30 Day FR Notice

42108

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

Approval Application, Form 92001–A,
can be downloaded from HUD’s Web
site at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
documents/huddoc?id=92001-a.pdf.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT

VI. Evaluation of the Initiative

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Assessment Tool: Solicitation of
Comment—30-Day Notice Under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

One of the principal purposes of the
Initiative is to determine whether, by
providing Federal credit enhancement
for refinancing and rehabilitation of
small multifamily housing, the Initiative
is successful in increasing the flow of
credit to small multifamily properties.
HUD will, therefore, undertake an
evaluation of the Initiative to determine
the success of the Initiative and will
expect participation by selected lenders.
VII. Findings and Certifications
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this
document have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) and
assigned OMB control number 2502–
0500 and 2502–0541. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act,
HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless the
collection displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
B. Environmental Impact

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

A Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) with respect to the
environment has been made for this
notice in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which
implement Section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI
is available for public inspection
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
4517th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to
security measures at this HUD
Headquarters Building, an advance
appointment to review the FONSI must
be scheduled by calling the Regulations
Division at 202–708–3055 (not a toll free
number).
Dated: June 30, 2015.
Edward L. Golding,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Housing.
[FR Doc. 2015–17464 Filed 7–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

[Docket No. FR–5173–N–05]

AGENCY:

Office of General Counsel,

HUD.
ACTION:

Notice.

This notice solicits public
comment, for a period of 30 days,
consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), on the
Assessment Tool that would be
provided by HUD for use by program
participants in completing their
assessment of fair housing as required
by HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) rule. The purpose of
the assessment of fair housing (AFH) is
to aid HUD program participants in
carrying out their statutory duty to
affirmatively further fair housing. The
Assessment Tool is designed to guide
HUD program participants in
undertaking a more thorough evaluation
of fair housing issues in their respective
jurisdictions, and setting goals to
overcome issues that are barriers, among
other things, to fair housing choice and
opportunity. As stated in HUD’s
September 26, 2014, notice, this
Assessment Tool is designed primarily
for entitlement jurisdictions and for
entitlement jurisdictions partnering
with public housing agencies to use in
submitting an AFH. The ‘‘primary’’
design is also for local governments and
consortia required to submit
consolidated plans under HUD’s
Consolidated Plan regulations. Although
in the September 26, 2014, notice, HUD
previously stated this assessment tool
would not be used for regional
collaborations, HUD believes that, given
the changes made to this assessment
tool based on comments received, this
assessment tool can also be used for
regional collaborations.
The Assessment Tool published on
September 26, 2014 provided a 60-day
comment period, which commenced the
notice and comment process required by
the PRA. This 30-day notice completes
the public comment process required by
the PRA. With the issuance of this
notice, and following consideration of
public comments received in response
to this notice, HUD will seek approval
of the Assessment Tool from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and
assignment of an OMB control number.
In accordance with the PRA, the
Assessment Tool will undergo this

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

public comment process every 3 years to
retain OMB approval.
With this 30-day notice, HUD is
publishing two formats of the same
assessment tool, each with the same
content but slightly different
organization. Specifically, the
placement of the contributing factor
analysis is the only difference between
the two formats of the assessment tool.
HUD is seeking comments on which
format would be the most effective and
efficient for program participants to use
in conducting the required analysis of
contributing factors and related fair
housing issues.
DATES: Comment Due Date: August 17,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this notice to the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
Communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly
encourages commenters to submit
comments electronically. Electronic
submission of comments allows the
commenter maximum time to prepare
and submit a comment, ensures timely
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to
make them immediately available to the
public. Comments submitted
electronically through the
www.regulations.gov Web site can be
viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. Again, all submissions must refer to
the docket number and title of the rule.

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(fax) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address. Due to security measures at the
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing and individuals with speech
impairments may access this number
via TTY by calling the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339. Copies of all
comments submitted are available for
inspection and downloading at
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General
Counsel for Legislation and Regulations,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Room 10282,
Washington, DC 20410–0500; telephone
number 202–708–1793 (this is not a tollfree number). Persons who are deaf or
hard of hearing and persons with speech
impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710,
HUD published, for public comment, a
proposed rule entitled ‘‘Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing’’ (AFFH). The
July 19, 2013, AFFH rule proposed a
new approach that would enable
program participants to more fully
incorporate fair housing considerations
into their existing planning processes
and assist them in complying with their
duty to affirmatively further fair housing
as required by the Fair Housing Act
(Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act) and
other authorities. The new process, the
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH),
builds upon and refines the prior fair
housing planning process, called the
analysis of impediments (AI). As part of
the new AFH process HUD advised that
it would issue an ‘‘Assessment Tool’’ for
use by program participants in
completing and submitting their AFHs.
The Assessment Tool, which includes
instructions and nationally-uniform
data provided by HUD, consists of a
series of questions designed to help
program participants identify, among
other things, areas of racially and
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,
patterns of integration and segregation,
disparities in access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs.
At the time of publication of the July
19, 2013, AFFH proposed rule, HUD
also posted and sought public comment
on a draft ‘‘Data Documentation’’ paper

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

42109

online at www.huduser.org/portal/affht_
pt.html (under the heading Data
Methodology). HUD requested public
comments on the categories, sources,
and format of data that would be
provided by HUD to program
participants to assist them in
completing their AFH, and many
program participants responded with
comments on the Data Documentation
paper.
The Assessment Tool that HUD issued
for public comment on September 26,
2014 (79 FR 57949) (Initial Assessment
Tool), and found at www.huduser.org/
portal/affht_pt.html was, as HUD noted
in the Summary of this notice, primarily
designed for use by entitlement
jurisdictions and by entitlement
jurisdictions and PHAs that are jointly
submitting an AFH. As further noted in
the Summary, the Assessment Tool,
which was the subject of the September
26, 2014, notice and this notice, is also
designed for use by local governments
and consortia required to submit
consolidated plans under HUD’s
Consolidated Plan regulations, codified
in 24 CFR part 91, specifically subparts
C and E, which pertain to local
governments and consortia.1 In this
notice, HUD uses the term ‘‘entitlement
jurisdictions’’ to refer to all jurisdictions
for which this tool is primarily
designed.
In the September 26, 2014, notice
HUD also advised that the Initial
Assessment Tool was not the tool that
would be used by the following program
participants: PHAs that would not be
making a joint submission; States; and
Insular Areas. While the Initial
Assessment Tool was tailored primarily
for entitlement jurisdictions and joint
submissions by entitlement jurisdictions
and PHAs, HUD invited comments by
all types of program participants, as it,
‘‘present[ed] the basic structure of the
Assessment Tool to be used by all
program participants, and is illustrative
of the questions that will be asked of all
program participants.’’
HUD followed the September 26,
2014, publication with a notice
published on January 15, 2015, at 80 FR
2062, which solicited public comment
on a staggered submission deadline for
AFHs to be submitted for specific types
of program participants. In the January
2015 notice, HUD advised that it was
considering providing certain HUD

II. The 60-Day Notice and Initial
Assessment Tool
In developing the assessment tool,
HUD had four key objectives in mind.
First, the assessment tool must ask
questions that would be sufficient to
enable program participants to perform
a meaningful assessment of key fair
housing issues and contributing factors 3
and set meaningful fair housing goals
and priorities. Second, the assessment
tool must clearly convey the analysis of
fair housing issues and contributing
factors that program participants must
undertake in order for an AFH to be
accepted by HUD. Third, the assessment
tool must be designed so program
participants would be able to use it to
prepare an AFH that would be accepted
by HUD without unnecessary burden.
Fourth, the assessment tool must
facilitate HUD’s review of the AFHs
submitted by program participants,
since the Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing rule requires HUD to determine
within a certain period of time whether
to accept or not accept each AFH or
revised AFH submitted to HUD.
With these objectives in mind, HUD
issued the Initial Assessment Tool for
public comment for a period of 60 days.
The 60-day notice then provided a
detailed description of the five main
sections of the Assessment Tool: Section
I—Cover Sheet and Certification;
Section II—Executive Summary; Section
III—Community Participation Process;
Section IV—Analysis; and Section V—
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities.
In the 60-day notice, in addition to
soliciting comment on the Initial
Assessment Tool overall, HUD
specifically solicited comments on the
following topics:

1 In HUD’s AFFH proposed rule published on July
19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710, HUD noted that a
consortium participating in HUD’s HOME
Investment Partnerships program (HOME program),
and which term (consortium) is defined 24 CFR
91.5, must submit an AFH. HUD stated that a
HOME consortium is considered a single unit of
general local government (see 78 FR at 43731).

2 Section 2702 of title II of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act (HERA) defined ‘‘qualified
PHAs’’ as PHAs that have fewer than 550 units,
including public housing and section 8 vouchers.
3 The term ‘‘fair housing determinants’’ was
changed to ‘‘fair housing contributing factors’’ in
the AFFH final rule. This notice therefore uses the
term ‘‘fair housing contributing factors.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

program participants—States, Insular
Areas, qualified PHAs,2 and
jurisdictions receiving a small
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) grant with the option of
submitting their first AFH at a date later
than would otherwise be required for
other program participants. In addition
to proposing a staggered submission
deadline, HUD had previously
announced that it would be developing
separate assessment tools for certain
types of program participants, including
States and insular areas, PHAs and
program participants submitting AFHs
in a regional collaboration.

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42110

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

1. The description of local data and
local knowledge;
2. The clarity of the options for
including information about the
community participation in the AFH;
3. The adequacy of the list of
determinants (now contributing factors)
in order to produce a meaningful AFH;
4. Aspects of the Publicly Supported
Housing (PSH) subsection, specifically:
(a) The type of program participant
required to include project-level data in
tabular format for various categories of
PSH; (b) the formatting of the tables; (c)
the most effective ways of providing
assessment of project-level data in an
Assessment Tool used by States;
5. Whether HUD inadvertently failed
to consider fair housing issues relating
to individuals with disabilities by
considering Disability and Access issues
separately;
6. The sufficiency and clarity of the
Initial Assessment Tool for addressing
additional fair housing issues and
inability to answer questions due to a
lack of data and whether HUD should
include instructions on how to address
these issues;
7. The content of the tool, the clarity
of the questions, and areas of
information that are included in the
tool, but that are unnecessary to conduct
a meaningful AFH, and areas that HUD
may have overlooked that should be
included in the Initial Assessment Tool;
8. Whether the Initial Assessment
Tool can be used by program
participants independently, without the
need to rely on outside contractors to
conduct an AFH;
9. Any additional instructions that
would be helpful;
10. The costs associated with
gathering and analyzing data necessary
for conducting an AFH;
11. Whether program participants
anticipate using federal funds to
complete an AFH;
12. What strategies program
participants can use to reduce the cost
and burden of completing an AFH and
how to reduce costs of obtaining local
data and local knowledge;
13. How do program participants
envision joint participation in
completing the AFH;
14. Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the agency and
whether it will have practical utility;
15. The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of collecting the
information;
16. Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
17. Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection on those who are required
to respond.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

III. Public Comments on the 60-Day
Notice
By the close of the comment period
on November 25, 2015, HUD received
198 public comments. Commenters
included PHAs, CDBG grantees,
including States and local governments,
advocacy groups, nonprofit
organizations, and various individuals.
All public comments received in
response to the 60-day notice can be
found at: http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2014-00800001. HUD appreciates the time and
effort of all the public commenters in
preparing their comments. The
information was helpful and valuable.
This section provides a summary of
the most significant issues raised by
commenters and HUD’s responses,
including where HUD made changes to
the Assessment Tool.
Overview of Significant Issues Raised
The majority of comments offered
positive and constructive
recommendations for improving the
Assessment Tool. Many commenters
provided suggestions for expanding
certain portions of the assessment tool
and for improving the questions and
analysis required. Many comments also
raised concerns about the assessment
tool’s burden, the timing of introducing
a new analysis mechanism, the
reliability of the data to be provided,
and its content and the impact on
specific types of program participants,
including small entities, States, and
others. The areas of concern identified
by the majority of commenters are
discussed below.
Burden
Many commenters stated that the
Initial Assessment Tool imposes a
significant burden on program
participants in several ways. They
stated that the amount of time and
resources required to complete the
Initial Assessment Tool itself is unduly
burdensome, especially in light of the
amount of local data and local
knowledge that program participants
must use. Commenters also stated that
the community participation process
could be very burdensome, especially
for jurisdictions such as an entire State.
Commenters stated that the additional
time and resources required to conduct
the type of community participation
contemplated would be unduly
burdensome. Commenters further stated
that the amount of information, both
HUD-provided data supplemented by
local data and local knowledge, and the
number of questions, makes the Initial
Assessment Tool unreasonably complex

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

and would likely result in the additional
burden of having to hire a consultant in
order to complete the AFH.
Commenters also stated that the
Initial Assessment Tool would be overly
and unnecessarily burdensome on
States. While commenters stated that
they understood there would be a
separate assessment tool for States, they
nevertheless expressed concern with
having to analyze data that entitlement
jurisdictions in their respective States
may have already analyzed in preparing
their own AFHs. The commenters stated
that States should not have to engage in
duplicative, redundant analyses.
Other commenter stated that they
thought the Initial Assessment Tool
would clarify the ‘‘region’’ to be
analyzed by program participants
because the rule did not provide
sufficient specificity.
Timing
Several commenters stated that the
release of the Initial Assessment Tool is
premature. They stated that the AFFH
rule should be finalized, the
development of the other types of
assessment tools to be used should be
completed, and that HUD should wait to
complete development of the
Assessment Tool based on the recent
disparate impact case and the upcoming
Supreme Court case, which was heard
in early 2015 and decided June 25,
2015. The Supreme Court ruled that the
Fair Housing Act prohibits
discrimination caused by policies or
practices that have an unjustified
disparate impact because of race, color,
religion, sex, familial status, national
origin, or disability. Texas Dep’t of
Hous. & Cmty Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys
Project, No. 13–1371, 2015 U.S. LEXIS
4249 (June 25, 2015). In that decision,
the Supreme Court also acknowledged
‘‘the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role
in moving the Nation toward a more
integrated society.’’ Id. at *42.
Data
Commenters stated that the Initial
Assessment Tool requires too much
local data and local knowledge. Other
commenters took issue with the data
provided by HUD, stating that, in the
past, HUD data has been inaccurate and
out of date. Commenters stated that the
HUD-provided data is unwieldy and
difficult to understand. Several
commenters specifically referred to the
efficacy of using dot density maps and
the requirement that the analysis be
conducted by neighborhood when the
data is at the Census tract level.
Commenters stated that, assuming the
HUD-provided data is reliable, the data
is most useful at the regional level, but

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

will be inefficient for use by States.
Other commenters requested that the
HUD-provided data include datasets of
local information that are already
available to HUD, so that program
participants need not expend additional
resources to gather such data.
Content of the Assessment Tool
Several commenters stated that the
Initial Assessment Tool is too
subjective, stating that the Initial
Assessment Tool makes an
inappropriate leap from correlation to
causation. The commenters stated that
there may be alternative causes for the
demographic makeup of a certain
jurisdiction. Commenters requested that
HUD eliminate any questions in the
Initial Assessment Tool requiring an
essay-type of response, which, the
commenters stated, only adds to the
subjective nature of the analysis. These
commenters stated that they believe the
Initial Assessment Tool will not achieve
its stated objective because it promotes
the creation of policy based on
incomplete, and often subjective,
information.
Commenters stated that they found
the Initial Assessment Tool to be
incomplete. These commenters stated
that HUD should be asking different
questions than those posed in the Initial
Assessment Tool, or should add
questions to account for situations that
HUD may have overlooked. For
example, several commenters expressed
appreciation for the separate section in
the Initial Assessment Tool dedicated to
Disability and Access Issues. However,
other commenters stated that disability
should be a topic that is discussed
throughout the Initial Assessment Tool
and not confined to one section.
Other commenters stated that HUD
does not adequately take into account
the issues of housing opportunity and
equity affecting women, especially in
terms of domestic and sexual violence
issues, and lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender (LGBT) individuals and
families. Commenters stated that while
there is a lack of data on LGBT
individuals and families at the national
level, the next version of the assessment
tool could provide a mechanism to
begin gathering such data. Commenters
also made recommendations about
items that should be added to the list of
contributing factors and suggested edits
to the existing language in the Initial
Assessment Tool.
Several commenters raised concerns
about the Dissimilarity Index. The
commenters stated that the next version
of the assessment tool should use
multiple measures of segregation,
because, according to the commenters,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

the Dissimilarity Index alone is
insufficient to fully understand
residential segregation patterns in a
community and region. The commenters
recommended that HUD include
additional measures of segregation
besides only providing the Dissimilarity
Index.
Many commenters stated that the lack
of a section on ‘‘Action Steps’’ to be
taken by program participants weakens
the overall purpose of the AFH, and
inclusion of such a section would aid in
enforcement.
Other commenters stated that the
Initial Assessment Tool lacked
sufficient guidance for program
participants. The commenters requested
that HUD define certain terms, add
clearer instructions, provide hands-on,
in-person training for completing the
tool, and develop a helpline at HUD to
aid program participants in navigating
the complexities of the tool and the data
provided.
Small Entities, Joint Participation, and
Local Control Issues
Commenters that are or that represent
small PHAs and small jurisdictions
stated that the Initial Assessment Tool
would not be useful for them, and
would impose a significant burden.
These commenters stated that one way
to deal with this burden would be for
HUD to encourage, or even require,
program participants to complete the
AFH jointly in order to reduce the costs
of the community participation process
and the actual analysis conducted in the
Initial Assessment Tool. In contrast,
other commenters who stated they
would be willing to participate in
jointly submitting an AFH raised
concerns about doing so and signing a
joint certification. The commenters
requested that HUD modify the
certification language because the
commenters stated that they cannot
attest to the veracity of the information
provided by other program participants.
In a similar vein, commenters, mostly
States and local governments, expressed
concern that the AFH will result in a
loss of local control and will interfere
with local decision-making. States and
local governments, and PHAs all
submitted comments relating to their
respective scopes of authority with
respect to assessing fair housing choice.
These commenters stated that the
Assessment Tool appears to be asking
program participants to conduct an
analysis and take actions beyond the
scope of their authority in order to
implement plans to effect change with
respect to fair housing. The commenters
stated that they lack control over other
entities and, consequently, cannot be

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

42111

expected to implement plans relating to
fair housing.
III. This 30-Day Notice and Revised
Assessment Tool
A. Changes to the Assessment Tool
General Approach to Content
In response to public comment HUD
has made several changes to the Initial
Assessment Tool, which HUD believes
address many of the burden and content
concerns expressed by the commenters.
These changes have resulted in a
revised Assessment Tool (Revised
Assessment Tool) that is shorter in
length, contains fewer questions, and
clarifies many of the questions that were
in the previous version, and reduces the
need for some duplicative analysis. The
Revised Assessment Tool also includes
detailed instructions to further assist
program participants in answering the
questions in the AFH and guide them on
how to use the HUD-provided data. It
also includes an Appendix providing
further detail on each of the
Contributing Factors referenced in the
tool.
HUD is also providing a link for
program participants and the public to
the Geospatial Mapping Tool (Data
Tool), which contains interactive maps
and exportable tables. The Data Tool
also attempts to provide greater clarity
in response to commenters’ concerns
about the area of analysis, and provides
data for the region based on the program
participant’s Core-Based Statistical Area
(CBSA). The Data Tool will also be
posted online at: http://
www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html.
The Data Tool contains the same data
as that which was released on
September 26, 2014, with some minor
changes. Now, the data is accessible
through an interactive application on a
Web-based interface. Additionally,
Table 14 now includes two transitrelated indices.
HUD anticipates further changes to
the Data Tool prior to its final release for
use by program participants. Some of
those anticipated changes include:
• Consolidating several redundant
tables;
• Modifications to improve the visual
presentation of the maps (i.e., contrast
and sizes of dots and icons on maps);
• Improved Data Tool functionality to
allow the user to better access data on:
(1) Locations and demographics of
publicly supported housing
developments, including census tracts;
and (2) the ability to export maps and
tables by the program participant for use
during the community participation
process and as part of the AFH
submission to HUD. The export

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42112

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

functionality would apply to both maps
and tables. It would not only provide
access to the data, but also allow users
to filter and sort demographic data for
both developments and census tracts by
common characteristics. The
functionality would be similar to that in
HUD’s CPD Maps tool. This is intended
to reduce burden in using the HUDprovided data to answer the required
questions in the Assessment Tool while
providing the data that will enable
program participants to conduct
analyses required to identify key fair
housing issues;
• Addition of maps to match updates
in the Opportunity Indices;
• Additional datasets to correspond
with the analysis in the Assessment
Tool;
• Minor changes in terminology to
match with the AFH Tool and final rule;
and
• Minor changes in descriptions of
the data provided (i.e., ‘‘top 5’’
becoming ‘‘5 most populous’’).
The Revised Assessment Tool
includes substantial revisions to the
questions that were in the Initial
Assessment Tool. HUD has reduced the
total number of questions in the analysis
section while improving the clarity and
utility of the analysis that is required.
The Initial Assessment Tool would have
required contributing factors to be
identified twice, once separately and
again in answering the specific
questions. The Revised Assessment Tool
only requires that contributing factors
be identified once. The contributing
factors analysis has also been revised by
removing the previous requirement to
list all contributing factors and then rate
their degree of significance. In the
Revised Assessment Tool, program
participants are required to identify
those contributing factors that
significantly impact specific fair
housing issues, and for the purposes of
setting goals prioritize them, giving the
highest priority to those factors that
limit or deny fair housing choice or
access to opportunity, or negatively
impact compliance with fair housing or
civil rights law.
In the Revised Assessment Tool,
program participants are asked to
provide one overarching narrative to
justify the prioritization of contributing
factors, rather than a separate
explanation for each factor and that
factor’s level of significance as
presented in the Initial Assessment
Tool. In addition, the requirement to
prioritize goals that was in the Initial
Assessment Tool is removed in the
Revised Assessment Tool. HUD expects
that these changes will reduce burden
while still providing the needed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

information and analysis regarding
contributing factors. So long as program
participants’ goals address significant
contributing factors and related fair
housing issues, and can be reasonably
expected to affirmatively further fair
housing, participants’ goals can vary.
In the Initial Assessment Tool,
separate questions that asked about
different protected classes have been
combined in the Revised Assessment
Tool into one question about all
protected classes for which data are
provided (for example, race, national
origin, and limited English proficiency
(LEP)). With this change, program
participants can now formulate one
answer taking into account all of the
data at one time, rather than provide
two or three separate answers.
In the Revised Assessment Tool, the
wording of certain questions in the
analysis section was improved to
remove unnecessary complexity and
hone the analysis to have the greatest
impact. Several questions were
reworded to avoid any interpretation
that HUD was asking program
participants to prepare an ‘‘inventory’’
or long list of projects or developments.
Other questions were revised because
some program participants might
construe them to include unintended
requests for unduly complex analyses.
HUD found that other questions were
worded too broadly and left program
participants with uncertainty as to the
information needed. These questions
were narrowed in scope. Throughout
the Assessment, HUD made an effort to
clarify questions so program
participants would understand the
question being asked and the analysis
sought.
In response to commenters concerns
that the requirement to obtain and use
local data was too burdensome, the
AFFH Final Rule clarifies that ‘‘local
data’’ refer to ‘‘metrics, statistics, and
other quantified information, that are
subject to a determination of statistical
validity by HUD, relevant to the
program participant’s geographic areas
of analysis,’’ and are data ‘‘that can be
found through a reasonable amount of
searching, are readily available at little
or no cost, and are necessary for the
completion of the AFH using the
Assessment Tool.’’ This clarification is
based on the definition of local data
included in the final rule, and
referenced in the instructions, as data
that is already available and easily
accessible by the program participant, or
data that can be made available at little
or no cost. Local knowledge is also
defined in the AFFH final rule as
information to be provided by the
program participant that relates to the

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

participant’s geographic areas of
analysis and that is relevant to the
program participant’s AFH, is known or
becomes known to the program
participant, and is necessary for the
completion of the AFH using the
Assessment Tool. The instructions in
the Revised Assessment Tool elaborate
on ‘‘information’’ as including laws and
policies, common neighborhood or area
names and borders, information about
the housing market and housing stock.
Program participants are also required
to consider additional information
obtained through the community
participation and consultation process
that is required by the rule.
Additional comments were received
on the Initial Assessment Tool
requesting further instructions and
guidance for program participants.
Accordingly, instructions have been
added to the Revised Assessment Tool.
These instructions provide additional
explanations on the use of local data
and knowledge in addition to the HUDprovided data. The instructions link
each question to the specific maps and
data tables that are relevant to that
question, along with additional
considerations or examples that
program participants should keep in
mind when answering. These
instructions add clarity and guidelines
for effective use of the assessment tool.
Additionally, HUD is providing an
additional appendix in the Revised
Assessment Tool, Appendix C, which
contains short explanations of each
contributing factor contained in the
Revised Assessment Tool.
The inclusion of instructions also
allows HUD to remove blocks of
references to maps and tables that were
included in various places in the Initial
Assessment Tool, and instead provides
a list and short description of the data
that will be available on the Data Tool
in Appendix A (maps) and Appendix B
(tables) of the Revised Assessment Tool.
These references, while helpful, in some
cases provided less guidance and had
the effect of breaking up the flow of
questions, with the result that the
questions were difficult to comprehend
and follow. By removing these
references and including instructions
HUD believes the Revised Assessment
Tool is clearer and easier to understand
and complete.
In response to the Initial Assessment
Tool, commenters requested more
clarity regarding joint submissions. The
instructions in the Revised Assessment
Tool specify that, when submitting
jointly, each program participant is
responsible for identifying contributing
factors and setting goals within its
jurisdiction; however, program

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices
participants submitting jointly are
permitted to set joint goals where
appropriate. The Initial Assessment
Tool did not include this instruction.
Cover Sheet
HUD is committed to assisting
program participants in completing
their assessment tool in a manner that
will allow them to make progress in
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
While the Initial Assessment Tool
provided, at part I item 12, for
‘‘Departmental acceptance or rejection,’’
the Revised Assessment Tool refers, at
item 11, to ‘‘Departmental acceptance or
non-acceptance.’’ This change signifies
that rather than ending the submission
and review of the AFH, non-acceptance
will result in a process in which HUD
works with the program participant by
explaining the reasons for nonacceptance and provides the program
participant with an opportunity to
submit a revised AFH to address those
concerns.
Executive Summary
The Initial Assessment Tool only
contained a heading of ‘‘Executive
Summary,’’ but did not include any
further guidance for program
participants on what to include in the
Executive Summary. The Revised
Assessment Tool explains and clarifies
the information that program
participants should include in the
Executive Summary.
Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
The Initial Assessment Tool sought
information, at the very end of the
analysis, on past goals and actions,
asking ‘‘how has the experience . . .
with past goals influenced the selection
of current goals?’’ HUD proposes to
place this information at the beginning
of the assessment rather than at the end,
so that the assessment of current goals
can be informed by past experience.
Accordingly, the Revised Assessment
Tool moves the assessment of past goals
and actions to Section IV, immediately
prior to the analysis.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Analysis
Segregation/Integration
The Revised Assessment Tool
simplifies this topic, which in the Initial
Assessment Tool included segregation,
integration, and racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty (R/
ECAPS) under one heading. However,
since segregated neighborhoods may be
R/ECAPs, but are not always R/ECAPS,
the same analysis may not apply equally
to segregation/integration and R/ECAPS.
In order to facilitate the analysis in
these cases, in the Revised Assessment

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

Tool, R/ECAPS is moved to its own
separate subsection, and the questions
are narrowed in scope to reflect this
change.
Also, in the context of segregation/
integration, the Initial Assessment Tool
considered the Dissimilarity Index a
topic area, B.1, but did not provide
sufficient guidance as to how this topic
was to be addressed. The Dissimilarity
Index is a method of analyzing the
degree of segregation or integration in a
particular geographic area and serves as
an analytical tool rather than being a
distinct topic within the analysis. The
instructions in the Revised Assessment
Tool describe, in detail, how it should
be appropriately used in conducting the
analysis.
In addition, the Revised Assessment
Tool removed B.2., the separate
Geographic Analysis subtopic, because a
geography-based analysis is already
required in the analysis of segregation/
integration and R/ECAPS (and, indeed,
throughout the assessment tool), and a
separate topic on geography is
redundant in this context.
R/ECAPs
As previously discussed in this
notice, HUD has created a separate
subsection for R/ECAPs, instead of
having the analysis be combined with
the Segregation/Integration analysis.
The Revised Assessment Tool contains
questions specifically about R/ECAPs
and the questions have been narrowed
in scope from the Initial Assessment
Tool.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
In the Revised Assessment Tool, this
topic is changed from the topic entitled
‘‘Disparities in Access to Community
Assets and Exposure to Adverse
Community Factors’’ in the Initial
Assessment Tool to ‘‘Disparities in
Access to Opportunity.’’ Instead of two
separate topics on disparities in access
to community assets and exposure to
adverse community factors, the Revised
Assessment Tool combines the
questions under these topics under a
single heading. HUD has also
consolidated and streamlined questions,
including those on access to jobs, access
to transportation, and exposure to
poverty and environmental health
hazards.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
In the Revised Assessment Tool, HUD
has consolidated certain questions in
this section to eliminate duplication.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

42113

Publicly Supported Housing 4 Analysis
In the Revised Assessment Tool, HUD
makes several revisions to this subtopic.
Under ‘‘Publicly Supported Housing
Location and Occupancy,’’ question ii,
which in the Initial Assessment Tool
was on ‘‘the racial composition of
occupants in publicly supported
housing in R/ECAPs,’’ is broadened in
the Revised Assessment Tool to
‘‘publicly supported housing
demographics.’’ This revision
recognizes that segregation in housing
can involve protected characteristics
other than race.
Also under this subtopic, question iii,
iv, and v in the Initial Assessment Tool
asked the same question about race or
ethnicity of residents of public housing,
other HUD multifamily developments,
and project-based Section 8 housing,
and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) housing. The Revised
Assessment Tool streamlines these
questions into a single question to be
answered with respect to each of the
four categories of housing. Additionally
the question itself is streamlined by
removing a sentence about segregation
that would be redundant of an earlier
question under the same topic, and the
wording of the subtopic has been
simplified to be more understandable.
HUD also determined that several
questions relating to policies for various
housing programs were more
appropriately considered in the
Contributing Factors analysis.
The Revised Assessment Tool also
includes properties converted under the
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
in new question (1)(b)(iv)(A).
The Revised Assessment Tool also
contains an analysis within the publicly
supported housing section of disparities
in access to opportunities for residents
of publicly supported housing.
Disability and Access Analysis
The Revised Assessment Tool
removes an instruction that was
4 The term ‘‘publicly supported housing’’ refers to
housing assisted with funding through federal,
state, or local agencies or programs as well as
housing that is financed or administered by or
through any such agencies or programs. HUD is
currently providing data on five specific categories
of housing: Public Housing; Project-Based Section
8; other HUD multifamily housing (including
Section 202—Supportive Housing for the Elderly,
Section 811—Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities, and other multifamily assisted
properties); Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) housing; and Housing Choice Vouchers
(HCV). Other publicly supported housing relevant
to the analysis includes housing funded through
state and local programs, other federal agencies,
such as USDA and VA, or other HUD-funded
housing not captured in the five categories listed
above.

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

42114

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

included in the Initial Assessment Tool
that read:

in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581
(1999).5

There are limited sources of nationally
consistent data on the extent to which
individuals with different types of
disabilities are able to access housing and
community assets. To complete this section,
program participants should solicit input
from individuals with disabilities and
disability advocates, who often have the most
relevant information on these topics.

Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach
Capacity, and Resources Analysis
This section, which was titled ‘‘Fair
Housing Compliance and
Infrastructure’’ in the Initial Assessment
Tool, has been abbreviated through the
elimination of a question and the
questions associated with the
contributing factors, and has been
renamed in the Revised Assessment
Tool.

This instruction was included in the
Initial Assessment Tool to help explain
why HUD was placing Disability and
Access Issues in a separate section of
the AFH analysis. However, HUD
recognizes that this instruction in the
Initial Assessment Tool may have been
confusing to some public commenters
and may have suggested that extra
efforts to obtain local data and local
knowledge would be required to
complete the Disability and Access
Issues section of the assessment tool. To
eliminate the potential confusion that
this instruction may have caused, the
instruction in the Revised Assessment
Tool identifies specific questions for
which HUD provides data as well as
those questions for which HUD does not
have data. There is no requirement in
the Disability and Access Issues section
for program participants to make an
extra effort to obtain specific local data.
Instead, as required in all sections of the
Assessment Tool, program participants
are only required to obtain and use local
data that can be found through a
reasonable amount of search and are
readily available at little or no cost.
The Disability and Access Analysis
section has been streamlined in the
Revised Assessment Tool. A question on
‘‘the principal challenges faced by
persons with disabilities in the
Jurisdiction and Region’’ has been
removed, as that question is answered
by the discussion of the disparities in
access to opportunity and the
contributing factors within the same
section. Additionally, the list of
opportunity indicators (in the context of
disparities in access to opportunity) is
streamlined in the Revised Assessment
Tool.
In the list of ‘‘Disability and Access
Issues Contributing Factors,’’ a new item
on ‘‘State or local laws, policies, or
practices that discourage individuals
with disabilities from being placed in or
living in apartments, family homes, and
other integrated settings’’ is added in
the Revised Assessment Tool. This
addition recognizes that there can be
laws, policies, or practices affecting
persons with disabilities other than land
use and zoning laws, especially in the
context of the Supreme Court’s decision

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

Contributing Factors
As noted in the Summary above, HUD
is providing two formats of the Revised
Assessment Tool for public comment.
The two formats do not differ in content
or analysis required by the assessment
tool, but do differ with respect to where
the analysis of contributing factors
occurs.
Option A of the Revised Assessment
Tool provides a categorized list of the
most common contributing factors
relating to all fair housing issues (but it
is not an exhaustive list of all possible
contributing factors) in one location
following the analysis sections of
Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs,
Disparities in Access to Opportunity,
and Disproportionate Housing Needs.
The same categorized list of
contributing factors also follows each of
the following sections: Publicly
Supported Housing Analysis; Disability
and Access Analysis; and Fair Housing
Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and
Resources Analysis. In identifying
contributing factors, program
participants are instructed to note
which fair housing issue(s)
(Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs,
Disparities in Access to Opportunity,
and Disproportionate Housing Needs)
the selected contributing factor impacts.
Program participants must also include
any other contributing factors impacting
fair housing issues in their jurisdiction
or region that are not included in the
provided lists.
Option B of the Revised Assessment
Tool contains more discrete lists of the
most common contributing factors (but
each list is not an exhaustive list of all
possible contributing factors) after each
section of analysis: Segregation/
Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in
Access to Opportunity, Disproportionate
Housing Needs, Publicly Supported
Housing Analysis, Disability and Access
Analysis, and Fair Housing
Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and
5 HUD’s Statement on the Role of Housing in
Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead can be found
at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/
huddoc?id=OlmsteadGuidnc060413.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Resources Analysis. For the last three
sections of analysis, program
participants are instructed to note
which fair housing issue(s)
(Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs,
Disparities in Access to Opportunity,
and Disproportionate Housing Needs)
the selected contributing factor impacts.
It is unnecessary to do this step for the
first four sections of Option B because
of the placement of the more discrete
contributing factor lists after each of
those sections. Program participants are
also required to include any other
contributing factors impacting fair
housing issues in their jurisdiction or
region that are not included in the
provided lists.
Both formats of the Revised
Assessment Tool also contain short
explanations of all the listed
contributing factors in Appendix C.
These explanations provide program
participants with additional guidance
about each contributing factor, which
may enable program participants to
make more informed selections of
contributing factors when conducting
their analyses.
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
The Initial Assessment Tool
contained a table that seemed confusing,
as well as subjective questions that
related to the selection and
prioritization of contributing factors
(then called determinants) and goals.
The Revised Assessment Tool provides
program participants with additional
guidance on how to prioritize
contributing factors, creating a more
objective framework for analysis.
Additionally, the requirement that goals
also be prioritized has been removed.
The Revised Assessment Tool provides
a new table for program participants to
use when setting goals. The table is
designed to make it easier for program
participants to set goals as required by
the AFFH final rule.
IV. Findings and Certifications
Paperwork Reduction Act
With HUD’s decision to prepare
program participant-specific assessment
tools, the information collection burden
addressed in this notice is limited to
this assessment tool that has been
designed for entitlement jurisdictions
and the possibility of program
participants seeking to collaborate
regionally on an AFH. The public
reporting is estimated to include the
time for reviewing the instructions,
searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices
As HUD is furnishing a significant
amount of data directly to the program
participants, the burden in completing
the Assessment Tool is reduced. Where
HUD is not providing data, as noted
earlier in this preamble, program
participants are to consider and in some
cases utilize local data and local
knowledge that is available or can be
found at little or no cost. This refers to
data already publicly available and
reasonably easy to access. This does not
refer to obscure data that may not be
known or easily found, that requires an
independent data or information
collection effort such as a local survey
or that requires extensive analytical
expertise or staff effort, for instance, in
manipulating data sets or developing a
complex methodology for analyzing
complex data that may be available.
With the data that HUD provides for use
with the Assessment Tool
supplemented by available local data
and local knowledge, HUD does not
anticipate the need for any program
participant to turn to outside
consultants to collect data and conduct
the assessment.
In addition, local knowledge may be
supplemented with information
received through the public
participation process. In such cases,
program participants retain the
discretion to consider data or
information collected through this
process as well as the manner in which
it may be incorporated into the AFH,
whether in the Section V (Analysis) or
Section III (Community Participation
Process) of the AFH, with an option to
include extensive or lengthy comments
in appendices or attachments. In short,
the receipt of extensive public
comments may require staff effort to
review and consider input but would
not result in a mandate to incur
substantial additional costs and staff
hours to do so. To the contrary, the
public participation process should be
viewed as a tool to acquire additional
information to reduce burden.
It is also important to note that the
estimate of burden, in terms of staff
hours and costs, is not an estimate of net
new costs. That is, the cost of
conducting the existing AI that was a
legal obligation prior to the AFFH final
rule, and which is now replaced by the
AFH, is not deducted from the new
estimate. Costs for conducting the AI for
entitlement jurisdictions varied
substantially and often involved costs
for hiring consultants and outside
parties to conduct the AI. HUD is
making substantial effort and
investment, by providing the data and
mapping tool and ongoing technical
assistance to improve the entire AFH

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

process as compared to the previous,
often cumbersome AI process.
Changes in Estimate From the 60-Day
PRA Notice
Compared to previous hour/burden
estimate in the 60-day notice, several
key changes, as discussed above, were
made in an effort to reduce the burden
of the analysis required in the
assessment. Changes in the
methodology for the estimate of total
burden compared to the estimate in the
60-day notice are discussed here below.
In addition, HUD is revising the
estimate of how many program
participants will employ this version of
the Assessment Tool, by lowering the
estimate of the number of PHAs that
will likely engage in joint collaboration
with block grant entitlement
jurisdictions from one-half of all PHAs
to approximately one-third of all PHAs.
Many PHAs will however continue to
engage in joint participation for the
completion of the AFH, for instance by
partnering with a State entity,
particularly in the case of small PHAs
who are located outside the geographic
area of an entitlement jurisdiction.
In addition to the changes discussed,
HUD has also increased its estimate of
the burden involved in completing an
AFH using this Assessment Tool. While
the Revised Assessment Tool has been
streamlined compared to the Initial
Assessment Tool, many public
comments were received during the 60day public comment period stating that
the 200-hour per program participant
estimate as too low. Accordingly, HUD
has increased this to 240 hours per
entitlement jurisdiction submitting an
AFH. However, it is not likely that all
entities participating together will all
incur the full cost as they would if they
were submitting an AFH separately.
Thus, the hour estimate for PHA
partners using this Assessment Tool is
estimated at 120 hours, which would
include fixed costs (e.g. staff training,
conducting community participation,
setting PHA goals) but includes reduced
costs for performing the entirety of the
assessment itself. It is also foreseeable
that many entities will choose to divide
responsibilities differently based on
their local characteristics and that the
split of hours used for the overall
estimate may vary in many cases.
Costs in the First Year
Approximately 25 entitlement
jurisdictions will be required to submit
an AFH in the summer and fall of 2016.
In recognition of the need to mitigate
any new burden associated with this
effort, the AFFH final rule provides for
staggered submission of AFHs.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

42115

Staggered submission delays the
application of the AFFH final rule for
certain program participants, such as
States, Insular Areas, and PHAs that opt
to submit their own AFH without an
entitlement jurisdiction partner. In
addition, because of the Consolidated
Plan cycle, a relatively small group of
program participants will submit an
AFH within the first year following the
effective date of the AFFH final rule, but
the majority of program participants
will be submitting their AFH in later
years. For program participants that will
submit an AFH in later years, HUD
anticipates taking additional steps to
reduce regulatory burden, which may
include dissemination of best practices
obtained from the first round of AFH
submissions.
Assuming approximately the same
number of PHAs choose to partner with
entitlement jurisdictions in the first
round of AFH submissions (joint AFH),
the burden estimate for completing an
AFH would increase somewhat, to take
into account some additional effort for
community participation and goal
setting. However, the cost of conducting
the analysis would be shared. For
instance, PHAs could conduct the
portion of the assessment related to
publicly supported housing, with the
entitlement jurisdiction conducting the
bulk of the remainder of the analysis.
There would be some costs for the two
types of program participants to
coordinate and communicate with each
other, but in general total costs are
expected to be less than if each program
participant chose to complete their own
separate AFH.
Using the estimated hours of the effort
required by type of program participant,
and assuming approximately 25
entitlement jurisdictions will partner
with 25 PHAs to submit joint AFHs, the
first year’s burden would be
approximately 9,000 total hours (6,000
for 25 entitlement jurisdictions and
3,000 for 25 PHAs). This estimate is
included within the total estimated
burden.
HUD has committed to provide
technical assistance to program
participants in completing their AFHs,
and HUD anticipates targeted technical
assistance for the relatively small
number of program participants that
would be required to submit an AFH in
the first year following the effective date
of the AFFH final rule. Such targeted
technical assistance is anticipated to
mitigate burden due to the change in the
AFH from the AI model which relied
heavily on the Fair Housing Planning
Guide that was last issued in the 1990s.

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

42116

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices

Small Entities
HUD has adopted several important
changes to reduce burden for small
entities in particular. HUD’s AFFH final
rule includes a delay in the submission
date for small entitlement jurisdictions,
defined as jurisdictions receiving
$500,000 or less in Fiscal Year (FY)
2015 CDBG funds, and small PHAs that
are qualified PHAs (with respect to size
are defined as PHAs with fewer than
550 units, including public housing and
section 8 vouchers).
The costs for entitlement jurisdictions
receiving a small CDBG grant are
included in the total burden estimate for
this notice, even though they have a
later AFH submission date and their
costs will arise in later years. The
burden estimate also allows that some
qualified PHAs may choose to
participate with entitlement

jurisdictions that will use this
Assessment Tool, which is the subject of
this notice. However, because many
such PHAs are located outside of
metropolitan areas, HUD anticipates
that these PHAs will choose, instead, to
partner with a State. All program
participants that are required to submit
an AFH under the AFFH final rule are
encouraged to partner with other
entities to submit a joint AFH, or
regional AFH.
Also, as stated above, the estimated
burden per program participant is an
average within a wider range of actual
costs. Smaller program participants will
have much less total burden both in
terms of staff hours and costs.
Encouraging Coordination
All HUD program participants are
greatly encouraged to issue joint AFHs

and to consider regional cooperation.
More coordination in the initial years
between entitlement jurisdictions and
PHAs will reduce total costs for both
types of program participants in later
years. In addition, combining and
coordinating some elements of the
Consolidated Plan and the PHA Plan
will reduce total costs for both types of
program participants. Completing an
AFH in earlier years will also help
reduce costs later, for instance by
incorporating the completed analysis
into later planning documents, such as
the PHA plan, will help to better inform
planning and goal setting decisions
ahead of time.
The Revised Assessment Tool is
available at http://www.huduser.org/
portal/affht_pt.html. Information on the
estimated public reporting burdens is
provided in the following table.

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING BURDEN
Number of
respondents *

CFR Section Reference:
§ 5.154(d) (Assessment of
Fair Housing).

Number of
responses per
respondent
1

Frequency of response **

Entitlement Jurisdiction ..........
PHAs .....................................

2,508 total entities (1,194
Entitlement Jurisdictions
and approximately 1,314
PHAs) *.
1,194 .....................................
1,314 * ..................................

........................
........................

Once every five years (or
three years in the case of
3-Year Consolidated
Plans) **.
...............................................
...............................................

Total Burden ...................

2,508 .....................................

* 1,194

...............................................

Estimated
average
time for
requirement
(in hours) ***

Estimated
burden
(in hours)

........................

........................

*** 240
**** 120

286,560
157,680

........................

444,240

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

* This template is primarily designed for entitlement jurisdictions, of which there are approximately 1,194, and PHAs seeking to join with entitlement jurisdictions on a jointly submitted AFH. There are 3,942 PHAs and HUD estimates that approximately 1/3 of PHAs may seek to join with
an entitlement jurisdiction and submit a joint AFH. The Total Number of responses is listed as 1,194 based on the number of entitlement jurisdictions that will submit AFHs using this Assessment Tool. The total hours and burden are based on the total estimated number of both types of
program participants and the ‘‘estimated average time’’ listed for type of program participant.
** The timing of submission depends upon whether an entitlement jurisdiction submits its consolidated plan every 3 years or every 5 years.
*** As noted in the explanatory text, this is an average within a range, with some AFH requiring either more or less time and effort based on jurisdiction size and complexity. The 240 hour estimate is an increase from the previous 200 hour estimate in the 60-Day PRA Notice, published
on September 26, 2014. The increased time estimate takes into account public comments on the 60-Day Notice. For some joint participants, the
division of hours may be higher or lower based on the program participant’s areas of expertise, program operations or through mutual agreement.
**** PHAs participating in joint submissions using the Assessment Tool under this notice are assumed to have some fixed costs, including staff
training, conducting community participation costs, but reduced costs for conducting the analysis in the assessment itself.

In accordance with 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1), HUD is specifically
soliciting comment from members of the
public and affected program
participants on the Assessment Tool on
the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected;

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses;
(5) Whether Option A or Option B of
the Revised Assessment Tool would be
the most effective and efficient way of
conducting the analysis with respect to
the selection of contributing factors. If
one option is preferred over the other,
please state the reasons for the
preference;
(6) While the Revised Assessment
Tool was designed to set minimum AFH
requirements as well as providing a

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

straightforward process for HUD to
review the AFH, how might program
participants use the template to conduct
broader collaborations including more
comprehensive cross-sector
collaborations? How could the Revised
Assessment Tool provide greater
flexibility for participants to collaborate
and expand upon the framework HUD
has set in the Revised Assessment Tool?
How could the Revised Assessment
Tool allow program participants to
incorporate better or additional data,
alternative mapping tools, or other data
presentations; and
(7) Whether additional changes to the
Revised Assessment Tool would better

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Notices
facilitate regional collaboration among
program participants.
HUD encourages not only program
participants but interested persons to
submit comments regarding the
information collection requirements in
this proposal. Comments must be
received by August 17, 2015 to
www.regulations.gov as provided under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Comments must refer to the proposal by
name and docket number (FR–5173–N–
05).
Dated: July 13, 2015.
Camille E. Acevedo,
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2015–17463 Filed 7–15–15; 8:45 am]

Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. All submissions must refer to the
docket number and title of the rule.

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5874–N–02]

HUD Administrative Fee Formula—
Extension of Public Comment
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy Development and
Research, HUD.
ACTION: Notice: Extension of public
comment period.
AGENCY:

On June 26, 2015, HUD
published a notice in the Federal
Register entitled ‘‘HUD Administrative
Fee Formula–Solicitation of Comment,’’
inviting public comment through July
27, 2015. This document announces that
HUD is extending the public comment
period, for an additional 15-day period,
to August 11, 2015.
DATES: Comment Due Date: For the
notice published on June 26, 2015 (80
FR 36832), the comment due date is
extended to August 11, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this rule to the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, 451 7th
Street SW., Room 10276, Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
Communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Jul 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly
encourages commenters to submit
comments electronically. Electronic
submission of comments allows the
commenter maximum time to prepare
and submit comments, ensures timely
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to
make them immediately available to the
public. Comments submitted
electronically through the
www.regulations.gov Web site can be
viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(fax) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time,
weekdays, at the above address. Due to
security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the Federal
Relay Service, toll free, at 800–877–
8339. Copies of all comments submitted
are available for inspection and
downloading at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Richardson, Associate Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Room 8106,
Washington, DC 20410; telephone
number 202–402–5706 (this is not a tollfree number). Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number by calling the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339 (this is a tollfree number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
26, 2015 (80 FR 36832), HUD published
a notice in the Federal Register that
invited public comment on the variables
identified by the Housing Choice
Voucher Program Administrative Fee
Study as impacting administrative fee
costs, how HUD might use these study
findings to develop a new

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

42117

administrative fee formula, and any
other issues that may arise with the
development and implementation of a
new administrative fee formula.
In the June 26, 2015 notice, HUD
established a comment due date of July
27, 2015. In response to recent requests
for additional time to submit comments,
HUD believes an extension of the
deadline would provide the time
needed for interested parties to submit
comments. Therefore, HUD is
announcing through this notice an
extended comment period, for an
additional 15-day period, to August 11,
2015.
Dated: July 13, 2015.
Camille Acevedo,
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2015–17462 Filed 7–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R6–ES–2015–N112];
[FXES11130600000–156–FF06E00000]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for the
Salt Creek Tiger Beetle
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of document availability
for review and comment.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) announces the
availability of a draft recovery plan for
the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle. This species
is federally listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The Service solicits
review and comment from the public on
this draft plan.
DATES: Comments on the draft recovery
plan must be received on or before
September 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft recovery
plan are available on request from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Nebraska Ecological Services Field
Office, 9325 South Alda Road, Wood
River, Nebraska 68883; telephone 308–
382–6468. Submit comments on the
draft recovery plan to the Project Leader
at this same address. An electronic copy
of the draft recovery plan is available at
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
species/recovery-plans.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eliza Hines, Project Leader, at the above
address, or telephone 308–382–6468.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Service announces the availability of a
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM

16JYN1