Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, 56780-56781 [2017-25620]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56780
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA’s proposed denial and reasoning. In
comments, petitioners were in
agreement that the point of obligation
should be moved to ‘‘position holders.’’
II. Final Denial
The final decision document
describing EPA’s analysis of the
petitions seeking a change in the
definition of ‘‘obligated parties’’ under
the RFS program and our rationale for
denying the petitions is available in the
docket referenced above (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0544). In
evaluating this matter, EPA’s primary
consideration was whether or not a
change in the point of obligation would
improve the effectiveness of the
program to achieve Congress’s goals.
EPA does not believe the petitioners or
commenters on the matter have
demonstrated that this would be the
case. At the same time, EPA believes
that a change in the point of obligation
would unnecessarily increase the
complexity of the program and
undermine the success of the RFS
program, especially in the short term, as
a result of increasing instability and
uncertainty in programmatic
obligations.
We believe that the current structure
of the RFS program is working to
incentivize the production, distribution,
and use of renewable transportation
fuels in the United States, while
providing obligated parties a number of
options for acquiring the RINs they need
to comply with the RFS standards. We
do not believe that petitioners have
demonstrated that changing the point of
obligation would likely result in
increased use of renewable fuels.
Changing the point of obligation would
not address challenges associated with
commercializing cellulosic biofuel
technologies and the marketplace
dynamics that inhibit the greater use of
fuels containing higher levels of
ethanol, two of the primary issues that
inhibit the rate of growth in the supply
of renewable fuels today. Changing the
point of obligation could also disrupt
investments reasonably made by
participants in the fuels industry in
reliance on the regulatory structure the
agency established in 2007 and
reaffirmed in 2010. While we do not
anticipate a benefit from changing the
point of obligation, we do believe that
such a change would significantly
increase the complexity of the RFS
program, which could negatively impact
its effectiveness. In the short term we
believe that initiating a rulemaking to
change the point of obligation could
work to counter the program’s goals by
causing significant confusion and
uncertainty in the fuels marketplace.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:27 Nov 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
Such a dynamic would likely cause
delays to the investments necessary to
expand the supply of renewable fuels in
the United States, particularly
investments in cellulosic biofuels, the
category of renewable fuels from which
much of the majority of the statutory
volume increases in future years is
expected.
In addition, changing the point of
obligation could cause restructuring of
the fuels marketplace as newly obligated
parties alter their business practices to
avoid the compliance costs associated
with being an obligated party under the
RFS program. We believe these changes
would have no beneficial impact on the
RFS program or renewable fuel volumes
and would decrease competition among
parties that buy and sell transportation
fuels at the rack, potentially increasing
fuel prices for consumers and profit
margins for refiners, especially those not
involved in fuel marketing. In addition,
we note that in comments on EPA’s
proposed denial, commenters favoring a
change in the definition of ‘‘obligated
party’’ were predominantly in favor of
designating position holders as
obligated parties. However, position
holders are not all refiners, importers or
blenders. Therefore, EPA believes the
petitioners’ proposal is not well aligned
with the authority provided EPA in the
statute to place the RFS obligation on
‘‘refineries, importers and blenders, as
appropriate.’’
A number of parties that either
petitioned EPA to change the definition
of ‘‘obligated party,’’ or commented
favorably on those petitions also
challenged the rule establishing RFS
standards for 2014, 2015 and 2016,
alleging both that EPA had a duty to
annually reconsider the appropriate
obligated parties under the RFS program
and that it was required to do so in
response to comments suggesting that it
could potentially avoid or minimize its
exercise of the inadequate domestic
supply waiver authority if it did so. In
a recent ruling in that litigation, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit declined to
rule on the matter, and instead
indicated that EPA could address the
matter either in the context of a remand
of the rule ordered on other grounds, or
in response to the administrative
petitions that are the subject of this
notice. See Americans for Clean Energy
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
864 F.3d 691 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (‘‘ACE’’).
As noted above, EPA is denying the
petitions seeking a change in the
definition of ‘‘obligated parties.’’ EPA
also is re-affirming that the existing
regulation applies in all years going
forward unless and until it is revised.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA does not agree with the petitioners
in the ACE case that the statute requires
annual reconsideration of the matter
and, to the extent that EPA has
discretion under the statute to
undertake such annual reevaluations,
EPA declines to do so since we believe
the lack of certainty that would be
associated with such an approach
would undermine success in the
program.
EPA has determined that this action is
nationally applicable for purposes of
CAA section 307(b)(1). since the result
of this action is that the current
nationally-applicable regulation
defining obligated parties who must
comply with nationally applicable
percentage standards developed under
the RFS program remains in place. In
the alternative, even if this action were
considered to be only locally or
regionally applicable, the action is of
nationwide scope and effect for the
same reason, and because the action
impacts entities that are broadly
distributed nationwide who must
comply with the nationally-applicable
RFS percentage standards, as well as
other entities who are broadly
distributed nationwide that could
potentially have been subject to such
requirements if EPA had elected to grant
the petitions seeking a change in the
definition of obligated parties.
Dated: November 22, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–25827 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM
30NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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) patrick.
sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.
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)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.
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
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Parts 531 and 532
[Docket No. 17–10]
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 3072–AC68
Amendments to Regulations
Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate
Arrangements and NVOCC Service
Arrangements
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
notice of availability of finding of no
significant impact.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Federal Maritime
Commission (FMC or Commission)
proposes to amend its rules governing
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:27 Nov 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier
(NVOCC) Negotiated Rate Arrangements
and NVOCC Service Arrangements. The
proposed rule is intended to modernize,
update, and reduce regulatory burdens.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
January 29, 2018.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), the Commission is
also seeking comment on revisions to
two information collections. See the
Paperwork Reduction Act section under
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
below. Please submit all comments
relating to the revised information
collection requirements to the FMC and
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) at the address listed below under
ADDRESSES on or before January 29,
2018. Comments to OMB are most
useful if submitted within 30 days of
publication.
Petitions for review of the
Commission’s finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) under NEPA must be
submitted on or before December 11,
2017.
You may submit comments
and petitions for review of the FONSI,
identified by the Docket No. 17–10 by
the following methods:
• Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For
comments, include in the subject line:
‘‘Docket 17–10, Comments on Proposed
NSA/NRA Regulations.’’ For petitions
for review of the FONSI, include in the
subject line: ‘‘Docket 17–10, Petition for
Review of FONSI.’’ Comments and
petitions for review should be attached
to the email as a Microsoft Word or textsearchable PDF document. Only nonconfidential and public versions of
confidential comments and petitions
should be submitted by email.
• Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant
Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001.
Comments regarding the proposed
revisions to the relevant information
collections should be submitted to the
FMC through one of the preceding
methods and a copy should also be sent
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Attention:
Desk Officer for Federal Maritime
Commission, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: (202)
395–5167; or by email: OIRA_
Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments, including
requesting confidential treatment of
comments, and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
Public Participation heading of the
Supplementary Information section of
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56781
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to the Commission’s Web site, unless
the commenter has requested
confidential treatment.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to the
Commission’s Electronic Reading Room
at: https://www.fmc.gov/17-10, or to the
Docket Activity Library at 800 North
Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC
20573, between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Telephone: (202) 523–5725.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions regarding submitting
comments or petitions for review of the
FONSI, or the treatment of confidential
information, contact Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary. Phone: (202) 523–
5725. Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For
technical questions, contact Florence A.
Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade
Analysis. Phone: (202) 523–5796. Email:
tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. For legal
questions, contact Tyler J. Wood,
General Counsel. Phone: (202) 523–
5740. Email: generalcounsel@fmc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs)
B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements
(NRAs)
C. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and
Overview of Comments
III. The Commission’s Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication
Requirements
C. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and
Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking
IV. Public Participation
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
The Commission proposes to amend
its rules at 46 CFR part 531 governing
NVOCC Service Arrangements to
remove the NSA filing and publication
requirements. The Commission also
proposes to amend its rules at 46 CFR
part 532 to permit NRAs to be modified
at any time. In addition, an NVOCC may
provide for the shipper’s acceptance of
the NRA by booking a shipment
thereunder, subject to the NVOCC
incorporating a prominent written
notice to such effect in each NRA or
amendment.
II. Background
The Shipping Act of 1984 (the
Shipping Act or the Act) expanded the
options for pricing liner services by
introducing the concept of carriage
under service contracts filed with the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM
30NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56780-56781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.
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)
patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.
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
