Manufactured Housing Program: Minimum Payments to the States, 71831-71834 [2020-24380]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 219 / Thursday, November 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(4) NASA Administrator’s documents;
the Seal may be used on documents
such as interagency or
intergovernmental agreements and
special reports to the President and
Congress, and on other documents, at
the discretion of the NASA
Administrator.
(5) Plaques; the design of the NASA
Seal may be incorporated in plaques for
display in Agency auditoriums,
presentation rooms, lobbies, offices of
senior officials, and on the fronts of
buildings occupied by NASA. A
separate NASA seal in the form of a 15inch, round, bronze-colored plaque on a
walnut-colored wood base is also
available, but prohibited for use in the
above representational manner. It is
restricted to use only as a presentation
item by the Administrator and the
Deputy Administrator.
(6) The NASA Flag and the NASA
Administrator’s, Deputy
Administrator’s, and Associate
Administrator’s Flags, which
incorporate the design of the Seal.
(7) NASA prestige publications which
represent the achievements or missions
of NASA as a whole.
(8) Publications (or documents)
involving participation by another
Government agency for which the other
Government agency has authorized the
use of its seal.
(b) Use of the NASA Seal for any
purpose other than as prescribed in this
section is prohibited, except that the
Associate Administrator for
Communications may authorize, on a
case-by-case basis, the use of the NASA
Seal for purposes other than those
prescribed when the Associate
Administrator for Communications
deems such use to be appropriate.
■ 8. In § 1221.110, revise paragraph
(c)(4) to read as follows:
§ 1221.110
Use of the NASA Insignia.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) Items bearing the NASA Insignia
and NASA Logotype such as souvenirs,
novelties, toys, models, clothing, and
similar items (including items for sale
through the NASA employees’
nonappropriated fund activities) may be
manufactured and sold only after the a
request has been submitted to, and
approved by, the NASA Office for
Communications, NASA Headquarters,
Washington, DC 20546.
■ 9. Revise § 1221.111 to read as
follows:
§ 1221.111
15:52 Nov 10, 2020
Jkt 253001
§ 1221.112 Use of the NASA Program
Identifiers.
(a) Official NASA Program Identifiers
will be restricted to the uses set forth in
this section and to such other uses as
the Associate Administrator for
Communications may specifically
approve.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Revise § 1221.113(b), to read as
follows:
§ 1221.113
Use of the NASA Flags.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The NASA Administrator’s,
Deputy Administrator’s and Associate
Administrator’s Flags shall be displayed
with the United States Flag in the
respective offices of these officials but
may be temporarily removed for use at
the discretion of the officials concerned.
■ 12. Revise § 1221.114(a) to read as
follows:
§ 1221.114 Approval of new or change
proposals.
(a) Except for NASA Astronaut
Mission Crew Badges/Patches, any
proposal to change or modify the
emblematic devices set forth in this
subpart or to introduce a new
emblematic device other than as
prescribed in this subpart requires the
written approval of the NASA
Administrator with prior approval and
recommendation of the NASA Associate
Administrator for Communications.
*
*
*
*
*
Nanette Smith,
Team Lead, NASA Directives and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2020–23481 Filed 11–10–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 3282 and 3284
[Docket No. FR–5848–F–02]
RIN 2502–AJ37
Manufactured Housing Program:
Minimum Payments to the States
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Use of the NASA Logotype.
The NASA Logotype which was
retired from 1992–2020 can be used
only in an authentic historical context,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
on merchandise in accordance with
§ 1221.110, paragraph (c), in the NASA
graphics standards/style guide or with
prior written approval of the NASA
Administrator.
■ 10. Revise § 1221.112(a) to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71831
This rule revises the
minimum payments that HUD
distributes to states that participate in
the Manufactured Housing Program as
State Administrative Agencies (SAAs)
in order to provide for a more equitable
guarantee of minimum funding and to
reduce administrative burden. This rule
changes the minimum payments to
SAAs so that payments are based on
SAAs’ participation in the production or
siting of new manufactured homes,
regardless of whether the state was fully
or conditionally approved to participate
in the program as of December 27, 2000.
This rule also changes the formula for
minimum payments to SAAs by
increasing the amount paid to SAAs for
each transportable section of new
manufactured housing that is produced
in that state, and by ensuring that each
state participating in the program will
receive an annual payment no less than
the amount of cumulative payments
resulting from production and
shipments due to that State for the
Fiscal Year 2014 period.
DATES: Effective date: December 14,
2020.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Teresa B. Payne, Administrator, Office
of Manufactured Housing Programs,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street SW,
Room 9164, Washington, DC 20410;
telephone number 202–402–5365. (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
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, HUD regulations
provide for minimum payments to the
states participating in the Manufactured
Housing Program as an SAA. Since
August 13, 2002, HUD regulations at 24
CFR 3284.10 provide that each SAA
would receive an amount not less than
the amount paid to that SAA for the 12
months ending on December 26, 2000,
if that state had a fully approved state
plan on December 27, 2000. As HUD
explained in a proposed rule published
on March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9740), the fact
that § 3284.10 only applied to states that
had a fully approved state plan as of
December 27, 2000, resulted in
inequitable payments between states
and resulted in some states receiving
more funding than other states for each
E:\FR\FM\12NOR1.SGM
12NOR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
71832
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 219 / Thursday, November 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
unit of manufactured housing produced
or sited in the state.
In accordance with section 620 of the
Act, HUD’s regulations also provide for
HUD to establish and collect from
manufactured home manufacturers a
reasonable fee to, among other things,
provide funding to States for the
administration and implementation of
approved State plans. At § 3282.307(b),
HUD regulations provide that HUD will
distribute a portion of the monitoring
inspection fees collected from all
manufactured home manufacturers to
SAAs based on a formula. Prior to
issuance of this rule, that formula
provided each state $9.00 for each new
manufactured housing unit that, after
leaving the manufacturing plants, is first
located on the premises of a retailer,
distributor, or purchaser in that state,
plus $2.50 for each transportable section
of each new manufactured housing unit
produced in a manufacturing plant in
that State.
Since HUD’s March 1, 2004, proposed
rule, which was not finalized, HUD has
sought a solution to the issue of
inequitable payments between states
and worked with its partner SAAs and
the Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee (MHCC) to develop proposed
solutions. On May 2, 2014 (79 FR
25035), HUD published a proposed rule
to revise the amount of the fee collected
from manufacturers. 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
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 agreed that it should establish a
more equitable distribution of funds
among SAAs and, in 2015, solicited
comments from both its partner SAAs
and the MHCC on how to more
equitably distribute fees among the
states. The MHCC recommended 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 provided that
the amounts states would receive would
not decrease below that received during
Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.
On December 16, 2016, HUD issued a
proposed rule (81 FR 91083) to adopt
the proposal as recommended by
MHCC. HUD proposed to amend
§ 3282.307(b) to increase the amount
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Nov 10, 2020
Jkt 253001
paid to both fully approved and
conditionally approved states for each
transportable section of new
manufactured housing produced in that
state from $2.50 to $14.00, in order to
more appropriately reflect the
responsibility of these states and to
encourage states to participate in the
Federal-State program to the maximum
extent possible. HUD also proposed
revising § 3284.10 to ensure
participating states (regardless of
approval status before December 27,
2000) would receive a funding level no
less than the cumulative amount that
state 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. HUD noted in the
proposed rule that these proposed
changes would be more equitable for the
participating states. HUD also noted its
belief that the changes would simplify
administrative burdens of HUD and the
states, as payments would continue to
be made to all participating states,
regardless of whether they are fully or
conditionally approved, using the
methodology of § 3282.307, under
which HUD and the states have been
operating for years. As a result, the
proposed rule noted that the revised
approach would not require any new
payment or accounting structures and
states should be able to seamlessly
implement the statutory requirement.
Additionally, HUD noted that this new
method of determining state payments
would also largely eliminate the need
for a year-end supplemental payment to
states, as most states would meet or
exceed their FY 14 manufacturing and
location levels.
The proposed rule specifically invited
comment on the following three
questions:
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
complaints handled by each SAA for the
past three years in determining the
amount of the increase (HUD would
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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?
II. Public Comments and Response
The public comment period for the
proposed rule closed on February 14,
2016. HUD received three public
comments in response to this proposed
rule. One comment did not address the
proposed rule and stated that people
should be able to live in what they
want. The other two comments were
responsive to the rule and were
submitted by national trade associations
that represent the manufactured housing
industry. The responsive comments
supported the proposed rule and
stressed the importance of state
participation in the Manufactured
Housing Program. One commenter said
that SAAs are state entities that are
accountable to the public. This
commenter said that SAAs should
receive increased funding while
program monitoring contractors who
needlessly increase regulatory
compliance costs should receive less.
The responsive comments approved of
the proposal to pay SAAs $9.00 for each
transportable section of a new
manufactured home located in the state,
and $14.00 for each transportable
section of a new manufactured home
produced in the state. The responsive
comments also approved of the proposal
to pay states a minimum of the amount
they received in FY 2014, regardless of
whether the state had been fully or
conditionally approved. Additionally,
the responsive commenters provided
answers to the three questions that HUD
had posed in the proposed rule.
In response to the first question of
what methods HUD should consider to
increase the amounts paid to states, one
commenter said that it does not object
to distribution increases based on an
aggregate of cumulative in-state
production and shipment data reflecting
a reasonable time-defined period, as
long as the minimum annual
distribution level to any state, regardless
of approval status, does not fall below
the minimum level mandated by the
2000 law. The other responsive
commenter said that the primary data
that should be used to determine a
revised fee distribution formula is the
actual shipment and production in each
E:\FR\FM\12NOR1.SGM
12NOR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 219 / Thursday, November 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of the SAA states, and that HUD should
consider overall performance of the
SAAs both individually and
collectively.
In response to the second question of
whether fully approved states should be
entitled to higher levels of payments
than conditionally approved SAAs, and
whether increases in payments should
consider the number of complaints
handled by each SAA for the past three
years, both of the substantive
commenters said that conditionally and
fully approved states should receive the
same level of funding. One commenter
responded to the question of whether
increases in payments should consider
the number of complaints handled by
each SAA by saying it does not believe
this would be necessary or feasible, as
it would require SAAs to undertake
additional recordkeeping, and would
eliminate the level playing field needed
to ensure that all states can meet their
responsibilities under the Act.
In response to the third question of
whether HUD should revise 24 CFR
3282.307(b) to allow the amount of the
distribution fees to be established by
Notice, both of the responsive
commenters said that there is a statutory
requirement for HUD to go through
rulemaking before changing payments to
SAAs. One of the commenters said that
because section 620(d) of the Act says
that any fee collected under the section
may only be modified pursuant to
rulemaking, and subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 620 addresses funding to states
using the fees collected, any utilization
of those fees for payments to states is
also subject to the requirement that
modifications can only be done through
rulemaking. The other commenter said
that HUD should obtain public input
when making revisions to the funding
formula.
In response to these comments, HUD
notes that it appreciates these responses
and will consider them for future
changes to the fee distribution formula.
HUD understands commenters’
concerns that HUD should seek input
from interested parties before making
changes to the distribution formula.
HUD posed the question about whether
HUD should consider making future
changes to § 3282.307(b) by notice with
the thought that this might facilitate
HUD’s ability to respond more quickly
in the future to requests from the states
for more adequate funding.
As requested by the commenters, this
final rule maintains HUD’s proposed
changes in its December 16, 2016,
proposed rule, with some minor edits
for clarity. In the proposed rule,
§ 3282.307(b)(1) said that states will
receive $9.00 for each transportable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Nov 10, 2020
Jkt 253001
section of each new manufactured
housing unit that, after leaving the
manufacturing plant in another state, is
first located in that state. This final rule
says that states will receive $9.00 for
each transportable section of each new
manufactured housing unit that, after
leaving the manufacturing plant, is first
located in that state. This clarifies that
the states where manufactured housing
units are first located will receive the
$9.00 whether the transportable section
was manufactured in another state, or in
the same state where it is first located.
Thus, if a transportable section of a
manufactured housing unit is produced
in a state and first located in that same
state, that state would receive $23.00 for
that transportable section, the
combination of the amounts in
§ 3282.307(b)(1) and (b)(2).
This final rule also revises § 3284.10
to clarify that the minimum payment to
each state will be no less than that due
to that state for production and
shipments for the period between
October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014,
rather than the minimum payment
simply being the amount the state
received during this time period. The
change was needed because states
typically receive payments after
September 30th, up to December, for
shipments and production that occurred
during the FY 14 period.
Additionally, this final rule revises
the wording of § 3284.10(a) for
readability. The proposed rule said that
states would receive $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. This final rule says
that states will receive $9.00 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.
Finally, HUD is adding at this final
rule stage language to §§ 3282.307(b)
and 3284.10 that states that HUD shall
distribute the monitoring fee under
§ 3282.307 and pay the minimum
payment to states under § 3284.10
‘‘subject to the availability of
appropriations.’’ HUD is adding this
language to clarify that should its
annual appropriation fail to provide
sufficient funds to pay the states at the
formula levels established by this rule,
section 620(e)(2) of the Act limits HUD
to distribute fees ‘‘only to the extent
approved in advance in an annual
appropriations Act.’’ Consequently, the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71833
language added to §§ 3282.307(b) and
3284.10 codifies existing statutory
authority.
III. 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 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.
Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771, entitled
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, was issued on January
30, 2017. Section 2(a) of Executive
Order 13771 requires an agency, unless
prohibited by law, to identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed
when the agency publicly proposes for
notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In
furtherance of this requirement, section
2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires
that the new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to
the extent permitted by law, be offset by
the elimination of existing costs
associated with at least two prior
regulations. OMB’s interim guidance
issued on February 2, 2017, explains
that for Fiscal Year 2017 the above
requirements only apply to each new
‘‘significant regulatory action that
imposes costs.’’ It has been determined
that this rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action that imposes costs’’
and thus does not trigger the above
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires
E:\FR\FM\12NOR1.SGM
12NOR1
71834
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 219 / Thursday, November 12, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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 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
This rule establishes rates and sets
forth related fiscal requirements which
do not constitute a development
decision that affects the physical
condition of specific project areas or
building sites. Accordingly, under 24
CFR 50.19(c)(6), this rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Nov 10, 2020
Jkt 253001
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in this preamble, HUD
amends 24 CFR parts 3282 and 3284 as
follows:
PART 3282—MANUFACTURED HOME
PROCEDURAL AND ENFORCEMENT
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 3282
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697, 42 U.S.C.
3535(d), 5403, and 5424.
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,
if it is not) during the year for which
payment is received.
Dana T. Wade,
Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal
Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2020–24380 Filed 11–10–20; 8:45 am]
2. Revise § 3282.307(b) to read as
follows:
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
§ 3282.307 Monitoring inspection fee
establishment and distribution.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
*
Copyright Office
■
*
*
*
*
(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 subject to
the availability of appropriations:
(1) $9.00 of the monitoring inspection
fee collected for each transportable
section of each new manufactured
housing unit that 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
3. The authority citation for 24 CFR
part 3284 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5419, and
5424.
■
4. Revise § 3284.10 to read as follows:
§ 3284.10
Minimum payments to states.
For every State that has a State plan
fully or conditionally approved
pursuant to § 3282.302 of this chapter,
and subject to the availability of
appropriations, HUD will pay such State
annually a total amount that is the
greater of either the amount of
cumulative payments resulting from
production and shipments due to that
State for the period between October 1,
2013, and September 30, 2014; or the
total amount determined by adding:
(a) $9.00 for every transportable
section that is first located on the
premises of a retailer, distributor, or
purchaser in that State after leaving the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. 2016–03]
Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only
Books
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Office is
amending its regulations to make
electronic-only books published in the
United States subject to the Copyright
Act’s mandatory deposit provisions if
they are affirmatively demanded by the
Office. The final rule largely adopts the
language set forth in the Office’s June
2020 notice of proposed rulemaking,
with one additional clarification
regarding the rule’s applicability to
print-on-demand books.
DATES: Effective December 14, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin R. Amer, Deputy General
Counsel, kamer@copyright.gov or Mark
T. Gray, Attorney-Advisor, mgray@
copyright.gov. They can be reached by
telephone at 202–707–3000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
Under section 407 of title 17, the
owner of the copyright or the exclusive
right of publication in a work published
in the United States must, within three
months of publication, deposit ‘‘two
complete copies of the best edition’’
with the Copyright Office ‘‘for the use
or disposition of the Library of
Congress.’’ 1 The ‘‘best edition’’ is
defined as ‘‘the edition, published in the
United States at any time before the date
of deposit, that the Library of Congress
determines to be most suitable for its
purposes.’’ 2 These requirements are
1 17 U.S.C. 407(a), (b); see generally 37 CFR
202.19.
2 17 U.S.C. 101; see also 17 U.S.C. 407(b).
E:\FR\FM\12NOR1.SGM
12NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 219 (Thursday, November 12, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71831-71834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24380]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 3282 and 3284
[Docket No. FR-5848-F-02]
RIN 2502-AJ37
Manufactured Housing Program: Minimum Payments to the States
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises the minimum payments that HUD distributes to
states that participate in the Manufactured Housing Program as State
Administrative Agencies (SAAs) in order to provide for a more equitable
guarantee of minimum funding and to reduce administrative burden. This
rule changes the minimum payments to SAAs so that payments are based on
SAAs' participation in the production or siting of new manufactured
homes, regardless of whether the state was fully or conditionally
approved to participate in the program as of December 27, 2000. This
rule also changes the formula for minimum payments to SAAs by
increasing the amount paid to SAAs for each transportable section of
new manufactured housing that is produced in that state, and by
ensuring that each state participating in the program will receive an
annual payment no less than the amount of cumulative payments resulting
from production and shipments due to that State for the Fiscal Year
2014 period.
DATES: Effective date: December 14, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa B. Payne, Administrator, Office
of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 9164, Washington, DC 20410;
telephone number 202-402-5365. (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
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, HUD regulations provide for minimum
payments to the states participating in the Manufactured Housing
Program as an SAA. Since August 13, 2002, HUD regulations at 24 CFR
3284.10 provide that each SAA would receive an amount not less than the
amount paid to that SAA for the 12 months ending on December 26, 2000,
if that state had a fully approved state plan on December 27, 2000. As
HUD explained in a proposed rule published on March 1, 2004 (69 FR
9740), the fact that Sec. 3284.10 only applied to states that had a
fully approved state plan as of December 27, 2000, resulted in
inequitable payments between states and resulted in some states
receiving more funding than other states for each
[[Page 71832]]
unit of manufactured housing produced or sited in the state.
In accordance with section 620 of the Act, HUD's regulations also
provide for HUD to establish and collect from manufactured home
manufacturers a reasonable fee to, among other things, provide funding
to States for the administration and implementation of approved State
plans. At Sec. 3282.307(b), HUD regulations provide that HUD will
distribute a portion of the monitoring inspection fees collected from
all manufactured home manufacturers to SAAs based on a formula. Prior
to issuance of this rule, that formula provided each state $9.00 for
each new manufactured housing unit that, after leaving the
manufacturing plants, is first located on the premises of a retailer,
distributor, or purchaser in that state, plus $2.50 for each
transportable section of each new manufactured housing unit produced in
a manufacturing plant in that State.
Since HUD's March 1, 2004, proposed rule, which was not finalized,
HUD has sought a solution to the issue of inequitable payments between
states and worked with its partner SAAs and the Manufactured Housing
Consensus Committee (MHCC) to develop proposed solutions. On May 2,
2014 (79 FR 25035), HUD published a proposed rule to revise the amount
of the fee collected from manufacturers. 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 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 agreed that it should establish a more equitable distribution
of funds among SAAs and, in 2015, solicited comments from both its
partner SAAs and the MHCC on how to more equitably distribute fees
among the states. The MHCC recommended 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 provided that the amounts states would
receive would not decrease below that received during Fiscal Year (FY)
2014.
On December 16, 2016, HUD issued a proposed rule (81 FR 91083) to
adopt the proposal as recommended by MHCC. HUD proposed 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 produced in that state from $2.50 to $14.00, in
order to more appropriately reflect the responsibility of these states
and to encourage states to participate in the Federal-State program to
the maximum extent possible. HUD also proposed revising Sec. 3284.10
to ensure participating states (regardless of approval status before
December 27, 2000) would receive a funding level no less than the
cumulative amount that state 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. HUD noted
in the proposed rule that these proposed changes would be more
equitable for the participating states. HUD also noted its belief that
the changes would simplify administrative burdens of HUD and the
states, as payments would continue to be made to all participating
states, regardless of whether they are fully or conditionally approved,
using the methodology of Sec. 3282.307, under which HUD and the states
have been operating for years. As a result, the proposed rule noted
that the revised approach would not require any new payment or
accounting structures and states should be able to seamlessly implement
the statutory requirement. Additionally, HUD noted that this new method
of determining state payments would also largely eliminate the need for
a year-end supplemental payment to states, as most states would meet or
exceed their FY 14 manufacturing and location levels.
The proposed rule specifically invited comment on the following
three questions:
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 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?
II. Public Comments and Response
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on February
14, 2016. HUD received three public comments in response to this
proposed rule. One comment did not address the proposed rule and stated
that people should be able to live in what they want. The other two
comments were responsive to the rule and were submitted by national
trade associations that represent the manufactured housing industry.
The responsive comments supported the proposed rule and stressed the
importance of state participation in the Manufactured Housing Program.
One commenter said that SAAs are state entities that are accountable to
the public. This commenter said that SAAs should receive increased
funding while program monitoring contractors who needlessly increase
regulatory compliance costs should receive less. The responsive
comments approved of the proposal to pay SAAs $9.00 for each
transportable section of a new manufactured home located in the state,
and $14.00 for each transportable section of a new manufactured home
produced in the state. The responsive comments also approved of the
proposal to pay states a minimum of the amount they received in FY
2014, regardless of whether the state had been fully or conditionally
approved. Additionally, the responsive commenters provided answers to
the three questions that HUD had posed in the proposed rule.
In response to the first question of what methods HUD should
consider to increase the amounts paid to states, one commenter said
that it does not object to distribution increases based on an aggregate
of cumulative in-state production and shipment data reflecting a
reasonable time-defined period, as long as the minimum annual
distribution level to any state, regardless of approval status, does
not fall below the minimum level mandated by the 2000 law. The other
responsive commenter said that the primary data that should be used to
determine a revised fee distribution formula is the actual shipment and
production in each
[[Page 71833]]
of the SAA states, and that HUD should consider overall performance of
the SAAs both individually and collectively.
In response to the second question of whether fully approved states
should be entitled to higher levels of payments than conditionally
approved SAAs, and whether increases in payments should consider the
number of complaints handled by each SAA for the past three years, both
of the substantive commenters said that conditionally and fully
approved states should receive the same level of funding. One commenter
responded to the question of whether increases in payments should
consider the number of complaints handled by each SAA by saying it does
not believe this would be necessary or feasible, as it would require
SAAs to undertake additional recordkeeping, and would eliminate the
level playing field needed to ensure that all states can meet their
responsibilities under the Act.
In response to the third question of whether HUD should revise 24
CFR 3282.307(b) to allow the amount of the distribution fees to be
established by Notice, both of the responsive commenters said that
there is a statutory requirement for HUD to go through rulemaking
before changing payments to SAAs. One of the commenters said that
because section 620(d) of the Act says that any fee collected under the
section may only be modified pursuant to rulemaking, and subsection
(a)(1)(B) of section 620 addresses funding to states using the fees
collected, any utilization of those fees for payments to states is also
subject to the requirement that modifications can only be done through
rulemaking. The other commenter said that HUD should obtain public
input when making revisions to the funding formula.
In response to these comments, HUD notes that it appreciates these
responses and will consider them for future changes to the fee
distribution formula. HUD understands commenters' concerns that HUD
should seek input from interested parties before making changes to the
distribution formula. HUD posed the question about whether HUD should
consider making future changes to Sec. 3282.307(b) by notice with the
thought that this might facilitate HUD's ability to respond more
quickly in the future to requests from the states for more adequate
funding.
As requested by the commenters, this final rule maintains HUD's
proposed changes in its December 16, 2016, proposed rule, with some
minor edits for clarity. In the proposed rule, Sec. 3282.307(b)(1)
said that states will receive $9.00 for each transportable section of
each new manufactured housing unit that, after leaving the
manufacturing plant in another state, is first located in that state.
This final rule says that states will receive $9.00 for each
transportable section of each new manufactured housing unit that, after
leaving the manufacturing plant, is first located in that state. This
clarifies that the states where manufactured housing units are first
located will receive the $9.00 whether the transportable section was
manufactured in another state, or in the same state where it is first
located. Thus, if a transportable section of a manufactured housing
unit is produced in a state and first located in that same state, that
state would receive $23.00 for that transportable section, the
combination of the amounts in Sec. 3282.307(b)(1) and (b)(2).
This final rule also revises Sec. 3284.10 to clarify that the
minimum payment to each state will be no less than that due to that
state for production and shipments for the period between October 1,
2013 to September 30, 2014, rather than the minimum payment simply
being the amount the state received during this time period. The change
was needed because states typically receive payments after September
30th, up to December, for shipments and production that occurred during
the FY 14 period.
Additionally, this final rule revises the wording of Sec.
3284.10(a) for readability. The proposed rule said that states would
receive $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. This final rule says that states will receive
$9.00 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.
Finally, HUD is adding at this final rule stage language to
Sec. Sec. 3282.307(b) and 3284.10 that states that HUD shall
distribute the monitoring fee under Sec. 3282.307 and pay the minimum
payment to states under Sec. 3284.10 ``subject to the availability of
appropriations.'' HUD is adding this language to clarify that should
its annual appropriation fail to provide sufficient funds to pay the
states at the formula levels established by this rule, section
620(e)(2) of the Act limits HUD to distribute fees ``only to the extent
approved in advance in an annual appropriations Act.'' Consequently,
the language added to Sec. Sec. 3282.307(b) and 3284.10 codifies
existing statutory authority.
III. 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 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.
Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. Section 2(a) of
Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to
identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the
agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement,
section 2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires that the new incremental
costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at
least two prior regulations. OMB's interim guidance issued on February
2, 2017, explains that for Fiscal Year 2017 the above requirements only
apply to each new ``significant regulatory action that imposes costs.''
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action that imposes costs'' and thus does not trigger the above
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
generally requires
[[Page 71834]]
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.
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 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
This rule establishes rates and sets forth related fiscal
requirements which do not constitute a development decision that
affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building
sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
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 amends
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: 15 U.S.C. 2697, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5403, 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 subject to the availability of appropriations:
(1) $9.00 of the monitoring inspection fee collected for each
transportable section of each new manufactured housing unit that 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, and subject to the
availability of appropriations, HUD will pay such State annually a
total amount that is the greater of either the amount of cumulative
payments resulting from production and shipments due to that State for
the period between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014; or the
total amount determined by adding:
(a) $9.00 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, if it is not) during the year
for which payment is received.
Dana T. Wade,
Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2020-24380 Filed 11-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
