81 FR 48366 - Continuum of Care Program: Solicitation of Comment on Continuum of Care Formula
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 142 (July 25, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 142 (July 25, 2016)
| Page Range | 48366-48369 | |
| FR Document | 2016-17567 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 48366-48369] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-17567] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 578 [Docket No. FR-5476-N-04] RIN 2506-AC29 Continuum of Care Program: Solicitation of Comment on Continuum of Care Formula AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On July 31, 2012, HUD published an interim rule, for public comment, entitled ``Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Continuum of Care Program,'' a program designed to address the critical problem of homelessness through a coordinated community- based process of identifying needs and building a system of housing and services to address those needs. HUD received 551 public comments on the interim rule. Approximately 42 of the public comments addressed the Continuum of Care formula, with the majority of these commenters seeking changes to the formula. With the interim rule now in place for 3 years, HUD seeks additional comment on the Continuum of Care formula. Comment Due Date: September 23, 2016. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title. 1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. 2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically. Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the document. No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable. Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-4300 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Continuum of Care (CoC) Interim Rule On July 31, 2012, at 77 FR 45422, HUD published in the Federal Register an interim rule to implement the CoC authorized amendments to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act). The purpose of the CoC program is to promote communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, and State and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families, and communities by homelessness; promote access to and effective utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Section 427 of the McKinney Vento Act, as amended by the HEARTH Act, directs the Secretary to establish, by regulation, a funding formula that is based upon factors that are appropriate to allocate funds to meet the goals and objectives of the CoC program. As part of the interim rule, HUD codified the formula for establishing a CoC's Preliminary Pro Rata Need (PPRN formula) that had been used for many years prior to the interim rule to establish a CoC's PPRN. The PPRN formula is a combination of the formula used to award Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program grant funds and Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funds. Under the current PPRN formula, after a .2 percent set-aside for U.S. territories and insular areas, 75 percent of the total CoC allocation is distributed to ESG entitlement communities, generally comprised of large metropolitan cities and urban counties where homelessness is more concentrated, according to the CDBG formula. The remaining 25 percent of the CoC allocation is distributed to ESG non-entitlement communities according to the CDBG formula. Within this framework, the current CDBG formula is structured as a ``dual formula'' system. As set forth below, Formula A allocates funds to communities based on the following weighted factors: population, poverty, and overcrowding. Formula B assigns a different weighting scheme to an alternative menu of factors: population growth lag,\1\ poverty, and pre-1940s housing.\2\ Specifically, the existing CDBG formulas \3\ are weighted as follows. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Population growth lag identifies slower growing communities or communities experiencing population loss as potential indicators of communities in decline and in need of development assistance. \2\ The share of housing units built before 1940 reflects the age of a community's housing stock, a potential indicator of blight. \3\ For non-entitlement communities, Formula B uses population instead of population growth lag. [[Page 48367]] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Formula A Formula B ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25% * population.......................... 20% * population growth lag. 50% * poverty............................. 30% * poverty. 25% * overcrowding........................ 50% * pre-1940 housing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pursuant to this dual formula system, HUD calculates the funding amounts for each jurisdiction under both Formulas A and B and assigns the larger of the two grant calculations, less a pro rata reduction to ensure the total amount allocated is within the amount appropriated for funding. Section 427 of the McKinney Vento Act, as amended by the HEARTH Act also allows HUD to adjust a CoC's formula to ensure that the formula amount is sufficient to renew existing projects in each CoC for one year, which is known as the Annual Renewal Demand (ARD). In the FY 2015 Continuum of Care Program NOFA, and in several previous Continuum of Care Program NOFAs, the amount of funding that CoCs were eligible to receive was based primarily on their ARD and the PPRN formula had little impact on the amount they were eligible to apply for. Only for a minority of CoCs that had a PPRN that was larger than their ARD did the PPRN formula affect funding, and in these cases, it only affected the amount available for new projects. The PPRN formula would only have a more significant impact on CoC funding if the amount of funding available for the CoC program nationally is significantly larger than the amount needed to renew existing projects for one year. Several stakeholders indicated that the existing PPRN formula was not representative of the number of individuals and families experiencing homelessness in their geographic area. Therefore, the interim rule specifically sought comment on the PPRN formula and the process for determining a CoC's maximum award amount. HUD solicited public comment through November 16, 2012 and of the 551 public comments that HUD received, approximately 42 public comments were directed to the PPRN formula. The majority of the comments on the PPRN formula were from western States, counties, and cities, and indicated that the CDBG formula was not the appropriate basis for the PPRN formula because the CDBG formula utilizes urban blight, as reflected in the age of housing stock, and population growth lag factors to allocate funds, which may measure community development needs generally, but are not specifically tailored to measure homelessness. Other commenters stated that they opposed reductions in funding for renewal projects. As a result of the comments received, HUD has explored several alternative factors relevant to homelessness for potential inclusion in the PPRN formula and is re-opening the public comment period on the PPRN formula established in 24 CFR 578.17(a) of the interim rule for the purpose of seeking broader input on four proposed changes to the PPRN formula described in this section of the Notice before HUD selects the formula to include in the final rule. In developing the following proposals, HUD considered the many comments received in response to the formula in the interim rule, including those stating that the current formula utilizes factors that are not necessarily correlated with homelessness such as urban blight and population growth lag, and the request that the PPRN formula be based on updated factors that are intended to specifically measure homelessness. In developing proposals for alternative factors to be included in the final formula, HUD sought to maintain the basic structure of the current PPRN formula, while investigating alternative data sources and measures to be included as formula factors. The characteristics of the data sources for the four proposed alternative formula factors were determined to be consistent with HUD's 2001 Report to Congress \4\ on measuring need for homeless grant funding. Namely, the data sources for the proposed factors \5\ are: (1) Relevant to measuring homelessness, (2) accurate, (3) timely, and (4) readily available for every jurisdiction. HUD chose not to incorporate the point-in-time count data into the formula because not all CoCs use the same methodology to conduct their counts--with some CoCs having stronger methodology than others--and because not all CoCs conduct annual PIT counts. Instead, HUD used an average of two years of PIT count data to compare how highly a factor being considered for the formula correlated with rates of homelessness. In this way, PIT counts helped quantify the relevance of potential formula factors to measuring homelessness, while insulating potential formulas from the limitations of directly including PIT counts. Further, by using factors correlated with the PIT count, the proposed formulas mitigate the risk of data fluctuations in PIT counts that may be less prevalent in large Census datasets. Finally, since PIT counts are locally-generated and self-reported by jurisdictions seeking funding under the CoC program, direct inclusion of PIT counts into an allocation formula may create perverse incentives against objective PIT count methodologies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See ``Report to Congress: Measuring ``Need'' for HUD's McKinney-Vento Homeless Competitive Grants,'' January 2001 at https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/MeasuringNeed.pdf. \5\ Including the decennial Census (population), American Community Survey 5-Year Data (poverty, overcrowding, pre-1940 housing, renter-occupied units, average gross rent, rent-to-income ratio, vacant rental units, and hybrid factor), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 5-Year Data (affordability gap, rent- burdened extremely low-income households, and hybrid factor). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before considering any new factors, HUD reviewed the factors included in the existing PPRN formula--overcrowding, poverty, pre-1940s housing, and population--and their correlation to rates of homelessness. HUD conducted Pearson's Correlation analyses \6\ and found that three of these factors had a positive and statistically significant correlation with rates of homelessness. These were: (1) Overcrowding, with a .277 correlation; (2) poverty, with a .153 correlation; and (3) pre-1940s housing, with a .113 correlation. Population was not shown to have a significant correlation with rates of homelessness in a community. In addition to analyzing factors included in the current PPRN formula, HUD also considered several other potential factors related to housing markets, affordability, and demographics, as well as a hybrid factor that combined housing market and affordability measures. Understanding these factors, along with their correlation, is necessary to understanding the formulas being proposed for consideration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Pearson's correlation coefficients range from -1 to 1. A correlation coefficient of -1 or 1 indicates a perfect linear relationship (negative or positive, respectively) between two variables, while a correlation coefficient of 0 indicates a random relationship or no linear relationship between two variables. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Broadly speaking, the potential formula factors chosen by HUD for analysis, and described more fully below, represent important community-level determinants of homelessness identified in the research literature. Together, these factors represent three related categories of known determinants of homelessness: housing market factors, economic conditions, and housing affordability (which combines housing market and economic factors). Other categories of known community-level determinants of homelessness, such as climate factors or the robustness and quality of a community's safety net of social services for vulnerable populations, were found to lack the type of data [[Page 48368]] measures (e.g., timely and readily available for each jurisdiction) necessary to be included as potential formula factors. Similarly, some demographic factors identified as possible correlates to homelessness were excluded from consideration due to data limitations. For example, population growth lag could not be readily calculated for every jurisdiction due to changes in geographic boundaries since 1960 that artificially affect population counts. Potential Housing Market Factors: HUD considered the following potential housing market factors:Renter-occupied units--HUD explored this factor because renters generally experience higher housing instability than inhabitants of owner-occupied units. They are also more vulnerable to steep or sudden increases in rent, may be more economically unstable, and are subject to evictions as a result of non-payment of rent which tend to happen more quickly than the foreclosure process. For this factor, HUD found a .444 correlation between renter-occupied units as a percentage of all occupied housing units and rates of homelessness. Average gross rent--HUD explored this factor because several studies have found measures of ``rent level'' to be significantly correlated to higher rates of homelessness. However, this aggregate measure encompasses the entire rental market and may not be a good indicator of the rent pressures specifically faced by individuals and families experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. For this factor, HUD found a .248 correlation between average gross rent (calculated by dividing aggregate gross rent by the number of renter- occupied housing units) and rates of homelessness. Vacant rental units--HUD explored this factor because some studies have theorized that people are at higher risk of homelessness in tight rental markets; however, HUD found no significant correlation between rental vacancy rates (calculated by dividing the number of vacant rental units by total rental units) and rates of homelessness. Therefore, it was not used in any of the proposed formulas for consideration. Affordability gap--This factor was created to measure the gap between the demand for and supply of rental units that are both affordable and available to Extremely Low-Income (ELI) \7\ renter households. HUD considered this factor because ELI households have been shown to be at a greater risk of housing instability and homelessness. For this factor, HUD found a .310 correlation between this factor as a percentage of total housing units and rates of homelessness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ ELI households consist of families with incomes that do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Potential Affordability Factors: HUD considered the following potential factors related to the cost of housing combined with renters' ability to pay: Rent-to-income ratio is the comparison of how much rent people pay when compared to their income in the designated geographic area. HUD found a .288 correlation with rates of homelessness. Rent-burdened ELI households are those ELI households that pay more than 30% of their gross income for housing. HUD found a .336 correlation with rates of homelessness. Hybrid Factor: HUD considered one factor, developed specifically for the purposes of this formula, that weighted an affordability factor (rent-burdened ELI households) by a housing market factor (renter- occupied units), two variables found to be correlated with homelessness (with correlations of .336 and .444, respectively). This factor was calculated by multiplying the number of rent-burdened ELI households by the ratio of: the jurisdiction's percentage of renter-occupied units divided by the national percentage of renter-occupied units. HUD found that this hybrid factor had a .393 correlation with rates of homelessness. II. Proposed PPRN Formula Options for Public Comment After reviewing the simple (bivariate) Pearson's correlations between rates of homelessness and each of the above factors, HUD considered many different options for leveraging a combination of these factors into a formula that would better capture pro-rata need than any single factor on its own. HUD considered various factor weights as representing the relative magnitude of each factor's effect on need within a particular formula combination. The proposed weights represent what HUD views to be reasonable options for weighting the relative magnitudes of factors within each formula option based on its simple correlational analyses and the theoretical relationships between sets of factors and homelessness documented in established research literature. HUD seeks comment on the four formula options set out in the table below. HUD believes these options are better correlated with rates of homelessness at the local level than the current PPRN formula. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Formula A Formula B Formula C Formula D ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% * population..................... 25% * poverty.......... 25% * population....... 25% * poverty 15% * poverty........................ 25% * affordability gap 25% * poverty.......... 25% * affordability gap 25% * affordability gap.............. 25% * rent-burdened ELI 50% * hybrid factor.... 50% * hybrid factor households. 25% * rent-burdened ELI households... 25% * rental units..... 25% * rental units................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of these proposed PPRN formula options include the 75%/25% split between entitlement and non-entitlement communities that is a part of the current formula. In addition to comments on the proposed formulas set forth above, HUD welcomes comments on factors and corresponding weights that will target formula funding to urban and rural areas most in need of homeless assistance, whether by ESG entitlement designation, population density considerations, or otherwise. In addition, HUD welcomes comments on whether any of the four proposed options should be combined into a dual or multi-formula system similar to the dual calculation system utilized under the current PPRN formula. HUD has posted, on its Web site, a listing of each CoC's existing PPRN amount (as determined using the existing formula) as well as the amount that each CoC's PPRN would be using each of these four proposed formulas. HUD has also published a tool on its [[Page 48369]] Web site that stakeholders can use to adjust the weights of the proposed factors and determine the resulting PPRN. This tool can be used to explore formula options, using the factors listed above, other than the four formula options already published by HUD on its Web site. Using all of this information, HUD seeks comment on the proposed formulas made available as well as any new formulas and factors relevant to the goals and objectives of the CoC program for HUD to consider. Additionally, HUD acknowledges that each of the proposed formula options will result in the PPRN amounts of some CoCs decreasing. To prevent against a CoC losing a substantial amount of PPRN in a given year, HUD is considering including language that would prevent a CoC from losing more than a certain portion of their PPRN. For example, if a CoC's current PPRN amount is $2.5 million and a newly adopted PPRN formula would result in the CoC's PPRN amount being reduced to $1.7 million, HUD could consider language that would provide the CoC with more than $1.7 million in PPRN, but less than $2.5 million. HUD seeks comment on this proposal and also, what the appropriate amount or portion to be protected should be. HUD welcomes other comments on how the CoC formula may be improved. Dated: July 19, 2016. Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. 2016-17567 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
![48366 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 19, 2016. the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act).
Nancy A. Potok, www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly The purpose of the CoC program is to
Deputy Director, Bureau of the Census. encourages commenters to submit promote communitywide commitment
[FR Doc. 2016–17484 Filed 7–22–16; 8:45 am] comments electronically. Electronic to the goal of ending homelessness;
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
submission of comments allows the provide funding for efforts by nonprofit
commenter maximum time to prepare providers, and State and local
and submit a comment, ensures timely governments to quickly rehouse
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to homeless individuals and families while
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND minimizing the trauma and dislocation
make them immediately available to the
URBAN DEVELOPMENT caused to homeless individuals,
public. Comments submitted
24 CFR Part 578 electronically through the families, and communities by
www.regulations.gov Web site can be homelessness; promote access to and
[Docket No. FR–5476–N–04] viewed by other commenters and effective utilization of mainstream
interested members of the public. programs by homeless individuals and
RIN 2506–AC29
Commenters should follow the families; and optimize self-sufficiency
Continuum of Care Program: instructions provided on that site to among individuals and families
Solicitation of Comment on Continuum submit comments electronically. experiencing homelessness.
of Care Formula Section 427 of the McKinney Vento
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted Act, as amended by the HEARTH Act,
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant through one of the two methods specified directs the Secretary to establish, by
Secretary for Community Planning and above. Again, all submissions must refer to regulation, a funding formula that is
Development, HUD. the docket number and title of the document. based upon factors that are appropriate
ACTION: Notice; request for comments. No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile to allocate funds to meet the goals and
(fax) comments are not acceptable. objectives of the CoC program. As part
SUMMARY: On July 31, 2012, HUD of the interim rule, HUD codified the
Public Inspection of Public
published an interim rule, for public formula for establishing a CoC’s
Comments. All properly submitted
comment, entitled ‘‘Homeless Preliminary Pro Rata Need (PPRN
comments and communications
Emergency Assistance and Rapid formula) that had been used for many
submitted to HUD will be available for
Transition to Housing: Continuum of years prior to the interim rule to
public inspection and copying between
Care Program,’’ a program designed to establish a CoC’s PPRN. The PPRN
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address the critical problem of formula is a combination of the formula
address. Due to security measures at the
homelessness through a coordinated used to award Emergency Solutions
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
community-based process of identifying Grants (ESG) Program grant funds and
appointment to review the public
needs and building a system of housing Community Development Block Grant
comments must be scheduled by calling
and services to address those needs. (CBDG) funds. Under the current PPRN
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
HUD received 551 public comments on formula, after a .2 percent set-aside for
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
the interim rule. Approximately 42 of U.S. territories and insular areas, 75
Individuals with speech or hearing
the public comments addressed the percent of the total CoC allocation is
impairments may access this number
Continuum of Care formula, with the distributed to ESG entitlement
through TTY by calling the Federal
majority of these commenters seeking communities, generally comprised of
Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Copies
changes to the formula. With the interim large metropolitan cities and urban
of all comments submitted are available
rule now in place for 3 years, HUD seeks counties where homelessness is more
for inspection and downloading at
additional comment on the Continuum concentrated, according to the CDBG
www.regulations.gov.
of Care formula. formula. The remaining 25 percent of
Comment Due Date: September 23, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the CoC allocation is distributed to ESG
2016. Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special non-entitlement communities according
Needs Assistance Programs, Office of to the CDBG formula. Within this
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are Community Planning and Development,
invited to submit comments regarding framework, the current CDBG formula is
Department of Housing and Urban structured as a ‘‘dual formula’’ system.
this rule to the Regulations Division, Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
Office of General Counsel, 451 7th As set forth below, Formula A allocates
Washington, DC 20410–7000; telephone funds to communities based on the
Street SW., Room 10276, Department of number 202–708–4300 (this is not a toll-
Housing and Urban Development, following weighted factors: population,
free number). Hearing- and speech- poverty, and overcrowding. Formula B
Washington, DC 20410–0500. impaired persons may access this
Communications must refer to the above assigns a different weighting scheme to
number through TTY by calling the an alternative menu of factors:
docket number and title. There are two Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339
methods for submitting public population growth lag,1 poverty, and
(this is a toll-free number). pre-1940s housing.2 Specifically, the
comments. All submissions must refer
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: existing CDBG formulas 3 are weighted
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. as follows.
I. Background
Comments may be submitted by mail to
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
the Regulations Division, Office of Continuum of Care (CoC) Interim Rule 1 Population growth lag identifies slower growing
communities or communities experiencing
General Counsel, Department of On July 31, 2012, at 77 FR 45422, population loss as potential indicators of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 HUD published in the Federal Register communities in decline and in need of
7th Street SW., Room 10276, an interim rule to implement the CoC development assistance.
2 The share of housing units built before 1940
Washington, DC 20410–0500. authorized amendments to the
reflects the age of a community’s housing stock, a
2. Electronic Submission of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance potential indicator of blight.
Comments. Interested persons may Act in the Homeless Emergency 3 For non-entitlement communities, Formula B
submit comments electronically through Assistance and Rapid Transition to uses population instead of population growth lag.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:11 Jul 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_48508/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 48369
Web site that stakeholders can use to openings during the early morning clearance of 35 feet in the intermediate
adjust the weights of the proposed hours. They have also requested to position. The US41 bridge is a bi-level
factors and determine the resulting expand and modify the current winter bridge originally designed with the
PPRN. This tool can be used to explore operating schedule. upper level providing access for
formula options, using the factors listed DATES: Comments and related material automobiles and the lower level
above, other than the four formula must reach the Coast Guard on or before providing access for rail, oversized
options already published by HUD on August 24, 2016. vehicles, and snowmobiles.
its Web site. Using all of this ADDRESSES: You may submit comments The rail service to the peninsula has
information, HUD seeks comment on identified by docket number USCG– been discontinued and oversized
the proposed formulas made available 2016–0582 using Federal eRulemaking vehicles must provide advance notice to
as well as any new formulas and factors Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. the state before traveling over the road
relevant to the goals and objectives of See the ‘‘Public Participation and to the peninsula. Most recreational and
the CoC program for HUD to consider. Request for Comments’’ portion of the commercial vessel traffic, including
Additionally, HUD acknowledges that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section passenger vessel services, end prior to
each of the proposed formula options below for instructions on submitting November 15 each year and do not
will result in the PPRN amounts of some comments. resume services until after May 7 due to
CoCs decreasing. To prevent against a the formation of ice in the waterway.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
CoC losing a substantial amount of Large commercial freighter vessels do
PPRN in a given year, HUD is you have questions on this proposed not routinely pass through the
considering including language that rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Keweenaw Waterway.
would prevent a CoC from losing more Bridge Management Specialist, U.S. The current regulation, 33 CFR
than a certain portion of their PPRN. For Coast Guard; telephone 216–650–5408, 117.635, requires the bridge to operate
example, if a CoC’s current PPRN email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. with a 24-hour advance notice for
amount is $2.5 million and a newly SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: openings from January 1 through March
adopted PPRN formula would result in I. Table of Abbreviations 15 each year. From March 16 through
the CoC’s PPRN amount being reduced December 31 the bridge opens on signal
to $1.7 million, HUD could consider CFR Code of Federal Regulations at all times.
DHS Department of Homeland Security
language that would provide the CoC III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
E.O. Executive order
with more than $1.7 million in PPRN, FR Federal Register
but less than $2.5 million. HUD seeks This rule proposes to amend 33 CFR
MDOT Michigan Department of
comment on this proposal and also, Transportation
117.635 in accordance with the below
what the appropriate amount or portion NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking described changes. The table below
to be protected should be. SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed shows total bridge opening data
HUD welcomes other comments on rulemaking provided by MDOT, from April 16 to
how the CoC formula may be improved. Pub. L. Public Law December 14, between the hours of
§ Section midnight and 4 a.m., for the past 6
Dated: July 19, 2016. U.S.C. United States Code years.
Harriet Tregoning,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Year Openings
Community Planning and Development. Basis
[FR Doc. 2016–17567 Filed 7–22–16; 8:45 am] MDOT has requested to change the 2010 ...................................... 4
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P operating schedule of the US41 bridge at 2011 ...................................... 6
mile 16.0. The US41 bridge is the only 2012 ...................................... 6
crossing over the Keweenaw Waterway 2013 ...................................... 10
2014 ...................................... 7
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND and connects the towns of Houghton 2015 ...................................... 6
SECURITY and Hancock, Michigan. The current
operating schedule has been in place for This proposed rule would allow the
Coast Guard approximately 31 years and the use of bridge to operate with at least a 2-hour
the waterway has significantly changed, advance notice for openings from April
33 CFR Part 117 prompting the request to modify the 15 through December 14 between the
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0582 current regulation. hours of midnight and 4 a.m. During
Keweenaw Peninsula is the these hours no bridge tender will be
RIN 1625–AA09 northernmost part of Michigan’s Upper required at the bridge. The bridge will
Peninsula projecting into Lake Superior. be placed in the intermediate position
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; The Keweenaw Waterway runs
Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and during this 4-hour time period
northwesterly to southeasterly and providing a vertical clearance of 35 feet.
Hancock, MI separates the peninsula from the Vessels requiring a full bridge opening
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. mainland making the US41 bridge the will still be able to obtain an opening
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. only bridge crossing for residents and with a 2-hour advance notice. Vessels
visitors to the peninsula. may also go around the peninsula to
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to The Keweenaw Waterway is used by
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
avoid passing through the bridge.
change the operating schedule that recreational, commercial, inspected and The table below shows the total
governs the US41 bridge, mile 16.0 over uninspected passenger, and towing bridge opening data provided by MDOT,
the Keweenaw Waterway between the vessels. The US41 bridge is a vertical lift between December 15 and April 15, for
towns of Houghton and Hancock, type drawbridge and provides a the past 5 years.
Michigan. The Michigan Department of horizontal clearance of 250 feet, a
Transportation (MDOT) has requested a vertical clearance of 103 feet in the fully Year Openings
review of the current operating schedule open position, a vertical clearance of 7
of the drawbridge due to a lack of feet in the closed position, and a vertical 2011 0
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Jul 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_48508/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-23 02:00:28
Document Modified: 2016-07-23 02:00:28
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice; request for comments. | |
| Dates | September 23, 2016. | |
| Contact | Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-4300 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 48366 | |
| RIN Number | 2506-AC29 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR