3–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P;
6720–01–P; 6705–01–P; 7535–01–P
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION
AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
Fort Field Diversion Dam
Reconstruction, Utah County, UT
Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation
Commission (Mitigation Commission),
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 56 / Friday, March 21, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Central Utah Water Conservancy District
(District) and U.S. Department of the
Interior (Department), jointly prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) to
determine the effects of reconstructing
the Fort Field Diversion on the Provo
River in Utah County, to provide
unimpaired fish passage during low
flow conditions and to meet diversion
requirements for canal companies and
legal water users.
The Proposed Action selected from
the EA for implementation entails the
Mitigation Commission, District and
Department cooperating to reconstruct
the Fort Field Diversion structure,
consisting of a cobble bar, a concrete
sluiceway, with gates, tree removal and
replacement or lining of a section of
pipeline.
The Fort Field Diversion often
functions as a dry dam: it diverts the
entire stream flow of Provo River, with
the exception of small quantities of
water that leak through the diversion
structure. It is also the lowest diversion
on the Provo River and the first
diversion encountered by June sucker as
they ascend the Provo River to spawn.
The June sucker is an endangered fish
species found only in Utah Lake, which
swims from Utah Lake up into the Provo
River to spawn.
The Fort Field Diversion restricts June
sucker spawning to only the lowest 3.8
miles of Provo River, and compromises
the quality of spawning habitat in that
lower reach; the upper 1.1 miles of the
4.9 mile reach designated as critical
habitat for June sucker, is often
inaccessible during May and June, when
June sucker spawn.
The decision to select the Proposed
Action from the EA will allow
reconstruction of the Fort Field
diversion structure resulting in fish
passage and access to the additional 1.1
miles of June sucker’s critical habitat. It
will also allow accurate and real-time
bypass and measurement of instream
flows, maintaining the ability to meet
diversion requirements for canal
companies and legal water users who
divert water at the Fort Field Diversion
structure.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:33 Mar 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
Based on information contained in the
EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was made, thus the Proposed
Action does not require preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) (it will not have a significant effect
on the human environment; negative
environmental impacts that could occur
are negligible and can be generally
eliminated with mitigation; there are no
unmitigated adverse impacts on public
health or safety, threatened or
endangered species, sites or districts
listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places, or
other unique characteristics of the
region; no highly uncertain or
controversial impacts, unique or
unknown risks, cumulative effects, or
elements of precedence were identified
that have not been mitigated; and,
implementation of the action will not
violate any federal, state, or local
environmental protection law.)
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact can be
obtained at the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation
Commission, 230 South 500 East, Suite
230, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102. They
may also be viewed on the internet at:
https://www.mitigationcommission.gov/
news.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maureen Wilson, Project Coordinator,
(801) 524–3166.
Dated: March 13, 2008.
Michael C. Weland,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E8–5743 Filed 3–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Enhanced-Use Lease of VA Property
for the Development and Operation of
a Senior Housing Facility for Low
Income Veterans at the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Dayton, OH
AGENCY:
Notice of intent to enter into an
enhanced-use lease.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
intends to enter into an enhanced-use
lease of approximately 6 acres of
underutilized land at the VA Medical
Center in Dayton, Ohio. The selected
lessee will finance, design, develop,
construct, operate, maintain and manage
a facility to provide senior housing for
low income veterans. The facility will
include a single 3-story, newly
constructed masonry building, with not
less than 61 one-bedroom and 6 twobedroom units and associated vehicular
parking spaces. The lessee also will be
required to provide VA with agreedupon ground rent payments and in-kind
consideration consisting of priority
placement and a discount rental rate
that eligible veterans will pay to reside
in the facility.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Bradley, Office of Asset
Enterprise Management (004B),
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20420, (202) 461–7778 (this is not a tollfree number).
Title 38
U.S.C. 8161 et seq. states that the
Secretary may enter into an enhanceduse lease if he determines that the
implementation of a business plan
proposed by the Under Secretary for
Health for applying the consideration
under such a lease to the provision of
medical care and services would result
in a demonstrable improvement of
services to eligible veterans in the
geographic service-delivery area within
which the property is located. This
project meets this requirement.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Approved: March 17, 2008.
James B. Peak,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8–5723 Filed 3–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA).
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15279
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 56 (Friday, March 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15278-15279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5743]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for Fort Field Diversion Dam
Reconstruction, Utah County, UT
AGENCY: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
(Mitigation Commission),
[[Page 15279]]
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District) and U.S. Department
of the Interior (Department), jointly prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to determine the effects of reconstructing the Fort
Field Diversion on the Provo River in Utah County, to provide
unimpaired fish passage during low flow conditions and to meet
diversion requirements for canal companies and legal water users.
The Proposed Action selected from the EA for implementation entails
the Mitigation Commission, District and Department cooperating to
reconstruct the Fort Field Diversion structure, consisting of a cobble
bar, a concrete sluiceway, with gates, tree removal and replacement or
lining of a section of pipeline.
The Fort Field Diversion often functions as a dry dam: it diverts
the entire stream flow of Provo River, with the exception of small
quantities of water that leak through the diversion structure. It is
also the lowest diversion on the Provo River and the first diversion
encountered by June sucker as they ascend the Provo River to spawn. The
June sucker is an endangered fish species found only in Utah Lake,
which swims from Utah Lake up into the Provo River to spawn.
The Fort Field Diversion restricts June sucker spawning to only the
lowest 3.8 miles of Provo River, and compromises the quality of
spawning habitat in that lower reach; the upper 1.1 miles of the 4.9
mile reach designated as critical habitat for June sucker, is often
inaccessible during May and June, when June sucker spawn.
The decision to select the Proposed Action from the EA will allow
reconstruction of the Fort Field diversion structure resulting in fish
passage and access to the additional 1.1 miles of June sucker's
critical habitat. It will also allow accurate and real-time bypass and
measurement of instream flows, maintaining the ability to meet
diversion requirements for canal companies and legal water users who
divert water at the Fort Field Diversion structure.
Based on information contained in the EA, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was made, thus the Proposed Action does not
require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (it will
not have a significant effect on the human environment; negative
environmental impacts that could occur are negligible and can be
generally eliminated with mitigation; there are no unmitigated adverse
impacts on public health or safety, threatened or endangered species,
sites or districts listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, or other unique characteristics of the
region; no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown
risks, cumulative effects, or elements of precedence were identified
that have not been mitigated; and, implementation of the action will
not violate any federal, state, or local environmental protection law.)
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact can be obtained at the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East, Suite 230,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102. They may also be viewed on the internet
at: https://www.mitigationcommission.gov/news.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Wilson, Project Coordinator,
(801) 524-3166.
Dated: March 13, 2008.
Michael C. Weland,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E8-5743 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
