81 FR 91083 - Manufactured Housing Program: Minimum Payments to the States
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 242 (December 16, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 242 (December 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 91083-91086 | |
| FR Document | 2016-30153 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 91083-91086] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-30153] [[Page 91083]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 3282 and 3284 [Docket No. FR-5848-P-01] RIN 2502-AJ37 Manufactured Housing Program: Minimum Payments to the States AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the minimum payments to states approved as State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 in order to provide for a more equitable guarantee of minimum funding from HUD's appropriation for this program and to avoid the differing per unit payments to the states that have occurred under the present rule. This rule would base the minimum payments to states upon their participation in the production or siting of new manufactured homes, including for new manufactured homes both produced and sited in the same state. DATES: Comment Due Date: February 14, 2017. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, 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 http://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 http://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 rule. 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) 402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at (800) 877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-708-6423. (This is not a toll-free number.) Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8389. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52832), HUD published a final rule that, among other things, established minimum payments to the states participating in the Manufactured Housing Program as an SAA. HUD's August 13, 2002, final rule was issued in accordance with section 620(e)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act), as amended.\1\ In that rule, HUD determined to pay each state that, on December 27, 2000, had a fully approved state plan an amount not less than the amount paid to that state for the 12 months ending on December 26, 2000. HUD codified this rule at 24 CFR 3284.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Section 620(e)(3) of the Act provides, ``On or after the effective date of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (December 27, 2000), the Secretary shall continue to fund the States having approved State plans in the amounts which are not less than the allocated amounts, based on the fee distribution system in effect on the day before such effective date.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9740), HUD published a proposed rule to revise the minimum payments to SAAs in order to provide for a more equitable guarantee of minimum funding from HUD's appropriation for this program. Specifically, HUD proposed basing minimum payment to states on their participation in the production or siting of new manufactured homes. In explaining the reasons for its March 2004, rule, HUD stated that the August 13, 2002, rule resulted in inequitable payments between states fully approved as of December 27, 2000, and states that were not fully approved (including conditionally approved states) as of that date, and resulted in some states receiving more funding than other states for each unit of manufactured housing produced or sited in the state. In this regard, HUD explained that State A, a fully approved state in which the production and siting level had decreased by 30 percent since the rule's base year of 2000, would effectively receive a total of $16.50 (1,000 units received in 2000 x $11.50 divided by 700 units based on 30 percent reduction) per unit sited and produced in the state because that payment represented a pro rata portion of the inflated base year amount. State B, on the other hand, in which production and siting had remained steady or had increased, but which was not a fully approved state, would only be paid a total of $11.50 per unit sited and produced in State B (with no adjustment for reduced production levels) as provided by Sec. 3282.307. HUD concluded that while it expected some inequity in payments under the August 2002 rule, it believed that the minimum fee was based on production levels that were low enough to establish a reasonable minimum payment to each approved state. HUD was not expecting, however, the extent of the imbalances that resulted from the rule. Nevertheless, HUD did not finalize the March 2004 proposed rule. On May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25035), HUD published a proposed rule to revise the amount of the fee collected from manufacturers in accordance with section 620 of the Act. In response to HUD's proposed rule, several commenters stated that the fees paid to SAAs are not reflective of current production and shipment levels. HUD responded to these comments by stating [[Page 91084]] that it would review revisions to the current fee distribution formula to ensure that states are provided with adequate funding to perform the required SAA function. (See, 79 FR 47373, August 13, 2014). HUD agrees that it should establish a more equitable distribution of funds. As a result, HUD is proposing to implement section 620 of the Act by establishing a formula that bases the amount paid to a state on the state's participation in the production or siting of new manufactured homes while ensuring a cumulative payment based on the amount a state received in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, which is at least the same amount that each fully approved state received as of December 27, 2000, the date of enactment of the statute. II. HUD Consultation With SAAs and Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) HUD has worked with its partner SAAs and the MHCC to develop this proposal. In 2015, HUD elicited comments from both its partner SAAs and the MHCC on how to more equitably distribute fees among the states. At its August 2015 meeting, the MHCC considered a formula of $9.00 per transportable section located in a state, and $14.00 per transportable section manufactured in a state. Under this formula, whether a state was fully or conditionally approved would cease to affect funding. Additionally, the formula would provide that amounts states receive would not decrease below that received during FY 2014. The MHCC unanimously referred that proposal to its Regulatory Subcommittee. At the January 2016 MHCC meeting, the Regulatory Subcommittee recommended approval of this proposal to the full MHCC. Subsequently, the entire MHCC recommended adoption of the above mentioned proposal. As a result, HUD proposes revising payments to states consistent with that proposal through this rule. III. This Proposed Rule HUD proposes to amend Sec. 3282.307(b) to increase the amount paid to both fully approved and conditionally approved states for each transportable section of new manufactured housing that is produced in that state. Under HUD's proposal, Sec. 3282.307(b) would be revised to allow for payments to states of (1) $9.00 for each transportable section of new manufactured housing that is located in that state, and (2) $14.00 for each transportable section of new manufactured housing that is produced in that state. These increased levels reflect the respective levels of responsibility of states. HUD is also proposing to revise Sec. 3284.10 to ensure participating states (regardless of approval status before December 27, 2000) receive a funding level no less than the cumulative amount that state received in FY 2014. HUD's approach in revising Sec. 3284.10 builds on Sec. 3282.307(b) which provides for distribution of a portion of the monitoring inspection fees among both fully approved and conditionally approved states. These payments have been in effect for over 20 years and are currently paid to all participating states. As a result, under HUD's proposed rule, all states receiving amounts allocated from the fees collected from manufacturers will continue to be paid amounts at least equivalent to those received in FY 2014. These proposed funding levels would also meet or exceed the allocated amounts, paid to fully approved states, based on the fee distribution system in effect on December 27, 2000, in accordance with 620(e)(3) of the Act. In addition to being more equitable for the participating states, HUD believes that this proposed method of implementing the statutory requirement concerning minimum payments to the states would simplify the related administrative burdens of HUD and the states. For many years, HUD and the states have been making and receiving payments based on whether that state's program was fully or conditionally approved on December 27, 2000. Under this proposal, payments would continue to be made to all participating states, regardless of whether they are fully or conditionally approved, using a similar system under which HUD and the states have been operating for years. The proposed revised implementation of the statutory provision on minimum payments is similar to the same methodology used for compliance with Sec. 3282.307. As a result, the revised approach should not require any new payment or accounting structures and states should be able to seamlessly implement the statutory requirement. This new method of determining state payments would also largely eliminate the need for a year-end supplemental payment to states. Based on current production levels, most states would meet or exceed their FY 14 manufacturing and location levels. As a result, HUD believes that funding to states under this proposal would be more consistent, and more closely linked to their production and location levels. As stated in this preamble, whether a state was fully or conditionally approved on December 27, 2000 would cease to be a factor in determining SAA funding. Rather, all states, including states with fully approved state plans as of December 27, 2000, would continue to receive at least the same cumulative payment they received for FY 2014. That cumulative payment is at least the same amount that each fully approved state received as of December 27, 2000, the date of enactment of the statute. HUD developed this proposal while conservatively estimating manufactured housing production growth of 5 percent per annum. In recent years, manufactured housing growth has exceeded this 5 percent threshold.\2\ Based on these projections, HUD estimates that states that have levels of production above their 2000 levels will receive more funding reflecting both their higher production and the greater responsibilities of SAAs in manufacturing states. However, based on the fee distribution formula being proposed in this rulemaking, no state which was approved prior to December 27, 2000, will see a decrease in funding, even if production levels remain below those from 2000. Based on a conservative estimate of 5 percent annual growth, and given this rule's guarantee of FY14 funding levels, no state, even those not fully approved prior to December 27, 2000, would see a decrease in funding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ More information on Manufactured Housing production levels may be obtained via the Web site of the Manufactured Housing Institute, available at http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/reports/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Specific Issues for Comment To assist in HUD's development of this proposed rule, HUD is soliciting comments on certain features of its proposed rule. Therefore, in addition to commenting on the specific provisions of this proposed rule, HUD invites comment on the following questions and any other related matters or suggestions: 1. In determining a revised equitable fee distribution formula, what methods and data should HUD consider to increase the amounts paid to the states? For example, should HUD rely on the past three years or more of fee income data received by both fully approved and conditionally approved states in assessing the amount of the increase of the payment to each SAA? 2. Should fully approved states be entitled to higher levels of payments than conditionally approved SAAs? In addition to the number of home placements and production levels in each state, should the increase in payment consider the number of [[Page 91085]] complaints handled by each SAA for the past three years in determining the amount of the increase (HUD would need each SAA to provide a list of all complaints handled over the past three years)? 3. Should HUD revise 24 CFR 3282.307(b) to allow the amount of the distribution of fees among the states to be established by Notice in order to more timely address changes or fluctuations in production levels, in order to assure that the states are adequately funded for the inspections and work they perform? V. Findings and Certifications Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are ``outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This proposed rule was determined to not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore was not reviewed by OMB. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect only states that participate in the manufactured housing program, and will have a negligible economic impact. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's program responsibilities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)(UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of the UMRA. Environmental Impact In accordance with 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6) of the HUD regulations, this rule sets forth fiscal requirements which do not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites, and therefore is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and related federal laws and authorities. Federalism Impact Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order. List of Subjects 24 CFR Part 3282 Manufactured home procedural and enforcement regulations, Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 24 CFR Part 3284 Consumer protection, Intergovernmental relations, Manufactured homes. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in this preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 3282 and 3284 as follows: PART 3282--MANUFACTURED HOME PROCEDURAL AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 0 1. The authority citation for part 3282 continues to read as follows: Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5424. 0 2. Revise Sec. 3282.307(b) to read as follows: Sec. 3282.307 Monitoring inspection fee establishment and distribution. * * * * * (b) The monitoring inspection fee shall be paid by the manufacturer to the Secretary or to the Secretary's Agent, who shall distribute a portion of the fees collected from all manufactured home manufacturers among the approved and conditionally-approved States in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary and the States and based upon the following formula: (1) $9.00 of the monitoring inspection fee collected for each transportable section of each new manufactured housing unit that, after leaving the manufacturing plant in another State, is first located on the premises of a retailer, distributor, or purchaser in that state; plus (2) $14.00 of the monitoring inspection fee collected for each transportable section of each new manufactured housing unit produced in a manufacturing plant in that State. * * * * * PART 3284--MANUFACTURED HOUSING PROGRAM FEE 0 3. The authority citation for 24 CFR Part 3284 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5419, and 5424. 0 4. Revise Sec. 3284.10 to read as follows: Sec. 3284.10 Minimum payments to states. For every State that has a State plan fully or conditionally approved pursuant to Sec. 3282.302 of this chapter, HUD will pay such State annually a total amount that is the greater of either the amount of cumulative payments that State received between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014; or the total amount determined by adding: (a) $9.00, if after leaving the manufacturing plant, for every transportable section that is first located on the premises of a retailer, distributor, or purchaser in that State after leaving the manufacturing plant (or $0, if it is not) during the year for which payment is received; and (b) 14.00 for every transportable section that is produced in a manufacturing plant in that State (or $0, [[Page 91086]] if it is not) during the year for which payment is received. Dated: November 17, 2016. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing. [FR Doc. 2016-30153 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 91083
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND http://www.regulations.gov Web site can determined to pay each state that, on
URBAN DEVELOPMENT be viewed by other commenters and December 27, 2000, had a fully
interested members of the public. approved state plan an amount not less
24 CFR Parts 3282 and 3284 Commenters should follow the than the amount paid to that state for
[Docket No. FR–5848–P–01] instructions provided on that site to the 12 months ending on December 26,
submit comments electronically. 2000. HUD codified this rule at 24 CFR
RIN 2502–AJ37 Note: To receive consideration as 3284.10.
public comments, comments must be On March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9740), HUD
Manufactured Housing Program: submitted through one of the two published a proposed rule to revise the
Minimum Payments to the States methods specified above. Again, all minimum payments to SAAs in order to
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant submissions must refer to the docket provide for a more equitable guarantee
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing number and title of the rule. of minimum funding from HUD’s
Commissioner, HUD. No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile appropriation for this program.
(fax) comments are not acceptable. Specifically, HUD proposed basing
ACTION: Proposed rule. Public Inspection of Public minimum payment to states on their
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would Comments. All properly submitted participation in the production or siting
revise the minimum payments to states comments and communications of new manufactured homes. In
approved as State Administrative submitted to HUD will be available for explaining the reasons for its March
Agencies (SAAs) under the National public inspection and copying between 2004, rule, HUD stated that the August
Manufactured Housing Construction 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the 13, 2002, rule resulted in inequitable
and Safety Standards Act of 1974 in above address. Due to security measures payments between states fully approved
order to provide for a more equitable at the HUD Headquarters building, an as of December 27, 2000, and states that
guarantee of minimum funding from advance appointment to review the were not fully approved (including
HUD’s appropriation for this program public comments must be scheduled by conditionally approved states) as of that
and to avoid the differing per unit calling the Regulations Division at (202) date, and resulted in some states
payments to the states that have 402–3055 (this is not a toll-free receiving more funding than other states
occurred under the present rule. This number). Individuals with speech or for each unit of manufactured housing
rule would base the minimum payments hearing impairments may access this produced or sited in the state. In this
number via TTY by calling the Federal regard, HUD explained that State A, a
to states upon their participation in the
Relay Service, toll-free, at (800) 877– fully approved state in which the
production or siting of new
8339. Copies of all comments submitted production and siting level had
manufactured homes, including for new
are available for inspection and decreased by 30 percent since the rule’s
manufactured homes both produced and
downloading at http:// base year of 2000, would effectively
sited in the same state.
www.regulations.gov. receive a total of $16.50 (1,000 units
DATES: Comment Due Date: February 14,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: received in 2000 × $11.50 divided by
2017.
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, 700 units based on 30 percent
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are reduction) per unit sited and produced
Office of Manufactured Housing
invited to submit comments regarding in the state because that payment
Programs, Department of Housing and
this proposed rule to the Regulations represented a pro rata portion of the
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street
Division, Office of General Counsel, inflated base year amount. State B, on
SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC
Department of Housing and Urban the other hand, in which production
20410; telephone 202–708–6423. (This
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room and siting had remained steady or had
is not a toll-free number.) Individuals
10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. increased, but which was not a fully
with speech or hearing impairments
Communications must refer to the above approved state, would only be paid a
may access this number through TTY by
docket number and title. There are two total of $11.50 per unit sited and
calling the toll free Federal Information
methods for submitting public produced in State B (with no adjustment
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8389.
comments. All submissions must refer for reduced production levels) as
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
to the above docket number and title. provided by § 3282.307. HUD concluded
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. I. Background that while it expected some inequity in
Comments may be submitted by mail to On August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52832), payments under the August 2002 rule,
the Regulations Division, Office of HUD published a final rule that, among it believed that the minimum fee was
General Counsel, Department of other things, established minimum based on production levels that were
Housing and Urban Development, 451 payments to the states participating in low enough to establish a reasonable
7th Street SW., Room 10276, the Manufactured Housing Program as minimum payment to each approved
Washington, DC 20410–0500. an SAA. HUD’s August 13, 2002, final state. HUD was not expecting, however,
2. Electronic Submission of the extent of the imbalances that
rule was issued in accordance with
Comments. Interested persons may resulted from the rule. Nevertheless,
section 620(e)(3) of the National
submit comments electronically through HUD did not finalize the March 2004
Manufactured Housing Construction
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at proposed rule.
and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42
http://www.regulations.gov. HUD On May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25035), HUD
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
U.S.C. 5401–5426) (the Act), as
strongly encourages commenters to published a proposed rule to revise the
amended.1 In that rule, HUD
submit comments electronically. amount of the fee collected from
Electronic submission of comments 1 Section 620(e)(3) of the Act provides, ‘‘On or manufacturers in accordance with
allows the commenter maximum time to after the effective date of the Manufactured Housing section 620 of the Act. In response to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures Improvement Act of 2000 (December 27, 2000), the HUD’s proposed rule, several
timely receipt by HUD, and enables Secretary shall continue to fund the States having commenters stated that the fees paid to
approved State plans in the amounts which are not
HUD to make them immediately less than the allocated amounts, based on the fee
SAAs are not reflective of current
available to the public. Comments distribution system in effect on the day before such production and shipment levels. HUD
submitted electronically through the effective date.’’ responded to these comments by stating
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:25 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM 16DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_91325/page/1.svg)
![91086 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules
if it is not) during the year for which U.S.C. United States Code vessels used for public safety, and
payment is received. II. Background, Purpose and Legal vessels in distress.
Dated: November 17, 2016. Basis IV. Regulatory Analyses
Edward L. Golding, This proposed rule was requested by We developed this proposed rule after
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Grosse Ile Bridge Company, the
Housing. considering numerous statutes and
owner of the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge executive orders related to rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016–30153 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] (Bridge Road) to align drawbridge Below we summarize our analyses
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P operating schedules with the Wayne based on these statutes and executive
County Highway Bridge (Grosse Ile orders and discuss First Amendment
Parkway) Bridge at mile 5.6, at Grosse rights of protestors.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Ile. The Grosse Ile Highway Bridge is
SECURITY authorized to remove drawtenders and A. Regulatory Planning and Review
open the drawbridge if at least 12-hours
Coast Guard Executive orders 12866 and 13563
advance notice is provided from
direct agencies to assess the costs and
December 15 through March 15 each
33 CFR Part 117 benefits of available regulatory
year. This proposed rule will make the
alternatives and, if regulation is
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0988] current regulation easier to follow for
necessary, to select regulatory
the mariners that use the river system.
RIN 1625–AA09 approaches that maximize net benefits.
The Grosse Ile Toll Bridge (Bridge Road)
Executive order 13563 emphasizes the
was not granted permanent winter hours
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; importance of quantifying both costs
in the past due to regular commercial
Detroit River (Trenton Channel), and benefits, of reducing costs, of
traffic that required bridge openings
Grosse Ile, MI during the winter months. Over the past harmonizing rules, and of promoting
two winter seasons the commercial flexibility. This NPRM has not been
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. traffic has been reduced significantly
and waterway use through this action,’’ under executive order 12866.
drawbridge is equivalent to the volume Accordingly, the NPRM has not been
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
and type of traffic that passes through reviewed by the Office of Management
add permanent winter hours to the
the Wayne County Highway (Grosse Ile and Budget.
operating schedule of the Grosse Ile Toll
Bridge (Bridge Road) at mile 8.8, over Parkway) Bridge that has had permanent This regulatory action determination
Trenton Channel at Grosse Ile, MI. A winter hours for approximately 10 is based on the ability that vessels can
review of the current regulation was years. Mariners will still be able to still transit the bridge given advanced
requested by the Grosse Ile Bridge request bridge openings with advance notice during times when vessel traffic
Company, the owner of the Grosse Ile notice during times of light traffic is at its lowest. The proposed winter
Toll Bridge (Bridge Road). volume on the river, which is due to ice drawbridge schedule for the Grosse Ile
formation on the Detroit River that Toll Bridge (Bridge Street) would be the
DATES: Comments and related material
typically prevents most vessel traffic same as the Wayne County Highway
must reach the Coast Guard on or Bridge (Grosse Ile Parkway) Bridge.
before: January 17, 2017. from navigation in the channel from
December 15 through March 15 each B. Impact on Small Entities
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
year. Additionally, Commander, Ninth
identified by docket number USCG– The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
Coast Guard District has granted annual
2016–0988 using Federal eRulemaking (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
authorization to the owner/operator of
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. requires federal agencies to consider the
the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge to assume the
See the ‘‘Public Participation and potential impact of regulations on small
same schedule during the past 10 years
Request for Comments’’ portion of the entities during rulemaking. The term
under authority granted in 33 CFR
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
117.35.
below for instructions on submitting businesses, not-for-profit organizations
comments. III. Discussion of Proposed Rule that are independently owned and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Currently, the regulation for Grosse Ile operated and are not dominant in their
you have questions on this proposed drawbridges (33 CFR 117.631) includes fields, and governmental jurisdictions
rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, the operating schedule for the Grosse Ile with populations of less than 50,000.
Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Toll Bridge (Bridge Road) and the The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
Coast Guard District; telephone 216– Wayne County Highway Bridge (Grosse 605(b) that this proposed rule would not
902–6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. Ile Parkway) Bridge at mile 5.6, both at have a significant economic impact on
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Grosse Ile, MI. The purpose of this a substantial number of small entities.
proposed rule is to establish the same While some owners or operators of
I. Table of Abbreviations permanent 12-hours advance notice for vessels intending to transit the bridge
CFR Code of Federal Regulations both bridges on the waterway from may be small entities, for the reasons
DHS Department of Homeland Security December 15 through March 15 each stated in section IV.A above this
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E.O. Executive order year. The only change in this proposed proposed rule standardizes drawbridge
FR Federal Register rule is to allow a permanent schedules for both drawbridges on the
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act requirement for 12-hours advance notice waterway and would not have a
of 1969 during the winter months when ice significant economic impact on any
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
typically prevents recreational vessel owner or operator because the
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed navigation in the channel. At all times bridges will open with advance notice
rulemaking both bridges will be required to open as during low traffic times on the
Pub. L. Public Law soon as possible for public vessels of the waterway, or when ice conditions
§ Section United States, State or local government hinder normal navigation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:25 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM 16DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_91325/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 09:07:53
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 09:07:53
| 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 | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comment Due Date: February 14, 2017. | |
| Contact | Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-708-6423. (This is not a toll-free number.) Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8389. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 91083 | |
| RIN Number | 2502-AJ37 | |
| CFR Citation | 24
CFR
3282 24 CFR 3284 | |
| CFR Associated | Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Consumer Protection; Intergovernmental Relations; Investigations; Manufactured Homes and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR