Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations, 6380-6381 [C1-2010-31151]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6380
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing
to disapprove would not apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it
because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action based on
health or safety risks subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997).This proposed SIP
disapproval under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not
in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:53 Feb 03, 2011
Jkt 223001
2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is
not subject to requirements of Section
12(d) of NTTAA because application of
those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
proposed action. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or
disapprove State choices, based on the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to disapproves
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will
not in-and-of itself create any new
requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898.
Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 110 of the CAA,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.
Dated: January 28, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011–2497 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1167]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
Correction
In proposed rule document 2010–
31151 beginning on page 77598 in the
issue of Monday, December 13, 2010,
make the following correction:
§ 67.4
[Corrected]
On page 77599, in § 67.4, in the table
St. Charles County, Missouri, and
Incorporated Areas, the 12th and 13th
entries are corrected to read as set forth
below:
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
6381
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Flooding source(s)
* Elevation in feet (NGVD)
+ Elevation in feet (NAVD)
# Depth in feet above
ground
∧ Elevation in meters
(MSL)
Location of referenced elevation **
Effective
Communities affected
Modified
St. Charles County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
*
*
Lake Sainte Louise ...............
Little Dardenne Creek ...........
*
*
*
*
None
+553
+546
+554
Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Morrison Lane ....
*
Entire shoreline within community ................................
At the confluence with Dardenne Creek ......................
None
+719
*
*
[FR Doc. C1–2010–31151 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
45 CFR Part 1609
Fee-Generating Cases
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to amend
the Legal Services Corporation’s
regulation on fee-generating cases to
clarify that it applies only to LSC and
private non-LSC funds.
DATES: Comments on this NPRM are due
on March 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted by mail, fax or email to
Mattie Cohan, Senior Assistant General
Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Legal
Services Corporation, 3333 K Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202–295–
1624 (ph); 202–337–6519 (fax);
mcohan@lsc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mattie Cohan, Senior Assistant General
Counsel, 202–295–1624 (ph);
mcohan@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
Background
Generally, the substantive LSC
restrictions on LSC recipients fall into
two categories: ‘‘entity restrictions’’ and
‘‘LSC funds restrictions.’’ ‘‘Entity
restrictions’’ apply to all activities of a
recipient regardless of the funding
source (except for the use of tribal funds
as intended) and generally originate in
section 504 of LSC’s FY 1996
appropriations act (the provisions of
which have been carried forward in
subsequent appropriations). In contrast,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:53 Feb 03, 2011
*
Jkt 223001
*
*
‘‘LSC funds restrictions’’ usually
originate from the LSC Act and apply to
the use of LSC funds and private funds,
but not to tribal or public non-LSC
funds used as intended. LSC’s
regulation at 45 CFR part 1609, FeeGenerating Cases, is based on
§ 1007(b)(1) of the LSC Act, which
provides that no funds made available
by the Corporation may be used to
provide legal assistance, except as per
LSC regulation, with respect to any feegenerating case. The fee-generating case
provision of the LSC Act is an ‘‘LSC
funds restriction.’’ However, § 1609.3(a),
as currently written, is not limited to the
use of LSC funds. Rather it reads as an
‘‘entity restriction’’ reaching all of an
LSC recipient’s funds. This language
follows the same structure as other
entity restrictions such as part 1617—
Class Actions, which states that
‘‘Recipients are prohibited from
initiating or participating in any class
action.’’ 45 CFR 1617.3.
From its initial adoption in 1976
through 1996 Part 1609 followed the
language of the LSC Act and was
expressly applied as an LSC funds
restriction. At that time, § 1609.3
provided that: ‘‘[n]o recipient shall use
funds received from the Corporation to
provide legal assistance in a feegenerating case unless’’ one of the
regulatory exceptions applied. 41 FR
18528 (proposed rule May 5, 1976), 41
FR 38505 (final rule Sept. 10, 1976), and
49 FR 19656 (final rule May 9, 1984)
(the last final rule prior to 1996)
(emphasis added).
In 1996 LSC revised part 1609 in
conjunction with the enactment of the
part 1642 entity prohibition on
recipients claiming or collecting and
retaining attorneys’ fees. In the revision
the language was changed from the prior
‘‘Corporation funds’’ prohibition to the
more general ‘‘no recipient’’ entity
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
City of Lake St. Louis.
Unincorporated Areas of
St. Charles County.
*
prohibition. Notably though, there is no
discussion in the preamble to the
proposed or final regulation of any
significant substantive change in scope.
61 FR 45765 (proposed rule August 29,
1996) and 62 FR 19398 (final rule April
21, 1997). Nor is there any such
discussion in any of the relevant LSC
Board transcripts. Rather, the only
mention of the change in language is the
following discussion of the revised
§ 1609.3:
This section defines the limits within
which recipients may undertake feegenerating cases. This new section
reorganizes and replaces §§ 1609.3 and
1609.4 of the current rule in order to make
them easier to understand.
Id. (appearing in the preambles to both
the proposed and final rules) (emphasis
added). The regulatory history contains
extensive discussions of policy and
regulatory nuances regarding the thennew attorneys’ fees provisions and their
relationship with the fee-generating case
restriction in part 1609. These
discussions involved the LSC Board,
LSC management, the LSC OIG and
representatives of recipients.
Considering the attention paid to this
and the other regulations implemented
in 1996 and 1997, it seems very unusual
that LSC would adopt such a significant
substantive change to part 1609 without
any discussion, any description of the
change in the preamble to the rule, or
any comments by the OIG or
representatives of recipients.
Notwithstanding the 1997 regulatory
change, LSC has not applied part 1609
as an entity restriction, but has rather
continued to apply it as an restriction
applying only to a recipient’s LSC and
private non-LSC funds. For example, the
LSC Compliance Supplement to the LSC
Audit Guide, which provides guidance
to auditors regarding recipient
compliance with the substantive LSC
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6380-6381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2010-31151]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1167]
Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
Correction
In proposed rule document 2010-31151 beginning on page 77598 in the
issue of Monday, December 13, 2010, make the following correction:
Sec. 67.4 [Corrected]
On page 77599, in Sec. 67.4, in the table St. Charles County,
Missouri, and Incorporated Areas, the 12th and 13th entries are
corrected to read as set forth below:
[[Page 6381]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Elevation in feet
(NGVD) + Elevation in
feet (NAVD)
Location of referenced Depth in feet above
Flooding source(s) elevation ** ground [caret] Elevation Communities affected
in meters (MSL)
--------------------------
Effective Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Charles County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Sainte Louise.................. Entire shoreline within None +546 City of Lake St. Louis.
community.
Little Dardenne Creek............... At the confluence with +553 +554 Unincorporated Areas of
Dardenne Creek. St. Charles County.
Approximately 0.9 mile None +719
upstream of Morrison
Lane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. C1-2010-31151 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
