text:
Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Housing And Urban Development Manufactured Housing Program Fee: Final Fee Increase, 47373-47377 [2014-19173]
Manufactured Housing Program Fee: Final Fee Increase, 47373-47377 [2014-19173]
Download as PDF 47373 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 156 Wednesday, August 13, 2014 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 3284 [Docket No. FR–5721–F–02] RIN 2502–AJ19 Manufactured Housing Program Fee: Final Fee Increase Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This final rule amends HUD's Manufactured Housing Program Fee regulations to raise the fee for each transportable section of a manufactured home that the manufacturer produces in accordance with HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. This fee is referred to as a label fee. After considering public comments on HUD's May 2, 2014, proposed rule, this final rule raises the label fee to $100. DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2014. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Pamela B. Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Room 9168, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–708–6423 (this is not a toll free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877– 8389. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background HUD initiated this rulemaking to amend the amount of the fee collected from manufactured home manufacturers in accordance with section 620 (42 U.S.C. 5419) of the National VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:22 Aug 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) (the Act). Under this authority, HUD collects these fees through the sale of labels which the manufactured home manufacturer must apply to each transportable section of a manufactured housing unit that it produces as evidence that the unit(s) conform to HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards regulations, codified at 24 CFR part 3280. HUD establishes and collects these fees to offset its expenses for carrying out its responsibilities under the Act, including carrying out inspections, developing manufactured home construction and safety standards under 42 U.S.C. 5403, and making payments to states as required by statute and HUD's regulations (see § 3284.10). On May 2, 2014, at 79 FR 25035, HUD published a proposed rule for public comment proposing to increase the fee to an amount between $95 and $105 per transportable section of manufactured housing unit produced. In proposing this increase, HUD stated that while it has had authority to modify the fee in order to collect the overall amount of the fee established by HUD's appropriation for the applicable fiscal year, HUD has not exercised this authority since 2002. Given the increased costs related to overseeing the quality, safety, and durability of manufactured housing, the substantial reduction in fee collections since 2002 and, based on HUD's projected production levels of between 95,000 and 105,000 sections, HUD proposed raising the fee to an amount between $95 and $105 per transportable unit. II. The Commenters The public comment period for the May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25035), proposed rule closed June 2, 2014. HUD received two public comments in response to this proposed rule. The comments were submitted by national trade associations representing the manufactured housing industry. One commenter questioned the magnitude of the increase of the proposed fee but stated that it did not oppose the proposed fee modification, provided that additional revenues derived from the change were utilized to fund legitimate program functions in a manner proportionate to current and PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 projected production levels, and are targeted and utilized to provide enhanced funding for State Administrative Agencies (SAAs). The second commenter also expressed concern regarding the magnitude of the increase of the proposed fee and stated that the proposed fee is not reflective of current production levels. The commenter also recommended that HUD withdraw the proposed rule and develop a formula for establishing a fee based on production. The following section of this preamble summarizes the significant issues raised by the commenters on the May 2, 2014, proposed rule and HUD's responses to these comments. Comment: A commenter stated that HUD's proposed fee was an 143 to 169 percent increase over the current fee and, according to HUD, based on increased program expenses over the last 12 years. The commenter questioned, however, how program expenses could require such a significant increase in the fee when industry production over the same period decreased by 64 percent. Response: Program operating expenses do not have a direct correlation to production levels since monitoring is an ongoing expense. Nevertheless, HUD recognizes the magnitude of the increase. As discussed in the preamble to this rule, however, HUD has not increased the label fee since 2002. Moreover, beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and continuing through FY 2015, HUD plans to improve implementation of two key requirements of the Act. First, HUD plans to obtain contractual support to assist in the administration of the installation standards program in states that have not established approved programs and to assist in administering the dispute resolution program in states that have not established approved dispute resolution programs. HUD through its monitoring contractor also requires services to perform the design monitoring reviews of third party agencies as required by § 3282.452(e). Second, HUD is responsible for updating the construction and safety standards on a 2-year cycle, but has not been able to schedule a meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) since October, 2012. To address this, HUD recently awarded a contract to an Administering E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 47374 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Organization as required by the Act and will begin holding regular meetings of the MHCC. Finally, beginning in FY 15, HUD plans to structure the Manufactured Housing Program to be self-supporting. This means that unlike most prior years, HUD will not receive a direct appropriation of funds from Congress but will be dependent on label fees for administering the program. As a result, HUD has and will continue to incur increased costs to administer the program and must establish a label at a level that will allow it to administer the program operations while relying less on additional appropriations from Congress. Comment: The second commenter stated that HUD's proposed label fee represents an increase of between 243 and 269 percent over the current fee and fails to consider the overall cost of regulation under the Manufactured Housing program. According to the commenter, the industry pays approximately $6.4 million per year in fees to Production Inspection Primary Inspection Agencies (IPIAs) and Design Approval Primary Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) in order to comply with the Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards and Regulations. This is in addition to $10 million HUD estimates would be collected in label fees if the fee is increased to $100 per label. While the label fee is an important component of the HUD program, the commenter stated that HUD should consider the overall cost of regulation that is passed to the consumer and the impact on the affordability of manufactured housing prior to establishing a new label fee. Response: HUD is cognizant of the fees paid to IPIAs and DAPIAs by manufactured housing manufacturers for design reviews and inspections. However, these fees are a cost of doing business, established by contract or other agreement as agreed upon between the manufacturer and the primary inspection agency or, in the case of a state acting as an exclusive IPIA, by the state. The manufactured housing program fee, on the other hand, represents the fee necessary to offset HUD's expenses in connection with carrying out its responsibilities under the Act. Comment: One commenter recommended, given the magnitude of the increase of the proposed fee, that it be phased in over several years. Response: Phasing in the increase over several years is not contemplated by the Act which provides that the amount of the fee may only be modified ''as specifically authorized in advance of an annual appropriation.'' (Emphasis VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:22 Aug 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 added). In addition, phasing in the increase would be difficult to administer and, more importantly, would not provide the funding required by HUD to meet the program's operating expenses for the balance of FY 2014 and FY 2015. Comment: A commenter stated that manufacture home production has been slowly increasing from 50,000 homes in 2010 to just over 60,000 in 2013, and that the proposed label fee increase does not consider likely production increases. According to the commenter, while HUD supervision goes up as production rises, the relationship is not linear and that if the fee becomes fixed at $95 to $105, a strong recovery by the industry could result in a windfall for HUD that has not been justified in the proposal. Response: In estimating the amount of the fee, HUD included a 5 percent per year production increase based on historic data. However, if there is an unpredicted increase in production, HUD would consider reducing the label fee. Comment: A commenter stated that HUD reported in its FY 2012 Congressional Budget Justifications that the responsibilities of its manufactured housing program have remained unchanged. The commenter questioned why the decline in industry production has not resulted in reduced program responsibilities and lower program expenses. The commenter questioned whether the increase in program expenditures might result from factors other than those which justify an increased label fee and must be addressed and corrected by the program going forward. Response: As discussed in response to a previous comment, program operating expenses do not have a direct correlation to production levels since monitoring is an ongoing expense. Moreover, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 increased HUD's responsibilities to carry out the requirements of the Act. For example, it established the MHCC and requires that HUD contract with an Administering Organization, hold regular MHCC and subcommittee meetings, and update the standards on a 2-year cycle. In addition, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 requires that HUD establish and revise model installation standards, implement an installation program in states without this program; and approve installation programs in the states that adopted installation standards based on the federal model installation standards and HUD's requirements for an approved installation program. HUD's PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 responsibilities will be increasing as implementation of an installation program in the states without this program will be completed in FY 2015. Finally, HUD was required to establish a model dispute resolution program, administer the program in states that have not adopted such a program, and approve state dispute resolution programs based on the requirements established by HUD for such programs. HUD is also planning to obtain a contractor to fully implement a dispute resolution program in states that did not adopt such a program in FY 2015. Comment: A commenter stated, based on its review, that HUD's payments to the program's monitoring contractor have remained constant or increased even as production levels have decreased. According to the commenter, these sustained and increased contractor funding levels, during a period of decline in industry production and a falling number of consumer complaints and referrals to the federal dispute resolution system, is attributable to a major expansion of in-plant regulation with significant ''make-work'' activities for the program contractor and should be eliminated. According to the commenter, eliminating these unnecessary functions would realize significant cost savings that could be used to fund the functions and operations of the SAAs and properly fund the responsibilities of the Secretary. Response: HUD's overall monitoring costs have remained constant or gradually increased over the last few years due to inflation and efforts to enhance quality and reduce nonconformances and the number of consumer complaints. The improvements in overall home quality and reduced levels of consumer complaints are not ''make-work'' activities as suggested by the commenter. Rather, they are the direct result of the focus of HUD's cooperative monitoring activities and training over the past four years with manufacturers and their inspection agencies to improve overall construction quality. The goals of such monitoring are to reduce the number of consumer complaints and service calls for manufacturers, and enhance the manufacturer's quality assurance programs. While HUD believes that such goals are being achieved, without a similar level of monitoring, these improvements may not be sustained. For these reasons, HUD will be conducting oversight and evaluation of its inspection agencies performance to determine if the improvements put in place over the past four years are being E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations sustained. HUD will consider future reductions in its in-plant monitoring if the results warrant changes in the level of current monitoring activities and may use the savings to fund SAA operations as discussed elsewhere in HUD's responses to the comments. Comment: The second commenter echoed these concerns stating that the amount paid to the monitoring contractor has increased to $5 million in 2013 from $3.2 million in 2011. According to the commenter, the costs for the monitoring contractor should be going down, not up. The commenter stated that while ensuring quality assurance in plants has been generally successful, it has also resulted in reduced service calls, fewer consumer complaints, and higher quality homes. According to the commenter, it is logical to conclude that the need for time consuming and costly audits should be reduced. Response: HUD agrees with the commenter that quality assurance monitoring has generally been successful. However, this shift in monitoring has been instituted using a training approach at manufacturer facilities over a period of 4 years. While the process appears successful in reducing the number of consumer complaints, the process is more time consuming for auditors and therefore, more expensive. As stated in a prior response, HUD believes that without continuing this level of monitoring, these improvements may not be sustained. Comment: A commenter stated that last year annual audits in each plant lasted 3 days. According to the commenter, audits could be shortened by at least one day, saving substantial sums. The commenter also stated cost savings could be realized if audits were conducted with regional planning in mind, so that auditors could visit plants within the same region and save money on air fare. The commenter also stated that the same logic holds for HUD's oversight of the Primary Inspection Agencies and that over time, monitoring and review of the activities of DAPIAs and IPIAs should improve performance and reduce the need for monitoring. Response: HUD's current 3-day audit approach is required to conduct an overall and thorough evaluation and quality audit of each inspection agency's performance in each factory. In scheduling audits, HUD travel costs and locations are considered as factors in current contract administration. As previously indicated, HUD agrees that over time, its current monitoring activities could be reduced if supported by inspection agency performance in VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:22 Aug 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 sustaining improvements in their oversight of manufacturers and their quality assurance programs and reductions in non-conformances and by declines in the levels of consumer complaints. Comment: A commenter stated that HUD could reduce its cost estimates for regulation and enforcement of installation programs in each of the 15 states that do not have their own approved program by partnering with the industry. Specifically, the commenter recommended that HUD partner with the Manufactured Housing Educational Institute which has an effective training program that has been used since 2006 in over 15 states for installers. The commenter also recommended that HUD consider collecting license and inspection fees from installers as an alternative to label fees for activities related to administering installation programs in the 15 default states. Response: HUD is currently planning to contract with qualified entities to perform this function and will be looking to use resources currently in place. HUD will also examine the viability of collecting license and inspection fees from installers in the future. Comment: A commenter stated that HUD's expansion of in-plant monitoring from contractor scrutiny of the home to assess the IPIA to contractor inspections and analyses of the manufacturer's quality assurance systems should have been first considered by the MHCC for prior review and comment and should be eliminated. Response: HUD's emphasis over the past years on examining the quality assurance programs of the manufacturers and the third party agencies inspection of these programs is consistent with the Program's overall monitoring policies and the Program's regulations. The purpose of this education and monitoring approach has been to assure compliance with the Federal standards and to reduce consumer complaints. HUD does not believe that it requires prior review by the MHCC to implement current modified monitoring procedures which are part of HUD's responsibilities under the Act. Comment: The commenter, citing data from HUD's Congressional Budget Justifications since 2005, stated that payments to SAAs have decreased. According to the commenter, with a substantial number of states facing critical difficulties providing funding for SAA operations, it is essential that additional HUD funding of SAAs be provided. The commenter PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 47375 recommended that any additional program revenues resulting from HUD's proposed fee increase be utilized to increase payments to the SAAs, and thereby preserve the federal-state partnership that is the bedrock of the manufactured housing program. Response: SAA funding has not decreased. In fact, SAAs that were fully approved as of December 27, 2000, receive funding at the same production levels and siting as in 2000. HUD will consider future modifications to the current fee distribution formula to ensure states are provided with adequate funding to perform the required SAA functions. Comment: The second commenter also stated that it has serious concerns that the fees paid to SAAs are not reflective of current production and shipment levels and that HUD should adjust its budget and consider a fee increase based on more realistic payments to SAAs. The commenter also stated that a flaw in the federal law mandates that fees be based on shipment and production levels in effect in the year 2000 but that production and shipments levels have declined significantly during the last 14 years. Some states have increased production and shipments since 2000 yet they continue to receive payments based on lower production levels in 2000. Most states, however, have shipments and production levels substantially lower than they were in 2000, yet these states continue to receive payments at the higher rate calculated according to production and shipments in 2000. Response: HUD will review the basis supporting the amount of fees paid to SAAs and the adequacy of funding to the approved SAAs. Comment: One commenter recommended that HUD consider withdrawing the proposed rule and develop a formula for establishing fees based on production. According to the commenter, the fee could be raised or lowered depending on the annual number of homes produced, perhaps over a two year cycle. Response: HUD does not have the legal authority to develop a formula to establish fees based on production. As already noted, the Act provides that the amount of the fee may only be modified ''as specifically authorized in advance of an annual appropriation'' and is tied, therefore to annual appropriations. As also discussed, the establishment of an appropriate fee also needs to take into consideration several factors, including but not limited to production levels, such as ongoing program operating expenses. HUD is moving forward with this rule since the fee increase is E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 47376 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations required for HUD to carry out the Program's basic responsibilities under the Act. Comment: Both commenters objected to a comment made in HUD's FY 2015 Congressional Justification that it is seeking authority to allow future fee modification to be implemented via notice, rather than rulemaking. One commenter stated that such authority would further erode the goal of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 to ensure accountability and transparency in the fee adjustment process, including a full opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in that process through the informal rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The commenter also stated that the history of HUD's modifications to the program fee, and specifically the fact that HUD has not changed the fee since 2002, does not support the basis HUD identifies for such a provision; specifically, the need for HUD to make timely adjustments to the fee. The second commenter stated it is essential for the MHCC to review and comment on future fee increases and that it believes that HUD has the ability to expedite rulemaking if needed. Both commenters recommended that HUD discontinue efforts to seek this authority. Response: HUD appreciates the opportunity to clarify its position regarding seeking authority to modify the fee by notice. Based on the comments received, HUD has not decided whether to pursue efforts to seek the legal authority to modify the manufactured housing program fee by notice. Nevertheless, should HUD pursue such authority it has been and continues to be HUD's position that modifying the fee would require publishing a notice in the Federal Register announcing the proposed fee and providing a 30-day public comment period for the purpose of inviting comment. After consideration of the public comments received on the proposal, HUD would publish a final notice in the Federal Register announcing the modified fee, any other necessary information regarding payment of the fee, and provide at least a 30-day delayed effective date. In addition, prior to implementing this change, HUD would be required to publish a final rule revising § 3284.5 to accommodate the authority to revise the fee by notice. HUD notes that such a procedure could be used to both increase and decrease the fee. Nevertheless, HUD believes that such a procedure is consistent with section 620 of the Act and, notwithstanding the description in HUD's Congressional VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:22 Aug 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 Justification, is rulemaking under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). As stated, however, HUD has not decided whether to pursue this authority. III. This Final Rule This final rule raises the amount of the fee to $100 per transportable unit. When HUD last modified the amount of the fee per transportable section in 2002 (67 FR 52832, August 13, 2002), HUD divided the annual projected number of manufactured housing transportable units (350,000) into the amount appropriated by Congress for the manufactured housing program for the fiscal year. (See 67 FR at 52832.) As described in the May 2, 2014, proposed rule, HUD believes that a similar formula should form the basis of this revised fee. This approach is also consistent with the method and formula used to determine the monitoring inspection fee in § 3282.307(e). In this regard, HUD has determined, based on the current projected production levels, that the number of manufactured housing transportable units will be approximately 100,000 sections. This is the average of the range of production levels discussed in the proposed rule. Additionally, as stated in HUD's 2015 budget justification, HUD has estimated that, at current production levels, approximately $10 million annually is required to administer the Manufactured Housing Program in a manner that fulfills HUD's statutory oversight responsibilities. This is consistent with HUD's budget requests for FY 2015 which stated that HUD would through rulemaking increase the fee to an amount of up to $100 per label. HUD recognizes that the Federal government is nearly through FY 2014, and that application of a new fee may only apply to a limited portion of FY 2014, or may not be feasible until FY 2015. Nevertheless, the fee is important to sustain the program. The increase in fee implemented in this rule is one that HUD believes is appropriate for succeeding fiscal years barring subsequent appropriations that require further changes. IV. Findings and Certifications 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. As discussed PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 in the May 2, 2014, proposed rule, this final rule would not have a total economic impact of more than $6.1 million, which the maximum additional amount of fees that HUD has determined would be collected if the fee is raised to $100 per label. By annual appropriations acts, Congress requires HUD to collect fees from manufacturers of manufactured housing to ensure the annual appropriation that HUD provides in a given fiscal year. In addition to the authority to set label fees, the reports accompanying HUD's recent annual appropriations acts reflect strong Congressional encouragement for HUD to respond to the annual appropriations act authority to modify the label fees to obtain additional funding to support the manufactured housing program. The per-unit fee would remain as has always been the case to be proportional in its impact, with greater collections from larger manufacturers and less collections from smaller manufacturers. HUD has concluded, generally, that, as is often the case with increased fees placed on manufacturers of products used by consumers, the fee increase will be passed through to consumers, thereby minimizing the impact on manufacturers large and small. If the cost of the fee is passed on to the consumer, the purchase price of a manufactured home would increase, and placements of new manufactured homes would decrease slightly below currently forecasted levels. If manufacturers absorb the cost, however, the effect of the increase would result in lower profits for the manufacturers and sales would remain unchanged. In either scenario, this change in fee collections would represent a transfer to tax payers from manufacturers of manufactured housing or consumers purchasing new manufactured housing, since the increased fee collections will replace funds collected through federal tax collections. For these reasons, HUD submits that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of the UMRA. E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations Environmental Impact This final rule involves a rate or cost determination and a related fiscal requirement that do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). Federalism Impact Executive Order 13132 (entitled ''Federalism'') prohibits, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from promulgating a regulation that has federalism implications and either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the relevant requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order are met. 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 in 24 CFR Part 3284 Consumer protection, Manufactured homes. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in this preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 3284 as follows: PART 3284—MANUFACTURED HOUSING PROGRAM FEE 1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 3284 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5419, and 5424. ■ 2. Revise § 3284.5 to read as follows: § 3284.5 Amount of fee. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Each manufacturer, as defined in § 3282.7 of this chapter, must pay a fee of $100 per transportable section of each manufactured housing unit that it manufactures under the requirements of part 3280 of this chapter. Dated: August 8, 2014. Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. 2014–19173 Filed 8–12–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:22 Aug 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0046; FRL–9913–15– Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on November 29, 2012, concerning the state's vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois. The revision amends I/M program requirements in the active control measures portion of the ozone SIP to reflect changes that have been implemented at the state level since EPA fully approved the I/M program on February 22, 1999. The submittal also includes a demonstration under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) addressing lost emission reductions associated with the program changes. DATES: This final rule is effective on September 12, 2014. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0046. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source Program Manager, at (312) 886–6061, before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source Program Manager, Control Strategies SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 47377 Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061, acevedo.francisco@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ''we,'' ''us,'' or ''our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows: I. What is being addressed by this document? II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed by this document? On November 14, 2013, at 78 FR 68378, EPA proposed to approve into the state's Federally-approved SIP several regulatory changes to the previously approved I/M program operating in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois. The most significant changes to the Illinois I/M program took effect beginning on February 1, 2007 and include: • The elimination of the IM240 transient mode exhaust test for all vehicles beginning February 1, 2007. • The elimination of the evaporative system integrity (gas cap pressure) test for all on-board diagnostics (OBD) compliant vehicles beginning February 1, 2007. • The replacement of the computermatching enforcement mechanism with a registration denial based system beginning January 1, 2008. • The elimination of the steady-state idle exhaust and evaporative integrity (gas cap pressure) testing for all vehicles beginning February 1, 2012. • The exemption of pre-2007 model year (MY) heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds beginning February 1, 2012. • The exemption of all HDVs with a GVWR greater than 14,000 pounds as of February 1, 2012. • The requirement of OBD pass/fail testing for all 2007 and newer OBDcompliant HDVs. In addition to the changes discussed above, the November 29, 2012, submittal included a number of minor revisions to the program that do not have a significant impact on overall program operations or the emissions reductions associated with it. A full list of the regulatory changes submitted by Illinois for EPA approval includes: • VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS 5/13C (Public Act 94–526 enacted on E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM 13AUR1
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19173]
                                                Federal Register
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2014 /
24 CFR Part 3284
[Docket No. FR-5721-F-02]
RIN 2502-AJ19
Manufactured Housing Program Fee: Final Fee Increase
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends HUD's Manufactured Housing Program Fee
regulations to raise the fee for each transportable section of a
manufactured home that the manufacturer produces in accordance with
HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. This fee is
referred to as a label fee. After considering public comments on HUD's
May 2, 2014, proposed rule, this final rule raises the label fee to
DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela B. Danner, Administrator,
Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Room 9168, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20410; telephone number 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll free number).
Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via
TTY by calling the toll free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8389.
HUD initiated this rulemaking to amend the amount of the fee
collected from manufactured home manufacturers in accordance with
section 620 (42 U.S.C. 5419) of the National Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.)
(the Act). Under this authority, HUD collects these fees through the
sale of labels which the manufactured home manufacturer must apply to
each transportable section of a manufactured housing unit that it
produces as evidence that the unit(s) conform to HUD's Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards regulations, codified at 24 CFR
part 3280. HUD establishes and collects these fees to offset its
expenses for carrying out its responsibilities under the Act, including
carrying out inspections, developing manufactured home construction and
safety standards under 42 U.S.C. 5403, and making payments to states as
required by statute and HUD's regulations (see Sec.  3284.10).
On May 2, 2014, at 79 FR 25035, HUD published a proposed rule for
public comment proposing to increase the fee to an amount between $95
and $105 per transportable section of manufactured housing unit
produced. In proposing this increase, HUD stated that while it has had
authority to modify the fee in order to collect the overall amount of
the fee established by HUD's appropriation for the applicable fiscal
year, HUD has not exercised this authority since 2002. Given the
increased costs related to overseeing the quality, safety, and
durability of manufactured housing, the substantial reduction in fee
collections since 2002 and, based on HUD's projected production levels
of between 95,000 and 105,000 sections, HUD proposed raising the fee to
an amount between $95 and $105 per transportable unit.
II. The Commenters
The public comment period for the May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25035),
proposed rule closed June 2, 2014. HUD received two public comments in
response to this proposed rule. The comments were submitted by national
trade associations representing the manufactured housing industry. One
commenter questioned the magnitude of the increase of the proposed fee
but stated that it did not oppose the proposed fee modification,
provided that additional revenues derived from the change were utilized
to fund legitimate program functions in a manner proportionate to
current and projected production levels, and are targeted and utilized
to provide enhanced funding for State Administrative Agencies (SAAs).
The second commenter also expressed concern regarding the magnitude of
the increase of the proposed fee and stated that the proposed fee is
not reflective of current production levels. The commenter also
recommended that HUD withdraw the proposed rule and develop a formula
for establishing a fee based on production. The following section of
this preamble summarizes the significant issues raised by the
commenters on the May 2, 2014, proposed rule and HUD's responses to
these comments.
Comment: A commenter stated that HUD's proposed fee was an 143 to
169 percent increase over the current fee and, according to HUD, based
on increased program expenses over the last 12 years. The commenter
questioned, however, how program expenses could require such a
significant increase in the fee when industry production over the same
period decreased by 64 percent.
Response: Program operating expenses do not have a direct
correlation to production levels since monitoring is an ongoing
expense. Nevertheless, HUD recognizes the magnitude of the increase. As
discussed in the preamble to this rule, however, HUD has not increased
the label fee since 2002. Moreover, beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2014
and continuing through FY 2015, HUD plans to improve implementation of
two key requirements of the Act. First, HUD plans to obtain contractual
support to assist in the administration of the installation standards
program in states that have not established approved programs and to
assist in administering the dispute resolution program in states that
have not established approved dispute resolution programs. HUD through
its monitoring contractor also requires services to perform the design
monitoring reviews of third party agencies as required by Sec.
3282.452(e). Second, HUD is responsible for updating the construction
and safety standards on a 2-year cycle, but has not been able to
schedule a meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee
(MHCC) since October, 2012. To address this, HUD recently awarded a
contract to an Administering
Organization as required by the Act and will begin holding regular
meetings of the MHCC. Finally, beginning in FY 15, HUD plans to
structure the Manufactured Housing Program to be self-supporting. This
means that unlike most prior years, HUD will not receive a direct
appropriation of funds from Congress but will be dependent on label
fees for administering the program. As a result, HUD has and will
continue to incur increased costs to administer the program and must
establish a label at a level that will allow it to administer the
program operations while relying less on additional appropriations from
Comment: The second commenter stated that HUD's proposed label fee
represents an increase of between 243 and 269 percent over the current
fee and fails to consider the overall cost of regulation under the
Manufactured Housing program. According to the commenter, the industry
pays approximately $6.4 million per year in fees to Production
Inspection Primary Inspection Agencies (IPIAs) and Design Approval
Primary Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) in order to comply with the
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards and Regulations.
This is in addition to $10 million HUD estimates would be collected in
label fees if the fee is increased to $100 per label. While the label
fee is an important component of the HUD program, the commenter stated
that HUD should consider the overall cost of regulation that is passed
to the consumer and the impact on the affordability of manufactured
housing prior to establishing a new label fee.
Response: HUD is cognizant of the fees paid to IPIAs and DAPIAs by
manufactured housing manufacturers for design reviews and inspections.
However, these fees are a cost of doing business, established by
contract or other agreement as agreed upon between the manufacturer and
the primary inspection agency or, in the case of a state acting as an
exclusive IPIA, by the state. The manufactured housing program fee, on
the other hand, represents the fee necessary to offset HUD's expenses
in connection with carrying out its responsibilities under the Act.
Comment: One commenter recommended, given the magnitude of the
increase of the proposed fee, that it be phased in over several years.
Response: Phasing in the increase over several years is not
contemplated by the Act which provides that the amount of the fee may
only be modified ``as specifically authorized in advance of an annual
appropriation.'' (Emphasis added). In addition, phasing in the increase
would be difficult to administer and, more importantly, would not
provide the funding required by HUD to meet the program's operating
expenses for the balance of FY 2014 and FY 2015.
Comment: A commenter stated that manufacture home production has
been slowly increasing from 50,000 homes in 2010 to just over 60,000 in
2013, and that the proposed label fee increase does not consider likely
production increases. According to the commenter, while HUD supervision
goes up as production rises, the relationship is not linear and that if
the fee becomes fixed at $95 to $105, a strong recovery by the industry
could result in a windfall for HUD that has not been justified in the
proposal.
Response: In estimating the amount of the fee, HUD included a 5
percent per year production increase based on historic data. However,
if there is an unpredicted increase in production, HUD would consider
reducing the label fee.
Comment: A commenter stated that HUD reported in its FY 2012
Congressional Budget Justifications that the responsibilities of its
manufactured housing program have remained unchanged. The commenter
questioned why the decline in industry production has not resulted in
reduced program responsibilities and lower program expenses. The
commenter questioned whether the increase in program expenditures might
result from factors other than those which justify an increased label
fee and must be addressed and corrected by the program going forward.
Response: As discussed in response to a previous comment, program
operating expenses do not have a direct correlation to production
levels since monitoring is an ongoing expense. Moreover, the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 increased HUD's
responsibilities to carry out the requirements of the Act. For example,
it established the MHCC and requires that HUD contract with an
Administering Organization, hold regular MHCC and subcommittee
meetings, and update the standards on a 2-year cycle. In addition, the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 requires that HUD
establish and revise model installation standards, implement an
installation program in states without this program; and approve
installation programs in the states that adopted installation standards
based on the federal model installation standards and HUD's
requirements for an approved installation program. HUD's
responsibilities will be increasing as implementation of an
installation program in the states without this program will be
completed in FY 2015. Finally, HUD was required to establish a model
dispute resolution program, administer the program in states that have
not adopted such a program, and approve state dispute resolution
programs based on the requirements established by HUD for such
programs. HUD is also planning to obtain a contractor to fully
implement a dispute resolution program in states that did not adopt
such a program in FY 2015.
Comment: A commenter stated, based on its review, that HUD's
payments to the program's monitoring contractor have remained constant
or increased even as production levels have decreased. According to the
commenter, these sustained and increased contractor funding levels,
during a period of decline in industry production and a falling number
of consumer complaints and referrals to the federal dispute resolution
system, is attributable to a major expansion of in-plant regulation
with significant ``make-work'' activities for the program contractor
and should be eliminated. According to the commenter, eliminating these
unnecessary functions would realize significant cost savings that could
be used to fund the functions and operations of the SAAs and properly
fund the responsibilities of the Secretary.
Response: HUD's overall monitoring costs have remained constant or
gradually increased over the last few years due to inflation and
efforts to enhance quality and reduce non-conformances and the number
of consumer complaints. The improvements in overall home quality and
reduced levels of consumer complaints are not ``make-work'' activities
as suggested by the commenter. Rather, they are the direct result of
the focus of HUD's cooperative monitoring activities and training over
the past four years with manufacturers and their inspection agencies to
improve overall construction quality. The goals of such monitoring are
to reduce the number of consumer complaints and service calls for
manufacturers, and enhance the manufacturer's quality assurance
programs. While HUD believes that such goals are being achieved,
without a similar level of monitoring, these improvements may not be
sustained. For these reasons, HUD will be conducting oversight and
evaluation of its inspection agencies performance to determine if the
improvements put in place over the past four years are being
sustained. HUD will consider future reductions in its in-plant
monitoring if the results warrant changes in the level of current
monitoring activities and may use the savings to fund SAA operations as
discussed elsewhere in HUD's responses to the comments.
Comment: The second commenter echoed these concerns stating that
the amount paid to the monitoring contractor has increased to $5
million in 2013 from $3.2 million in 2011. According to the commenter,
the costs for the monitoring contractor should be going down, not up.
The commenter stated that while ensuring quality assurance in plants
has been generally successful, it has also resulted in reduced service
calls, fewer consumer complaints, and higher quality homes. According
to the commenter, it is logical to conclude that the need for time
consuming and costly audits should be reduced.
Response: HUD agrees with the commenter that quality assurance
monitoring has generally been successful. However, this shift in
monitoring has been instituted using a training approach at
manufacturer facilities over a period of 4 years. While the process
appears successful in reducing the number of consumer complaints, the
process is more time consuming for auditors and therefore, more
expensive. As stated in a prior response, HUD believes that without
continuing this level of monitoring, these improvements may not be
sustained.
Comment: A commenter stated that last year annual audits in each
plant lasted 3 days. According to the commenter, audits could be
shortened by at least one day, saving substantial sums. The commenter
also stated cost savings could be realized if audits were conducted
with regional planning in mind, so that auditors could visit plants
within the same region and save money on air fare. The commenter also
stated that the same logic holds for HUD's oversight of the Primary
Inspection Agencies and that over time, monitoring and review of the
activities of DAPIAs and IPIAs should improve performance and reduce
the need for monitoring.
Response: HUD's current 3-day audit approach is required to conduct
an overall and thorough evaluation and quality audit of each inspection
agency's performance in each factory. In scheduling audits, HUD travel
costs and locations are considered as factors in current contract
administration. As previously indicated, HUD agrees that over time, its
current monitoring activities could be reduced if supported by
inspection agency performance in sustaining improvements in their
oversight of manufacturers and their quality assurance programs and
reductions in non-conformances and by declines in the levels of
consumer complaints.
Comment: A commenter stated that HUD could reduce its cost
estimates for regulation and enforcement of installation programs in
each of the 15 states that do not have their own approved program by
partnering with the industry. Specifically, the commenter recommended
that HUD partner with the Manufactured Housing Educational Institute
which has an effective training program that has been used since 2006
in over 15 states for installers. The commenter also recommended that
HUD consider collecting license and inspection fees from installers as
an alternative to label fees for activities related to administering
installation programs in the 15 default states.
Response: HUD is currently planning to contract with qualified
entities to perform this function and will be looking to use resources
currently in place. HUD will also examine the viability of collecting
license and inspection fees from installers in the future.
Comment: A commenter stated that HUD's expansion of in-plant
monitoring from contractor scrutiny of the home to assess the IPIA to
contractor inspections and analyses of the manufacturer's quality
assurance systems should have been first considered by the MHCC for
prior review and comment and should be eliminated.
Response: HUD's emphasis over the past years on examining the
quality assurance programs of the manufacturers and the third party
agencies inspection of these programs is consistent with the Program's
overall monitoring policies and the Program's regulations. The purpose
of this education and monitoring approach has been to assure compliance
with the Federal standards and to reduce consumer complaints. HUD does
not believe that it requires prior review by the MHCC to implement
current modified monitoring procedures which are part of HUD's
responsibilities under the Act.
Comment: The commenter, citing data from HUD's Congressional Budget
Justifications since 2005, stated that payments to SAAs have decreased.
According to the commenter, with a substantial number of states facing
critical difficulties providing funding for SAA operations, it is
essential that additional HUD funding of SAAs be provided. The
commenter recommended that any additional program revenues resulting
from HUD's proposed fee increase be utilized to increase payments to
the SAAs, and thereby preserve the federal-state partnership that is
the bedrock of the manufactured housing program.
Response: SAA funding has not decreased. In fact, SAAs that were
fully approved as of December 27, 2000, receive funding at the same
production levels and siting as in 2000. HUD will consider future
modifications to the current fee distribution formula to ensure states
are provided with adequate funding to perform the required SAA
Comment: The second commenter also stated that it has serious
concerns that the fees paid to SAAs are not reflective of current
production and shipment levels and that HUD should adjust its budget
and consider a fee increase based on more realistic payments to SAAs.
The commenter also stated that a flaw in the federal law mandates that
fees be based on shipment and production levels in effect in the year
2000 but that production and shipments levels have declined
significantly during the last 14 years. Some states have increased
production and shipments since 2000 yet they continue to receive
payments based on lower production levels in 2000. Most states,
however, have shipments and production levels substantially lower than
they were in 2000, yet these states continue to receive payments at the
higher rate calculated according to production and shipments in 2000.
Response: HUD will review the basis supporting the amount of fees
paid to SAAs and the adequacy of funding to the approved SAAs.
Comment: One commenter recommended that HUD consider withdrawing
the proposed rule and develop a formula for establishing fees based on
production. According to the commenter, the fee could be raised or
lowered depending on the annual number of homes produced, perhaps over
a two year cycle.
Response: HUD does not have the legal authority to develop a
formula to establish fees based on production. As already noted, the
Act provides that the amount of the fee may only be modified ``as
specifically authorized in advance of an annual appropriation'' and is
tied, therefore to annual appropriations. As also discussed, the
establishment of an appropriate fee also needs to take into
consideration several factors, including but not limited to production
levels, such as ongoing program operating expenses. HUD is moving
forward with this rule since the fee increase is
required for HUD to carry out the Program's basic responsibilities
under the Act.
Comment: Both commenters objected to a comment made in HUD's FY
2015 Congressional Justification that it is seeking authority to allow
future fee modification to be implemented via notice, rather than
rulemaking. One commenter stated that such authority would further
erode the goal of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 to
ensure accountability and transparency in the fee adjustment process,
including a full opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in
that process through the informal rulemaking requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act. The commenter also stated that the
history of HUD's modifications to the program fee, and specifically the
fact that HUD has not changed the fee since 2002, does not support the
basis HUD identifies for such a provision; specifically, the need for
HUD to make timely adjustments to the fee. The second commenter stated
it is essential for the MHCC to review and comment on future fee
increases and that it believes that HUD has the ability to expedite
rulemaking if needed. Both commenters recommended that HUD discontinue
efforts to seek this authority.
Response: HUD appreciates the opportunity to clarify its position
regarding seeking authority to modify the fee by notice. Based on the
comments received, HUD has not decided whether to pursue efforts to
seek the legal authority to modify the manufactured housing program fee
by notice. Nevertheless, should HUD pursue such authority it has been
and continues to be HUD's position that modifying the fee would require
publishing a notice in the Federal Register announcing the proposed fee
and providing a 30-day public comment period for the purpose of
inviting comment. After consideration of the public comments received
on the proposal, HUD would publish a final notice in the Federal
Register announcing the modified fee, any other necessary information
regarding payment of the fee, and provide at least a 30-day delayed
effective date. In addition, prior to implementing this change, HUD
would be required to publish a final rule revising Sec.  3284.5 to
accommodate the authority to revise the fee by notice. HUD notes that
such a procedure could be used to both increase and decrease the fee.
Nevertheless, HUD believes that such a procedure is consistent with
section 620 of the Act and, notwithstanding the description in HUD's
Congressional Justification, is rulemaking under section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). As stated, however, HUD
has not decided whether to pursue this authority.
III. This Final Rule
This final rule raises the amount of the fee to $100 per
transportable unit. When HUD last modified the amount of the fee per
transportable section in 2002 (67 FR 52832, August 13, 2002), HUD
divided the annual projected number of manufactured housing
transportable units (350,000) into the amount appropriated by Congress
for the manufactured housing program for the fiscal year. (See 67 FR at
52832.) As described in the May 2, 2014, proposed rule, HUD believes
that a similar formula should form the basis of this revised fee. This
approach is also consistent with the method and formula used to
determine the monitoring inspection fee in Sec.  3282.307(e). In this
regard, HUD has determined, based on the current projected production
levels, that the number of manufactured housing transportable units
will be approximately 100,000 sections. This is the average of the
range of production levels discussed in the proposed rule.
Additionally, as stated in HUD's 2015 budget justification, HUD has
estimated that, at current production levels, approximately $10 million
annually is required to administer the Manufactured Housing Program in
a manner that fulfills HUD's statutory oversight responsibilities. This
is consistent with HUD's budget requests for FY 2015 which stated that
HUD would through rulemaking increase the fee to an amount of up to
$100 per label.
HUD recognizes that the Federal government is nearly through FY
2014, and that application of a new fee may only apply to a limited
portion of FY 2014, or may not be feasible until FY 2015. Nevertheless,
the fee is important to sustain the program. The increase in fee
implemented in this rule is one that HUD believes is appropriate for
succeeding fiscal years barring subsequent appropriations that require
further changes.
IV. Findings and Certifications
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.
As discussed in the May 2, 2014, proposed rule, this final rule would
not have a total economic impact of more than $6.1 million, which the
maximum additional amount of fees that HUD has determined would be
collected if the fee is raised to $100 per label.
By annual appropriations acts, Congress requires HUD to collect
fees from manufacturers of manufactured housing to ensure the annual
appropriation that HUD provides in a given fiscal year. In addition to
the authority to set label fees, the reports accompanying HUD's recent
annual appropriations acts reflect strong Congressional encouragement
for HUD to respond to the annual appropriations act authority to modify
the label fees to obtain additional funding to support the manufactured
housing program. The per-unit fee would remain as has always been the
case to be proportional in its impact, with greater collections from
larger manufacturers and less collections from smaller manufacturers.
HUD has concluded, generally, that, as is often the case with
increased fees placed on manufacturers of products used by consumers,
the fee increase will be passed through to consumers, thereby
minimizing the impact on manufacturers large and small. If the cost of
the fee is passed on to the consumer, the purchase price of a
manufactured home would increase, and placements of new manufactured
homes would decrease slightly below currently forecasted levels. If
manufacturers absorb the cost, however, the effect of the increase
would result in lower profits for the manufacturers and sales would
remain unchanged. In either scenario, this change in fee collections
would represent a transfer to tax payers from manufacturers of
manufactured housing or consumers purchasing new manufactured housing,
since the increased fee collections will replace funds collected
through federal tax collections.
For these reasons, HUD submits that this rule will not have a
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 final rule does not
impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector within the meaning of the UMRA.
This final rule involves a rate or cost determination and a related
fiscal requirement that do not constitute a development decision
affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building
sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this final rule is
categorically excluded from environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Federalism Impact
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits, to the
extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from promulgating a
regulation that has federalism implications and either imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and
is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the relevant
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order are met. 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 in 24 CFR Part 3284
Consumer protection, Manufactured homes.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in this preamble, HUD amends
24 CFR part 3284 as follows:
PART 3284--MANUFACTURED HOUSING PROGRAM FEE
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 3284 continues to read as
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5419, and 5424.
2. Revise Sec.  3284.5 to read as follows:
Sec.  3284.5  Amount of fee.
Each manufacturer, as defined in Sec.  3282.7 of this chapter, must
pay a fee of $100 per transportable section of each manufactured
housing unit that it manufactures under the requirements of part 3280
of this chapter.
Dated: August 8, 2014.
Carol J. Galante,
Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2014-19173 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Draped Neck Flutter Sleeve Top: Pretty watercolor top has a V-neck to draw attention up, while the soft, flowing fabric makes the most of your curves.
"Purchased it as a mother's day gift for my wife and she looks amazing in it. She loves the look and fit. I hit a home run with this pick."


The 16 studio artists at Pacific Grove Art Center will open their studio doors to the public during the Gala Opening reception of new exhibits from 7-9 p.m. Friday, Jan. 12, at 568 Lighthouse Ave., Pacific Grove. The acoustic folk duo Servo 7 will be playing in the Gill Gallery. Admission to the nonprofit PGAC is made possible through donations, and the new exhibits will be on display until Feb. 23.
Discover what has been going on in the 16 studios at the Pacific Grove Art Center. Studio space for artists is an integral part of the PGAC's mission to foster growth of the arts in the community. Additionally, a number of these artists give back to the community through exhibitions, as well as teaching workshops and children's classes.
The indoor mural project will establish partnerships with schools, organizations, and cities on the Peninsula, broadening opportunities in education and potential jobs. Charlsie Kelly will lead periodic classes to design, layout and paint the murals. Kelley will consult with other successful muralists to insure concepts are professional and impactful. Throughout the year the mural will evolve to include visions of local events that occur throughout the county. The result will be a massive art piece that captures the many events that draw people to our area.
Looking Out/Looking in is a collection of paintings about rocks that came to me quickly and compulsively. I have looked out at rock studded scenes for years but since I have been looking at them closely I feel there is no other landscape. I do not paint this landscape in its pure form but take the elements that thrill me and record them on canvas.
Padre Trails Camera Club has been active on the Monterey Peninsula since 1948. Club members come from throughout the central coastal area of California as well as beyond. Padre Trails is a completely volunteer organization with elected officers and members responsible for various club functions. Club members express their artistic creativity through photography and print making. PTCC members benefit through open discussion, image and technique sharing, informational programs, "Group Shoots" and friendly competition.


There are a bewildering array of sewing tools available for today's sewers. Today I want to share with you my choice of what I consider to be the essential sewing ones. I don't mean the latest trendy gadgets, I mean the basic, tried and tested can't do without tools of the trade.
If you are considering purchasing a machine for the first time, consider carefully what you actually want to be able to sew. Chances are you won't need an all singing all dancing quilting or embroidery machine if you are just starting out.
I would suggest that you don't buy a very basic machine because you will find you outgrow it rather quickly.
For most soft furnishing or dress making projects a mid-range machine, either computerised or mechanical will be suitable.
Most sewing shops encourage you to try before you buy, to make sure you find the right machine for you, so pop along to your nearest showroom and have a play. Ask lots of questions and think about what you really want to use your machine for.
You should try to purchase the best scissors you can afford. If you are left handed buy left handed scissors. Some scissors can be held in either hand, but left handed scissors have the blades the opposite way round making it easier to see what you are cutting.
The most important thing to remember about your fabric scissors, is only ever cut fabric with them. Cutting paper will blunt them and even if you sharpen them, they will never be the same again.
My preference are glass headed pins. Whatever type of sewing you do, you can be sure there will be lots of ironing involved and glass headed pins will not melt if you accidentally iron them.
These are a very useful addition to your craft room, as they protect your work surface from damage and are an absolute necessity if you use a rotary cutter.
They come in various sizes and are generally double sided; metric on one side and imperial on the other.
Originally they were all green but now they come in lots of lovely colours if you shop around.
This unassuming little tool is invaluable. It makes unpicking stitches a quick and easy task.
It can also be used to gently feed fabric underneath the presser foot and is extremely good for carefully opening buttonholes.
Depending on the job in hand, there are a number of options.
For large projects like curtain making, a steel metre ruler is the best option, it gives a true straight line and its large size makes measuring long lengths easier.
Plastic rulers specifically designed for patchwork and quilting make measuring and cutting easy. I would suggest a 6″ square and a 6″ x 24″ oblong ruler as a starting point.
For measuring seams and hems little hem guides are an amazing invention.
These come in a number of sizes and are ideal for patchwork and quilting.
They must always be used in conjunction with a cutting mat and with due care and attention. The blade should always be covered or retracted before the rotary cutter is put down, this helps to avoid accidentally cutting yourself on an open blade.
Always cut away from yourself and keep fingers out of the way. Only use patchwork and quilting rulers with a rotary cutter as ordinary rulers are not made to withstand their use.
You will definitely need a safe place to keep all of your pins. A pincushion is very practical because you can pick them easily whenever you need them.
Making your own is also a great use for your scrap fabric. They can be as fancy as you like, take a look on Pinterest for inspiration.
After spending time, energy and love creating your projects you want them to last. Using good quality thread means seams and finishes are more likely to stand up to everyday life.
Check out my post on choosing the correct thread for your project here.
As I mentioned before, sewing actually involves a lot of ironing but this doesn't mean you have to buy a really expensive iron. When I upgrade my everyday iron at home, I put the old one in my sewing room.
Although, you may not use much steam for quilting and patchwork, it's always handy to have the option for other projects.
I hope you find this list useful. If you have any comments or questions I'd love to hear from you.
If someone you know would find this list helpful, please feel free to share.


People living in government-provided trailers after Hurricane Katrina suffered from symptoms of formaldehyde exposure such as burning eyes, respiratory distress and nausea.
Many people left homeless by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 survived that storm only to suffer another setback. Soon after moving into government-provided trailers, they began experiencing a range of health problems, from headaches and runny noses to difficulty breathing. Upon further exploration, tests revealed that the trailers had levels of formaldehyde as high as 50 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "elevated" level of 5 parts per million [source: Brunker]. It seems that the carcinogen was leaching from the composite wood and plywood panels used in the trailers. After years of insisting that the trailers were safe, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency finally had the residents evacuated in early 2008.
Similar, though less attention-grabbing, occurrences happen every day. Health effects from indoor air pollution can be immediate and short-lived, or they may be severe and not show up until years after repeated exposures. The most common symptoms are sore throat, headache and persistent cough, as well as itchy, running eyes and nose. More severe symptoms include chronic breathing problems, heart disease and cancer.
Perhaps one of the most visible indoor air pollutants is environmental tobacco smoke, or secondhand smoke, which contains 200 known poisons and at least 43 compounds known to cause cancer. Even if you don't smoke, you may be subject to secondhand smoke if you live or work with someone who does. So-called "passive smoking" is responsible for around 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 to 50,000 heart disease deaths each year in nonsmoking adults. It also causes between 150,000 and 300,000 respiratory infections in infants each year and worsens the asthma of up to 1 million asthmatics [source: American Lung Association, EPA].
Indoor radon exposure is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S., causing between 15,000 and 21,000 deaths each year [source: American Lung Association]. Radon can enter your house through the foundation.
Exposure to formaldehyde irritates the mucous membranes and eyes, and can provoke asthma and impair the central nervous system.
Biological contaminants can transmit illnesses like the flu and measles, trigger allergic reactions and cause digestive problems.
Combustion gases impede the flow of oxygen through your body. High levels can cause unconsciousness and death, while lower levels create headaches, dizziness, weakness, confusion and fatigue. Some can lead to lung diseases like emphysema.
High exposure to chemicals in household products and pesticides can irritate the respiratory tract; cause headaches, dizziness and vision problems; impair memory function and may cause cancer.
You can learn more about many of these pollutants in the HowStuffWorks articles A Guide to Home Safety and How to Allergy-Proof Your Home. Learn about ways to reduce indoor air pollution on the next page.
Just when you think the acronym soup couldn't get any worse, out come the two BRIs (building-related illnesses): MCS and SBS. MCS stands for multiple chemical sensitivity, while SBS is shorthand for sick building syndrome. Sick building syndrome, which involves symptoms such as headache, fatigue and muscle pain, is milder than MCS and usually goes away within a few hours or days upon leaving the infected building. In contrast, MCS is a lifelong condition, and common symptoms may include fatigue, depression and difficulty concentrating. MCS isn't recognized by all doctors as a legitimate illness.


hanukkah lights decorations celebrating the miracles of and all season long hanukkah light up decorations.
austin toy box toy box by pink with custom text.
large greenhouses large greenhouse from old windows images large greenhouses for sale australia.
cutout metal word signs ready to ship grateful metal word sign gallery wall sign metal word cutout.
a johnson and sons a sons florist.
high point market north carolina hp mark elite furniture gallery furniture furniture high point market high point market north carolina october.
halloween decorations outside outdoor decoration ideas from with tree without leaves.
why does my tooth only hurt at night jaw pain.
how to replace attic stairs install attic stairs cost.


text:
#include "test.h"

#ifdef PTE_SUPPORT_ASYNC_CANCEL

/*
 * Create NUMTHREADS threads in addition to the Main thread.
 */
enum
{
  NUMTHREADS = 10
};

typedef struct bag_t_ bag_t;
struct bag_t_
  {
    int threadnum;
    int started;
    /* Add more per-thread state variables here */
    int count;
  };

static bag_t threadbag[NUMTHREADS + 1];

typedef struct
  {
    int i;
    int null;
    pte_osMutexHandle cs;
  } sharedInt_t;

static sharedInt_t pop_count = {0, 0};

static void
increment_pop_count(void * arg)
{
  sharedInt_t * sI = (sharedInt_t *) arg;

  pte_osMutexLock(sI->cs);
  sI->i++;
  pte_osMutexUnlock(sI->cs);
}

static void *
mythread(void * arg)
{
  int result = 0;
  bag_t * bag = (bag_t *) arg;

  assert(bag == &threadbag[bag->threadnum]);
  assert(bag->started == 0);
  bag->started = 1;

  pthread_cleanup_push(increment_pop_count, (void *) &pop_count);

  sched_yield();

  pthread_cleanup_pop(1);

  return (void *) result;
}

int pthread_test_cleanup2()
{
  int failed = 0;
  int i;
  pthread_t t[NUMTHREADS + 1];

  pte_osMutexCreate(&pop_count.cs);

  assert((t[0] = pthread_self()).p != NULL);

  for (i = 1; i <= NUMTHREADS; i++)
    {
      threadbag[i].started = 0;
      threadbag[i].threadnum = i;
      assert(pthread_create(&t[i], NULL, mythread, (void *) &threadbag[i]) == 0);
    }

  /*
   * Code to control or munipulate child threads should probably go here.
   */
  pte_osThreadSleep(1000);

  /*
   * Standard check that all threads started.
   */
  for (i = 1; i <= NUMTHREADS; i++)
    {
      if (!threadbag[i].started)
        {
          failed |= !threadbag[i].started;
        }
    }

  assert(!failed);

  /*
   * Check any results here. Set "failed" and only print output on failure.
   */
  failed = 0;
  for (i = 1; i <= NUMTHREADS; i++)
    {
      int fail = 0;
      int result = 0;

      assert(pthread_join(t[i], (void **) &result) == 0);

      fail = (result != 0);

      failed = (failed || fail);
    }

  assert(!failed);

  assert(pop_count.i == NUMTHREADS);

  pte_osMutexDelete(pop_count.cs);

  /*
   * Success.
   */
  return 0;
}

#else /* PTE_SUPPORT_ASYNC_CANCEL */

int pthread_test_cleanup2()
{
  printf("Test not run - async cancellation not supported\n");

  return 0;
}

#endif /* !PTE_SUPPORT_ASYNC_CANCEL */

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
White house black market news and archive
Chico's appoints Patrick Guido as chief financial officer
Chico's FAS, Inc. has announced that Patrick J. Guido has been appointed chief financial officer of the company, effective September 20, 2021. Guido, the company said in a statement, will report directly to Molly Langenstein, chief executive officer and president of Chico's FAS. The company added that Guido has more than 20 years of finance and...
Chico's Q1 net loss contracts, sales up 38.4 percent
For the first quarter, Chico's FAS Inc., reported a net loss of 8.9 million dollars or 8 cents loss per diluted share compared to a net loss of 178.3 million dollars or 1.55 dollars loss per diluted share, for last year's first quarter. Net sales for the quarter were 388 million dollars, 38.4 percent increase. "Our first quarter results...
PeopleFeatured
Molly Langenstein promoted to CEO role at Chico's
Chico's FAS has announced the promotion of Molly Langenstein to CEO and President of the company, effective June 24, 2020. The company said in a statement that Langenstein is a 30-year retail fashion veteran with a proven track record of success in revitalizing sales and profitability will also become member of the board of directors. Since...
Chico's shuts North America stores for two weeks
Chico's FAS an omnichannel specialty retailer for women that operates Chico's, White House Black Market, Soma and TellTale announced the temporary immediate closure of all retail stores across North America for the next two weeks. "Our customers and associates are at the center of our purpose and every decision we make," said Bonnie Brooks, CEO...
Chico's announces CFO departure, raises Q4 outlook following positive holiday season
Chico's FAS, Inc. has announced the resignation of executive vice president and chief financial officer Todd E. Vogensen, effective January 17, 2020, to accept a CFO position with another company. The company added that Jennifer Ellis, Senior Vice President, Finance, has been appointed Interim Chief Financial Officer, effective February 3, 2020....
Chico's reports Q3 loss, comparable sales down 2.2 percent
Chico's FAS, Inc. has said that net sales for the third quarter were 484.7 million dollars, a decrease of 3 percent, which reflects a comparable sales decline of 2.2 percent as well as the impact of 58 net store closures since last year's third quarter. Net loss for the period was 8.1 million dollars or 7 cents per diluted share, compared to net...
David Pastrana named President, White House Black Market
Chico's has appointed David Pastrana as President of its White House Black Market brand, effective January 10, 2018. In this role, the company said, Pastrana will oversee all business activities for White House Black Market and will report directly to Shelley Broader, President and CEO of Chico's FAS. Pastrana will succeed Donna Colaco who is...


text:
function ClickController(parent, render) {
    this.init = function() {
        this.currentClicked = "";
        this.courses = parent.courses;
        this.userCourses = parent.userCourses;
        this.render = render;
        this.rules = parent.rules;
        // this.courseController = courseController;
        this.addButtonListeners();
        this.addListeners();
    }

    // Handle event is a special function that catches all events
    this.handleEvent = function (event) {
        var courseNumber = event.currentTarget.id;
        var currentTab = $('.tab-pane.active')[0].id;
        this.clickHandler(currentTab, courseNumber);
    }

    this.clickHandler = function(currentTab, courseNumber) {
        var clickedCourse = this.userCourses.getCourse(courseNumber);
        if(this.currentClicked == courseNumber) {
            var src = this.userCourses.getCourseBucket(courseNumber);
            switch(currentTab) {
            case "waived":
                this.waived(clickedCourse);
                break;
            case "taken":
                this.taken(clickedCourse);
                break;
            case "selected":
                this.selected(clickedCourse);
                break;
            case "schedules":
                return;
            }
            this.render.scoreboard.renderAll();
            this.render.waived.renderAll();
            this.render.selected.renderAll();
            this.currentClicked = "";
        }
        else {
            this.render.popover.destroyPopover();
            this.render.popover.renderPopover(clickedCourse, currentTab);
            this.currentClicked = courseNumber;
        }

    }

    /*
     * We break IE legacy compatibility because we don't use the attachEvent
     * method here. Don't care too much about that for now.
     */
    this.addButtonListeners = function () {
        var coursesList = this.userCourses.getCourses();
        for(var i in coursesList) {
            var courseButton = document.getElementById(coursesList[i].course_number);
            if(courseButton != null) {
                courseButton.addEventListener("click", this, false);
            }
        }
    }

    this.waived = function(course) {
        var src = this.userCourses.getCourseBucket(course.course_number);
        if(src == this.userCourses.waived) {
            this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.selected);
        }
        else {
            this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.waived);
        }
    }

    this.taken = function(course) {
        var src = this.userCourses.getCourseBucket(course.course_number);
        if(src == this.userCourses.taken) {
            this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.available);
        }
        else {
            this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.taken);
        }
    }

    this.selected = function(course) {
        // If the selected course is currently in available move it to selected
        // else if it is selected move it to available
        var src = this.userCourses.getCourseBucket(course.course_number);
        if(src == this.userCourses.available) {
            this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.selected);
        }
        else {
            // If the course was selected, and it was a core course, move it to waived...
            // This is a "shortcut" for waiving a course
            // else it is now available
            if(this.rules.isCore(course.course_number)) {
                this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.waived);
            }
            else {
                this.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, this.userCourses.available);
            }
        }

    }

    this.scheduled = function(course) {
        // if(this.currentClicked == courseNumber) {
        //     this.render.popover.destroyPopover();
        // }
        // else {
        //     this.render.popover.destroyPopover();
        //     this.render.popover.renderPopover(courseNumber);
        //     this.currentClicked = courseNumber;
        // }
    }

    this.search = function() {
        // remove previous search results
        var searchResults = $('.searchresult');
        searchResults.removeClass('searchresult');
        var searchResults = self.userCourses.search($('#searchtext').val());
        for(var i in searchResults) {
            $('#' + searchResults[i]).addClass('searchresult');
        }
    }

    this.addListeners = function() {
        var self = this;
        $('#searchbutton').click(function(event) {
            self.search();
        });

        $('#searchtext').keypress(function(event) {
            if (event.which == 13) {
                self.search();
            }
        });

        var self = this;
        $('#resetbutton').click(function(event) {
            var searchResults = $('.searchresult');
            searchResults.removeClass('searchresult');
            $('#searchtext').val("");
        });

        $(document).click(function(event) {
            if(event.target.id != self.currentClicked) {
                self.render.popover.destroyPopover();
                self.currentClicked = "";
            }
        });

        document.addEventListener("popupClickMessage", popupEventHandler, false);

        function popupEventHandler(e) {
            var action = e.detail.action;
            var courseNumber = e.detail.course;
            var course = self.userCourses.getCourse(courseNumber);
            var src = self.userCourses.getCourseBucket(courseNumber);
            switch(action) {
            case "waived":
                self.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, self.userCourses.waived);
                break;
            case "taken":
                self.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, self.userCourses.taken);
                break;
            case "selected":
                self.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, self.userCourses.selected);
                break;
            case "available":
                self.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, self.userCourses.available);
                break;
            case "prereq":
                var prereq = self.userCourses.findPrereq(course);
                course.prereq = prereq.course_number;
                self.userCourses.moveCourse(course, src, self.userCourses.selected);
                self.userCourses.moveCourse(prereq, src, self.userCourses.selected);
                break;
            }
            self.render.popover.destroyPopover();
            self.render.scoreboard.renderAll();
            self.render.waived.renderAll();
            self.render.selected.renderAll();
            self.currentClicked = "";
        }
    }
    this.init();
}


The importance of the wedding day, the day when two people tie the knot of eternity, is immense. This marks the start of a whole new phase of life. Help the new couple sink in all the newness with the Online Wedding Gifts in Kerala. Send Wedding Gifts to Kerala to them to help them celebrate the day. We have everything on point when it comes to Online Wedding Gifts Delivery in Kerala. Send a scrumptious Online Wedding Cake in Kerala with the Wedding Cake Delivery in Kerala to steal the show. At our website, you can shop for online gifts in Kerala from any corner of the world for other occasions as well.
Flowers and wedding are like water and fish. Take a peek at our Online Wedding Flowers in Kerala and get them deliver to the wedding venue with the Wedding Flowers Delivery in Kerala. The safe and timely delivery is guaranteed here. Now send flowers online in Kerala, we will deliver it smoothly. Send Wedding Gifts, Flowers, Cakes in Kerala on Best Price and also get the services of Wedding Gifts Delivery in Kerala Same Day at delivery charges that you have never seen before.


Barlamundamu Yindjibarndi buwarrila, jurlu warlu gagi mundu birna-ngarli barni-nha ngarrda-ngarli.
Marrga-nha ngarda banggarri-nha wiyarnu walharri-ngu murlayi-wu.
Marrga-nha bangarri warrwarda. Marrga-nha biyarrinha ngunnaanha bangarri-nha, nhauwayi wundu mundu-la gargaa.
Marrga jinbiya-wa, marnburr garda-nha garda-nha mijagayi, Minjanuwa Bargunyi ganagarri-nha nyaarna marnda-ngu.
Marrga warnyarri-nha Bargubyji-ngu jirragarri-ngu marnu.
Marrga binigarri-nha garra-ngarlila ngayinu yarda-wu munda wirra-ngarli Bargunyji-ngurra.
Marrga-nha biningarri-nha bargu-ngarli-la, marnda-ngarlila Baru-ngarlilia wirndamarrala. Burdadbarlu jaya-nha Marrga nhau-nhu marjjgarn warndayi.
Marrga-nha biningairri-nha thurrurd marjgarngu murna warni-ngu, Marrga jirraagarri mangu-ngu mii-uu Bargunyji marla-ngga murnawarni-ngu jawarnha warndayi-mu.
Stone carving of a Marrga man.
Towards Gamburdaynha at the break of day.
In our Dreaming a long, long time ago, back in the creation times when the Yindjibarndi believed the world was soft, on the tablelands along the blue Ranges our people call Gamburdaynha and around the Fortescue River – Yarnda Nyirranha, in the cracks and gorges there lived Bargunyji a snake that had teeth like knives and the taste for flesh.
In these times there also lived a Marrga man called Bulinjilmanha who was the first Ngarda man who lived on these lands. He became the guardian and storyteller of Yindjibarndi culture and left his work and markings on the rocks for Ngardangarli to learn.
One day Bulinjimanha went out hunting. He came to a small waterhole and bent down to quench his thirst. As he drank and cooled himself he became wary that he was being watched..
And stayed on his guard.
As he bent down to take one last drink, Bargunyji sprang out of a rock cave at Bulinjilmanha, his mouth wide open ready to swallow him. Bulinjilmanha saw the snake flying at him and at that moment he stepped aside — the snake missed him by an inch and left his teeth-marks on the ground. The snake stood up and their eyes met, and then Bulinjilmanha started to run.
Bulijilmanha ran and ran right across Yindjibarndi country with Bargunyji close behind. He ran for miles and miles trying to shake Bargunyji off of his tail, but Bargunyji knew that sooner or later Bulinjilmanha was going to get tired and would give up running.
Bulinjilmanha kept looking behind him the snake always behind, gaining, and baring his teeth in hunger. Bulinjilmanha was beginning to tire, And the snake came on, closer still.
He led Bargunyji up and down the hills, through gorges, across the rivers and across the plains, but the snake wasn't giving up or getting tired.
Bulinjilmanha then started singing a song of himself as he ran. This song started to mark the snake dizzy, drowsy and made the his vision blur.
Bulinjilmanha knew this would be his last chance to escape. The snake was starting to hallucinate and become anxious, snapping his jaws and becoming frenzied for his prey.
As the song Bulinjilmanha sang confused the snake more and more, Bulinjilmanha knew this was the time to save his life.
In the distance he saw a large snappy gum tree and he ran toward it, he wanted to lead the snake to the tree while it was bewildered — as the drug of the song was making him heavy and angry.
The snake continued snapping with frustration, desperate for his prey, Bulinjilmanha knew that the snake would to reach him any second now.
Before the snake could rip him,he leapt into the snappy gum tree and climbed right to the top.
The snake, still drowsy, bit hard into the snappy gum, pumping all his poison and smashing all his teeth as he attacked the tree thinking all the while that it was Bulinjilmanha.
Now, to this day, Bargunyji has no teeth or poison, and when you cut open the snappy gum tree, the red sap that drips out is Bargunyji's poison.
Bargunyji is harmless to humans now.


text:
SPILL ALBUM REVIEW: JENN GRANT - LOVE, INEVITABLE
SPILL ALBUM REVIEW: ME LOST ME - THE LAY OF THE LAND
SPILL ALBUM REVIEW: GARY DALY – GONE FROM HERE
Gary Daly
Gone From Here
Gone From Here is Gary Daly's debut solo album. Daly, of course, one of the founding members of China Crisis, a group still very much active and still producing incredible music. Their most recent release came in 2015, Autumn In The Neighbourhood. On this album, Daly works with three producers, David Berger, Carl Brown, and Brian McNeill, who have an understanding of what Daly wants to achieve, and the end result is a well-produced album. Mark Pythian (who has worked with China Crisis in the past), is able to take the many sounds combined on this album and present a perfect mix and balance.
On Gone From Here, Daly is able to further explore his excursions into melodic music with deeply personal lyrics. As usual, the combination works. There is not a weak song on this collection. It is a well-crafted album full of pop, jazz and experimental music. All these genres come together to form a very cohesive and engaging albums. He also receives some help from noted musicians, such as Tom Moth (Florence and The Machine) and Chris Hutchinson (Outfit)
Lyrically, Daly is not afraid to go into some darker corners. "In The Cloudy Domain", for example is a moving and sad song full of poetic imagery of facing pain. "Don't want to hear about it, don't want to think about it too", yet he does both. Set to beautiful piano and well-orchestrated, it creates an atmosphere that is beyond words. He revisits this theme a little later with "Dead Of Night".
There are a couple of surprises as well. The main surprise is "Carousel Of Stars". The song features the wonderfully talented John Campbell of It's Immaterial, and the song becomes a sort of sequel to It's Immaterial's classic, "Driving Away from Home (Jim's Tune)". Daly inserts his own magic and the result is a stunning and heartbreaking song. It also features a brilliant sax solo from Eric Animar (China Crisis). The other surprise is the short, but impactful instrumental "Transition Peace" (great play on words) that adds a great deal to the flow of the album. It is experimental yet accessible at the same time.
Daly gets some assistance Gone From Here, but it is clearly his album, his vision, and his direction. His vocals are as good as ever, and his songwriting skills seem to get better with each album he does. Gone From Here is a brilliant debut album and I am hoping, an indication of what is to come.
Item Reviewed
Aaron Badgley
Here's what we think...
Spill Rating
Fan Rating
Rate Here
New Criteria
Total Spill Rating
Total Fan Rating
album reviewalbum reviewschina crisisgary dalygone from hereiworkalone
album review, album reviews, china crisis, gary daly, gone from here, iworkalone
Born and raised in Whitby, Aaron discovered music through his love of The Beatles. This led to a career in radio, writing for various publications, and ultimately a radio show about The Beatles (Beatles Universe), which ran for over four years. When not immersed in music, Aaron enjoys spending time with the loves of his life -- his wife Andrea, and daughters Emily and Linda (all of whom have an intense love of music too).
album reviewalbum reviewschina crisis
by Talia Boettinger on January 17, 2020
Dr. John Babylon (Reissue) Get On Down Standing out as one of Dr. John's most overtly political album, Babylon rings just as true as it did when it was first released in 1969, and it hasn't [...]
by Ljubinko Zivkovic on January 17, 2020
Brandon Wolfe Scott Burden On Your Shoulders Dine Alone Records Brandon Wolfe Scott is a familiar name to all those who have been following Kelowna, BC 'bigwigs' Yukon [...]
by Aaron Badgley on January 17, 2020
Terry Draper Sunset On Mars Terrytunes Former Klaatu member, Terry Draper has been very busy of late. Following 2019's In My Garden, Draper has delivered his best solo album of his [...]
by Samantha Andujar on January 17, 2020
Mark Morton Ether Rise Records/BMG Mark Morton is no stranger when it comes to epic releases with band Lamb of God. This comes as no exception with the release of Mark Morton's solo EP creation [...]
by Kristen Manza on January 17, 2020
Bombay Bicycle Club Everything Else Has Gone Wrong Arts & Crafts Bombay Bicycle Club have released their eagerly anticipated fifth album; Everything Else Has [...]
SPILL ALBUM REVIEW: BRANDON WOLFE SCOTT – BURDEN ON YOUR SHOU...
SPILL ALBUM REVIEW: BOMBAY BICYCLE CLUB – EVERYTHING ELSE HAS...
Latest Live Reviews
SPILL LIVE REVIEW: A$AP FERG w/ MURDA BEATZ @ REBEL, TORONTO
by Jonathan Hazlewood on December 17, 2019
SPILL LIVE REVIEW: 93X NUTCRACKER FT. 311, HIGHLY SUSPECT, THE GLORIOUS SONS & BRKN LOVE @ ARMORY, MINNEAPOLIS (MN)
by Scott Allen Cornell on December 14, 2019
SPILL LIVE REVIEW: BORN RUFFIANS w/ FLEECE @ THE DANFORTH MUSIC HALL, TORONTO
by Andrew Wu on December 14, 2019
SPILL LIVE REVIEW: PIXIES w/ ICE CREAM @ THE PHOENIX CONCERT THEATRE, TORONTO
by King Dawit of Aksum on December 12, 2019
SPILL LIVE REVIEW: STATIC-X w/ MUSHROOMHEAD, DOPE, WEDNESDAY 13 & RAVEN BLACK @ MYTH LIVE, SAINT PAUL (MN)
by Scott Allen Cornell on December 4, 2019