Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5679 

2This letter can be found at http://portal.hud.gov/ 

hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_

indian_housing/programs/ph. 

income, and whether the resident was 

elderly or disabled. 

HUD is considering revising HUD’s 

regulations at 24 CFR 960.261 

(Restriction on eviction of families 

based on income) in a manner that 

would continue to give PHAs discretion 

on when to evict or terminate the 

tenancies of over-income families but 

narrow that discretion by providing 

circumstances that would require a PHA 

to terminate tenancy or evict an overincome family. Specifically, HUD is 

considering whether a family whose 

income significantly exceeds the income 

limit and has exceeded such limit for a 

sustained period of time must be 

notified by the PHA that the family will 

be evicted or tenancy terminated. HUD 

is also considering what a reasonable 

period of time to find alternative 

housing would be. 

HUD is not considering whether to 

alter the existing statutorily based 

exceptions to eviction or termination of 

tenancy related to income limits. 

Specifically, a family over the income 

limits who has a valid contract for 

participation in a Family SelfSufficiency (FSS) program administered 

under HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 

984 would not be subject to eviction or 

termination of tenancy. Additionally, a 

PHA may not evict a family over the 

income limits if the family is currently 

receiving the earned income 

disallowance authorized by the 1937 

Act (See 42 U.S.C. 1473a(d)) and 

implemented through HUD regulations 

in 24 CFR 960.255 and 24 CFR 

960.261(b). 

II. Request for Comments 

In a letter provided to PHAs on 

September 3, 2015, HUD strongly 

recommended that PHAs adopt local 

over-income policies while considering 

many factors, including, but not limited 

to how over-income is defined, income 

stability, length of time to provide a 

safety net for fluctuating incomes, 

preference for return and hardship 

policies.2 In anticipation of a proposed 

rulemaking, HUD specifically solicits 

comment on the following issues: 

1. How should HUD define income 

that ‘‘significantly’’ exceeds the income 

limit for public housing residency? 

Should such higher amount be 

determined by dollar amount, by a 

percentage, or as a function of the 

current income limit, and what should 

the amount be? 

2. Should area cost of living and 

family finances be taken into 

consideration when determining 

whether an individual or family no 

longer needs public housing assistance? 

Are there limits to the circumstances in 

which said data should be requested 

and applied in a determination? 

3. What period of time in which an 

individual or family has had income 

that significantly exceeds the income 

limits should be determined as 

indicative that the individual or family 

no longer needs public housing 

assistance? 

4. How should local housing market 

conditions or housing authority wait list 

data be considered? 

5. What period of time should be 

allowed for an individual or family to 

find alternative housing? 

6. Are there exceptions to eviction or 

termination of tenancy that HUD should 

consider beyond those listed in HUD’s 

regulation in 24 CFR 960.261? 

7. Should HUD allow over-income 

individuals or families to remain in 

public housing, while paying 

unsubsidized or fair market, rent? How 

would such a provision impact PHA 

operations and finances? 

8. Should HUD require a local appeals 

process for individuals or families 

deemed over-income? 

9. Where over-income policies have 

been implemented, what were the 

results to public housing residents and 

PHAs? What were the specific positive 

and negative impacts? 

10. What financial impact would 

over-income policies have on PHA 

operations, and how can any negative 

impacts be mitigated? 

11. What are the potential costs and 

benefits to public housing residents and 

PHAs that could result from the forcible 

eviction of public housing tenants? 

12. What evidence currently exists in 

favor of or against the adoption of this 

type of policy? 

It is the responsibility of HUD and 

PHAs to ensure that public housing 

units are available to those who need 

HUD assistance. All comments directed 

to steps that HUD and PHAs can take to 

ensure availability of public housing 

units for individuals and families 

meeting the income limits are welcome. 

Dated: January 25, 2016. 

Lourdes Castro Ramı ́rez, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Public and Indian Housing. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01921 Filed 2–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–1011] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Broad Creek, Laurel, DE 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the operating schedule that 

governs the Norfolk Southern Railroad 

Bridge over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at 

Laurel, DE. This proposed rule will 

change the current regulation requiring 

a four-hour advance notice and allow 

the bridge to remain in the closed 

position for the passage of vessels. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

March 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2015–1011 using Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mrs. Jessica Shea, 

Fifth Coast Guard District (dpb), at (757) 

398–6422, email jessica.c.shea2@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive order 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

The current operating schedule for the 

bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.233 (a) 

issued September 11, 2006. As outlined 

in this regulation, the Norfolk Southern 

Railroad Bridge shall open on signal if 

at least four hours notice is given. The 

Fifth Coast Guard District Commander 

received a request from the bridge 

owner in July 2015 to consider making 

a permanent change to the operating 

regulation for the Norfolk Southern 

Railroad Bridge per 33 CFR 117.8(a). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5680 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

This proposed rulemaking aligns the 

new schedule with the observed lack of 

marine traffic that requires a bridge 

opening and the operating regulations 

for the Poplar Street and US Highway 

13A, which also cross Broad Creek. The 

proposed change would amend the 

existing regulation to state that the 

bridge need not open. 

The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge 

over Broad Creek, mile 8.0, at Laurel, 

DE, has a vertical clearance of fourteen 

feet above mean high water in the 

closed position and is unlimited in the 

open position. The charted depth at the 

bridge is four feet. The existing structure 

is a swing bridge that was authorized in 

1910. The structure has been used by 

trains since it was completed in 1915; 

however, the bridge owner reported that 

no openings have been requested since 

it was acquired by Norfolk Southern in 

1999. 

Milford Fertilizer had a dock that was 

used by commercial traffic upstream of 

the railroad bridge when the existing 

structure was issued a bridge permit in 

1910. Prior to publishing this NPRM, 

the Coast Guard contacted the fertilizer 

company to determine if there would be 

any impacts to their operations. The 

fertilizer plant modified the operations 

conducted in this location and has not 

used the dock since the 1970s. There is 

no record of any other commercial 

maritime traffic on Broad Creek, DE. 

There are residential docks and 

municipal boat ramps downstream of 

the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. 

Recreational traffic is present during the 

boating season with the peak during the 

summer months. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This NPRM proposes to change the 

status of the Norfolk Southern Railroad 

Bridge to need not open for the passage 

of vessels. In order to align the operating 

schedule of the bridge with observed 

marine traffic, the proposed change 

amends the regulation to state that the 

bridge need not open. The lack of 

requests from vessels for bridge 

openings since 1999 illustrate that the 

vessels that use this waterway can safely 

navigate while the drawbridge is in the 

closed-to-navigation position. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders (E.O.s) related to 

rulemaking. Below we summarize our 

analyses based on these statutes and 

E.O.s and we discuss First Amendment 

rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies 

to assess the costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This NPRM has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Based on current maritime traffic, using 

Norfolk Southern documentation and 

notes in the Coast Guard bridge files, 

there will be few, if any, vessels 

impacted by this proposed change as 

there has not been a requested opening 

since 1999. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires federal agencies to consider the 

potential impact of regulations on small 

entities during rulemaking. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the bridge 

may be small entities, since there have 

been no requests for openings since 

1999, this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Government 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it is 

consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in E.O. 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5681 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 

review, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this 

document, and all public comments, are 

in our online docket at http://

www.regulations.gov and can be viewed 

by following that Web site’s 

instructions. Additionally, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted or a final rule is 

published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 117.233(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.233 Broad Creek. 

(a) The draw of the Norfolk Southern 

bridge at mile 8.0, at Laurel, need not 

open for the passage of vessels. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 14, 2016. 

Stephen P. Metruck, 

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01897 Filed 2–2–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 150629562–6025–01] 

RIN 0648–BF25 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bycatch Management 

in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 110 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). If approved, Amendment 110 

and this proposed rule would improve 

the management of Chinook and chum 

salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea 

pollock fishery by creating a 

comprehensive salmon bycatch 

avoidance program. This action is 

necessary to minimize Chinook and 

chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea 

pollock fishery to the extent practicable 

while maintaining the potential for the 

full harvest of the pollock total 

allowable catch within specified 

prohibited species catch limits. 

Amendment 110 is intended to promote 

the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

FMP, and other applicable laws. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than March 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0081 of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0081, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Electronic copies of Amendment 110 

and the Environmental Assessment/

Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/

RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action 

(collectively the ‘‘Analysis’’) may be 

obtained from www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this rule may 

be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska 

Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, 

Records Officer; in person at NMFS 

Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK; and by email 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS