Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78295 

such required information pertaining to 

the quantity dispensed, date dispensed, 

and the dispenser must be linked to 

each electronic controlled substance 

prescription record. (ii) Upon partially filling a 

prescription at the request of the patient 

in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section, the pharmacist must make 

a notation on the face of the written 

prescription, in the written record of the 

emergency oral prescription, or in the 

electronic prescription record of the 

following: (I) ‘‘patient requested partial 

fill on [date such request was made]’’ 

and (II) the quantity dispensed. In 

addition, for each such partial filling, 

the pharmacy must maintain a record of 

dispensing that includes the date of 

each dispensing, the name or initials of 

the individual who dispensed the 

substance, and all other information 

required by 21 CFR 1306.22(c) for 

schedule III and IV prescriptions. For 

electronic prescriptions specifically, 

such required information pertaining to 

the quantity dispensed, date dispensed, 

and the dispenser must be linked to 

each electronic controlled substance 

prescription record. 

* * * * * 

Timothy J. Shea, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26291 Filed 12–3–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Parts 5, 92, 93, 574, 960, 966, 

982 

[Docket No. FR–6057–P–02] 

RIN 2577–AD03 

Housing Opportunity Through 

Modernization Act of 2016: Re-Opening 

Public Comment Period on Subject of 

Over Income Families 

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, 

HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; re-opening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On September 17, 2019, HUD 

published a proposed rule 

implementing sections 102, 103 and 104 

of the Housing Opportunity through 

Modernization Act (HOTMA) of 2016. 

The comment period for the proposed 

rule closed on November 18, 2019. 

Among other things, § 960.507 of the 

rule proposed adding a section 

addressing the treatment of families in 

public housing whose family income 

exceeds the new limit in HOTMA. 

Before finalizing the rule, HUD seeks 

additional public comment on the 

implementation of the public housing 

income limit, specifically public 

housing agencies’ (PHAs’) discretion in 

addressing over-income families. This 

notice therefore re-opens the public 

comment period on the HOTMA 

proposed rule for an additional 30 days 

solely to seek comment on these specific 

issues. HUD is not soliciting comment 

on any other issues related to HUD’s 

September 17, 2019, proposed rule. 

DATES: The comment period for a 

specific topic in the proposed rule 

published on September 17, 2019 (84 FR 

48820), is re-opened. The due date for 

comments discussed in this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking is January 4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule. Copies of all 

comments submitted are available for 

inspection and downloading at 

www.regulations.gov. To receive 

consideration as public comments, 

comments must be submitted through 

one of two methods, specified below. 

All submissions must refer to the above 

docket number and title. 

1. 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 website 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. 

2. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aaron Santa Anna, 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; telephone 

number 202–402–5300 (this is not a tollfree number). Individuals with hearingor speech-impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service during working 

hours at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 29, 2016, the president signed 

HOTMA into law (Pub. L. 114–201, 130 

Stat. 782). HOTMA makes numerous 

changes to statutes governing HUD 

programs. In particular, section 103 of 

HOTMA imposed an income limit on 

families residing in public housing. 

Specifically, section 103 provides that 

two years after the family has reached 

the income limit, PHAs have the option 

of requiring families to vacate their 

units within 6 months or allowing the 

families to stay, provided the families 

pay the higher of fair market rent or a 

rent equal the amount of the monthly 

subsidy for the unit. HOTMA requires 

HUD to determine the amount of 

subsidy through regulation. 

On November 29, 2016, HUD 

published a Federal Register notice (81 

FR 85996), seeking public input on how 

HUD should determine the income limit 

for public housing residents, pursuant 

to section 103 of HOTMA. HUD 

followed this notice with a July 26, 

2018, notice (83 FR 35490) that made 

some provisions of section 103 of 

HOTMA effective. 

On September 17, 2019, HUD 

published a proposed rule to update its 

regulations according to HOTMA’s 

statutory mandate. Additional details 

about the proposed rule may be found 

at 84 FR 48820 (September 17, 2019). In 

this proposed rule, HUD proposed a 

new 24 CFR 960.507, which would 

codify the implementation of treatment 

of over-income families in public 

housing, including how to determine 

the monthly subsidy for such families’ 

units. 

While reviewing public comments 

and developing the final rule, HUD 

determined that it would be appropriate 

and helpful to obtain additional public 

comment on very specific aspects of 

HUD’s implementation of the income 

limit for public housing. HUD believes 

that HOTMA provides that families who 

are over-income (OI) under HOTMA for 

two consecutive years are no longer 

public housing tenants eligible for the 

public housing program and the PHA 

must terminate the families’ 

participation in the public housing 

program, even if they are allowed to 

remain in their units. Because these 

families would no longer be public 

housing tenants, they would not be 

subject to public housing regulations 

such as 24 CFR part 960 (including 

income reexamination requirements), 

and HUD would have no statutory basis 

to directly regulate these unassisted 

78296 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

families. However, HUD can impose 

various requirements on the PHAs, 

which may then be able to require OI 

families to comply with requirements as 

a condition of their lease for the unit. 

HUD seeks public comment on this 

determination, the implications of 

terminating such participation and, as 

specifically outlined in this notice, what 

procedural rights, if any, OI families 

remaining in their unit should be 

afforded. 

II. Questions for Public Comment 

HUD is seeking public input on the 

following questions: 

1. Repositioning 

For PHAs planning or currently taking 

advantage of options to convert public 

housing units under repositioning using 

one of HUD’s repositioning tools such as 

Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), 

Demolition/Disposition (Section 18) and 

Streamlined Voluntary Conversion 

(Section 22), should special 

considerations regarding relocation 

apply to OI families permitted to remain 

in public housing units after the 2-year 

grace period (the two years after a PHA 

has first determined a family is overincome before the PHA must terminate 

the family’s tenancy; for more 

information, see the proposed rule at 84 

FR 48828) has ended? 

For example, should OI families be 

afforded any of the tenant protections 

offered to income-eligible families 

during conversion? Further, are there 

any additional implications for the 

repositioning process that HUD should 

consider, specifically regarding the 

possibility of the PHA reducing the 

number of Tenant Protection Vouchers 

(TPV) they are eligible for as a result of 

units being occupied by a non-HUDassisted family for more than 24 

months? 

2. Rent and Reexamination & 

Community Service Activities or SelfSufficiency Activities (CSSR) 

What requirements, if any, in 24 CFR 

part 960 should apply to OI families that 

are permitted to remain in public 

housing units after the 2-year grace 

period has ended? 

Should PHAs have the option to 

create a preference to allow OI families 

that have experienced a reduction in 

income to be immediately re-admitted 

to the public housing program if they 

are determined to be income eligible 

again or should they be considered 

applicants starting at the bottom of the 

waiting list? 

With respect to CSSR, should HUD 

give discretion to PHAs to allow for 

non-public housing leases to contain 

community service requirements? 

3. Dwelling Leases, Procedures and 

Requirements 

What requirements, if any, in 24 CFR 

part 966 should apply to OI families 

permitted to remain in public housing 

units after the 2-year grace period has 

ended? 

Under HOTMA, the only required 

lease provision for OI families is to 

charge a rental amount equal to the 

greater of the fair market rent (FMR) or 

an alternative rent comprising any 

amounts from the Operating Fund and 

Capital Fund under section 9 of the 

United States Housing Act of 1937 used 

for the unit. What role should HUD 

have, if any, specific to non-public 

housing lease requirements? For 

example, should HUD mandate 

minimum lease provisions such as those 

related to conduct and occupancy 

restrictions pertaining to drugs, drugrelated criminal activity, or lifetime 

registration as a sex offender? 

4. Grievance Procedures and 

Requirements 

Should there be specific grievance or 

due process rights afforded to OI 

families permitted to remain in public 

housing units after the 2-year grace 

period has ended? At present, if such 

families are terminated from the public 

housing program, they would not be 

afforded the same rights as families that 

are public housing program participants 

that are over and above due process 

rights created by State and local law. 

What should be HUD’s role, if any, in 

determining or mandating grievance and 

or due process rights for OI families? 

With respect to any grievance or due 

process rights, should discretion be 

given exclusively to PHAs and 

deference given to applicable state and 

local laws? 

5. Additional Ramifications 

What are the consequences to the 

families and PHAs if a PHA allows OI 

families to stay in public housing units 

while no longer participating in the 

public housing program? Does such a 

situation increase or decrease burdens 

on the families and PHAs? Are there 

implications for other rights or 

procedures that have not been discussed 

above? 

III. Justification for Public Comment 

Period 

In accordance with HUD’s regulations 

on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10, it is 

HUD’s policy that the public comment 

period for proposed rules should be 60 

days. In the past, HUD has generally 

provided for 60 days for public 

comment in the case of interim rules as 

well. However, HUD’s policy does not 

require 60 days for public comment in 

the case of reopened public comment 

periods. 

HUD solicited input on the 

implementation of over-income 

provisions multiple times, and this is a 

very narrow solicitation of additional 

comments. If HUD determines to adopt 

any suggestions that may be made in the 

public comments in the final rule, HUD 

would like to be able to do so as quickly 

as possible so that the final rule can be 

published in an expedient manner. 

For these reasons, HUD has 

determined that in this case a 30-day 

public comment period is appropriate. 

IV. Solicitation of Comment Only on 

Over-Income Provisions 

This solicitation of public comment is 

solely on the specific questions 

pertaining to the over-income 

provisions as provided in this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking. This notice is not reopening public comment on any other 

issues related to HUD’s September 17, 

2019 proposed rule, and HUD will not 

review or consider public comments 

that address issues other than the 

specific questions in this document 

directed to the over-income provisions. 

Aaron Santa Anna, 

Associate General Counsel for Legislation and 

Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26197 Filed 12–3–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Part 90 

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900] 

RIN 1076–AF58 

Election of Officers of the Osage 

Minerals Council 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) proposes to revise its regulations 

governing elections of the Osage Nation 

to update and limit the Secretary’s role 

to the task of compiling a list of voters 

for Osage Minerals Council elections. 

These proposed changes would reaffirm 

the inherent sovereign rights of the 

Osage Tribe to determine its 

membership and form of government.