Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 6689 

1CPI indexes CUUSA103SEHA and 

CUSR0000SAH2 respectively. 

2The formulas used to produce these factors can 

be found in the Annual Adjustment Factors 

overview and in the FMR documentation at 

http://www.HUDUSER.org. 

residence’’ and ‘‘fuels and utilities’’.1

The CPI inflation index for rent of 

primary residence measures the 

inflation of all surveyed units regardless 

of whether utilities are included in the 

rent of the unit or not. In other words, 

it measures the inflation of the ‘‘contract 

rent’’ which includes units with all 

utilities included in the rent, units with 

some utilities included in the rent and 

units with no utilities included in the 

rent. In producing a gross rent inflation 

factor, HUD decomposes the contract 

rent CPI inflation factor into parts to 

represent the gross rent change and the 

shelter rent change. This is done by 

applying the percentage of renters who 

pay for heat (a proxy for the percentage 

of renters who pay shelter rent) from the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) 

and American Community Survey 

(ACS) data on the ratio of utilities to 

rents.2 The CEX data used to decompose 

the contract rent inflation factor into 

gross rent and shelter rent inflation 

factors come from a special tabulation of 

2007 CEX survey data produced for 

HUD for the purpose of computing 

Renewal Funding AAFs. The utility-torent ratio used in the formula comes 

from 2007 ACS median rent and utility 

costs. 

In this publication, the rent and 

utility inflation factors for large 

metropolitan areas and Census regions 

are based on changes in the rent of 

primary residence and fuels and utilities 

CPI indices from the first half of 2008 

to the first half of 2009, the most recent 

data available at the time of the 

development of final budget projections 

for fiscal year (FY) 2010. Typically, CPI 

indexes averaged over a 12-month 

period have been used to measure the 

change in gross rents from year to year. 

The semi-annual indexes used for 

Renewal Funding AAFs average data 

over six months as opposed to 12 

months; the Renewal Funding AAFs use 

change over the course of two semiannual index cycles to derive a 12- 

month adjustment. 

II. The Use of Renewal Funding AAFs 

The Renewal Funding AAFs differ 

from past AAFs and the FY2010 

Contract Rent AAFs in that they make 

use of more recent semi-annual CPI 

indexes in place of average annual CPI 

indexes. The Renewal Funding AAFs 

have been developed to account for 

relative differences in the recent 

inflation of rents among different areas 

and are used to allocate HCV funds 

among PHAs. HUD is reviewing and 

updating the methodologies for all 

program parameters, including Fair 

Market Rents (FMRs), AAFs and other 

inflation indices. The publication of 

these separate Renewal Funding AAFs 

for allocation of voucher funds is an 

interim step toward more complete 

reforms including using more recent 

data in HUD’s estimations for various 

program parameters, including FMRs, as 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50552). 

III. Geographic Areas 

Renewal Funding AAFs are produced 

for all Class A CPI cities (CPI cities with 

a population of 1.5 million or more) and 

for the four Census Regions. They are 

applied to core-based statistical areas 

(CBSAs), as defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), 

according to how much of the CBSA is 

covered by the CPI city-survey. If more 

than 75 percent of the CBSA is covered 

by the CPI city-survey, the Renewal 

Funding AAF that is based on that CPI 

survey is applied to the whole CBSA 

and to any HUD-defined metropolitan 

area, called ‘‘HUD Metro FMR Area’’ 

(HMFA), within that CBSA. If the CBSA 

is not covered by a CPI city-survey, the 

CBSA is assigned the relevant regional 

CPI factor. Almost all non-metropolitan 

counties are assigned regional CPI 

factors. For areas assigned the Census 

Region CPI factor, both metropolitan 

and non-metropolitan areas receive the 

same factor. 

The Renewal Funding AAF tables list 

the four Census Regions first, followed 

by an alphabetical listing of each 

metropolitan area, beginning with 

Akron, OH, MSA. Renewal Funding 

AAFs are provided: 

• For separate metropolitan areas, 

including HMFAs and counties that are 

currently designated as nonmetropolitan, but are part of the 

metropolitan area defined in the local 

CPI survey, and 

• For the four Census Regions for 

those metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that are not covered 

by a CPI city-survey. 

Renewal Funding AAFs use the same 

OMB metropolitan area definitions, as 

revised by HUD, that are used in the FY 

2010 FMRs. 

IV. Area Definitions 

To make certain that they are 

referencing the correct Renewal 

Funding AAFs, PHAs should refer to the 

Area Definitions Table at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ 

aaf.html/FY2010_AreaDef.pdf. For units 

located in metropolitan areas with a 

local CPI survey, Renewal Funding 

AAFs are listed separately. For units 

located in areas without a local CPI 

survey, the metropolitan or nonmetropolitan counties receive the 

regional CPI for that Census Region. 

The Area Definitions Table for 

Renewal Funding AAFs, shown at 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/ 

datasets/aaf.html/FY2010_AreaDef.pdf, 

lists areas in alphabetical order by state. 

The associated CPI region is shown next 

to each state name. Areas whose 

Renewal Funding AAFs are determined 

by local CPI surveys are listed first. All 

metropolitan areas with local CPI 

surveys have separate Renewal Funding 

AAF schedules and are shown with 

their corresponding county definitions 

or as metropolitan counties. In the six 

New England states, the listings are for 

counties or parts of counties as defined 

by towns or cities. The remaining 

counties use the CPI for the Census 

Region and are not specifically listed on 

the Area Definitions Table. 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands use 

the South Region Renewal Funding 

AAFs. All areas in Hawaii use the 

Renewal Funding AAFs identified in 

the Table as ‘‘STATE: Hawaii,’’ which 

are based on the CPI survey for the 

Honolulu metropolitan area. The Pacific 

Islands use the West Region Renewal 

Funding AAFs. 

Accordingly, HUD publishes these 

Renewal Funding Annual Adjustment 

Factors as set forth in the Renewal 

Funding AAF Table posted at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ 

aaf.html/FY2010_RF_table.pdf. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

Raphael W. Bostic, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 

and Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2990 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5396–N–01] 

Sustainable Communities Planning 

Grant Program Advance Notice and 

Request for Comment 

AGENCY: Office of Sustainable Housing 

and Communities, Office of the Deputy 

Secretary, HUD. 

ACTION: Advance notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces HUD’s 

intention to offer funding through a 

competition made available as a Notice 

of Funding Availability (NOFA) under 

its Sustainable Communities Planning 

Grant Program (Program). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
6690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 

As part of the Administration’s efforts 

to increase transparency in government 

operations and to expand opportunities 

for stakeholders to engage in decisionmaking, HUD is seeking comments on 

the Program through this Advance 

Notice. Feedback received through this 

process will permit HUD and its 

partners to better understand how this 

Program can support cooperative 

regional planning efforts that integrate 

housing, transportation, environmental 

impact, and economic development. 

HUD is seeking input from State and 

local governments, regional bodies, 

community development entities, and a 

broad range of other stakeholders on 

how the Program should be structured 

in order to have the most meaningful 

impact on regional planning for 

sustainable development. 

The goal of the Program is to support 

multi-jurisdictional regional planning 

efforts that integrate housing, economic 

development, and transportation 

decision-making in a manner that 

empowers jurisdictions to consider the 

interdependent challenges of economic 

growth, social equity and environmental 

impact simultaneously. Three funding 

categories are being considered: 

(1) Funding to support the 

preparation of Regional Plans for 

Sustainable Development that address 

housing, economic development, 

transportation, and environmental 

quality in an integrated fashion where 

such plans do not currently exist; 

(2) Funding to support the 

preparation of more detailed execution 

plans and programs to implement 

existing regional sustainable 

development plans (that address 

housing, economic development, 

transportation, and environmental 

quality in an integrated fashion); and 

(3) Implementation funding to 

support regions that have regional 

sustainable development plans and 

implementation strategies in place and 

need support for a catalytic project or 

program that demonstrates commitment 

to and implementation of the broader 

plan. 

This Program is being initiated in 

close coordination with the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

DATES: All comments, to be considered 

in response to this Advance Notice, 

must be received no later than midnight 

Eastern Standard Time on Friday, 

March 12, 2010. Comments will not be 

accepted after that date. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic responses are 

preferred and should be addressed to: 

sustainablecommunities@hud.gov or 

may be submitted through the http:// 

www.hud.gov/sustainability Web site. 

Written comments may also be 

submitted and post-marked by the 

deadline and addressed to Office of 

Sustainable Housing and Communities, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 

Room 10180, Washington, DC 20410. 

HUD is expanding the opportunity for 

comment by establishing a Wiki to 

encourage public dialogue at the 

following link: http://www.hud.gov/ 

OSHCwiki. 

Outreach Sessions: HUD and its 

partner agencies will conduct a series of 

listening sessions and webcasts to 

ensure the broadest possible 

dissemination of information about the 

Program and to receive feedback from 

interested parties. Further information 

will be available at http://www.hud.gov/ 

sustainability shortly after the 

publication of this Advance Notice, and 

through such interactive forums that 

will be described on http:// 

www.hud.gov/sustainability. 

Availability of Funding and 

Timelines: This notice invites comments 

on the proposed award of funding for 

the Sustainable Communities Planning 

Grant Program. This notice is not a 

solicitation of proposals for the 

Program. 

The Program was authorized by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–117) (the Appropriations 

Act, approved December 16, 2009). For 

the Program, $100,000,000 will be made 

available, through the NOFA that will 

follow this Advance Notice, to support 

the integration of housing, 

transportation and land use planning. 

The following maximum funding 

levels are proposed: 

• Small metropolitan or rural areas. 

The grant amount awarded under the 

Program to an eligible entity that 

represents a small metropolitan or rural 

area with a population of not more than 

499,999 may not exceed $2,000,000. 

• Large metropolitan areas. The grant 

amount awarded under the Program to 

an eligible entity that represents a large 

metropolitan area with a population of 

500,000 or more may not exceed 

$5,000,000. 

HUD will expect that at least 20 

percent of the overall costs of the 

projects awarded under this grant will 

include leveraged funding from other 

public, philanthropic and private 

sources including in-kind contributions. 

Pursuant to the Appropriations Act, 

not less than $25,000,000 shall be 

awarded in the Small Metropolitan Area 

category. 

HUD will award funding by soliciting 

proposals through a final NOFA for the 

Program that will be developed after 

consideration of comments obtained 

through this Advance Notice and in 

outreach sessions. The final NOFA will 

be broadly announced through 

appropriate and familiar means and will 

provide further details on the finalized 

requirements and application process, 

pursuant to and in compliance with all 

applicable statutes and regulations, 

including, but not limited to, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). 

HUD will set aside approximately 

$2,000,000 for technical assistance 

services to assist the awardees in 

implementing their proposals. A 

separate NOFA will be released 

describing the process for obtaining 

these technical assistance funds. The 

Appropriations Act also appropriates 

$40,000,000 for a Community Planning 

Challenge (CPC) Grants Program. HUD 

will publish a separate NOFA for the 

CPC program. 

It is HUD’s intent to meet the 

following schedule in developing the 

NOFA for the Program: 

February 16–March 1, 2010—Regional 

Listening Sessions (locations and dates 

to be posted at http://www.hud.gov/ 

sustainability); 

Week of March 1, 2010—Web cast 

Briefings; 

March 12, 2010—Comments on Draft 

Description due C.O.B. to HUD; 

Week of April 12, 2010—NOFA 

published; 

Approx. June 5, 2010—Applications 

due to HUD; 

Approx. August 2, 2010— 

Announcement of Awardees. 

I. Background 

A top priority of the Administration is 

to build economically competitive, 

healthy, opportunity-rich communities. 

In the Appropriations Act, Congress 

provided a total of $150,000,000 to HUD 

for a Sustainable Communities Initiative 

to improve regional planning efforts that 

integrate housing and transportation 

decisions, and increase State, regional 

and local capacity to incorporate 

livability, sustainability, and social 

equity principles into land use and 

zoning. Of that total, $100,000,000 is 

available for regional integrated 

planning initiatives, which is the 

subject of this Advance Notice. 

The Sustainable Communities 

Initiative was conceived to advance 

development patterns that achieve 

improved economic prosperity, 

environmental sustainability, and social 

equity in metropolitan regions and rural 

communities. Recognizing the 

fundamental role that public investment 

plays in achieving these outcomes, the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 6691 

Administration charged three agencies 

whose programs impact the physical 

form of communities—HUD, DOT, and 

EPA—to lead the way in reshaping the 

role of the Federal government in 

helping communities obtain the 

capacity to embrace a more sustainable 

future. As a result, HUD, DOT, and EPA 

have formed the Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities (the 

Partnership). HUD will take the lead in 

funding, evaluating and otherwise 

supporting integrative regional planning 

for sustainable development. DOT will 

focus on (a) building the capacity of 

transportation agencies to integrate their 

planning and investments into broader 

plans and action to promote sustainable 

development; and (b) investing in 

transportation infrastructure that 

directly supports sustainable 

development and livability principles, 

as discussed below. EPA will enhance 

its role as a provider of technical 

assistance and developer of 

environmental sustainability metrics 

and practices. The three agencies have 

made a commitment to coordinate 

activities, integrate funding 

requirements and adopt a common set 

of performance metrics for use by 

grantees. The Partnership is a 

commitment by these three Federal 

agencies to work together to coordinate 

policies and programs in support of six 

Livability Principles: 

1. Provide more transportation 

choices. Develop safe, reliable and 

economical transportation choices to 

decrease household transportation costs, 

reduce our nation’s dependence on 

foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, and promote 

public health. 

2. Promote equitable, affordable 

housing. Expand location- and energyefficient housing choices for people of 

all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities 

to increase mobility, and lower the 

combined cost of housing and 

transportation. 

3. Enhance economic 

competitiveness. Improve economic 

competitiveness through reliable and 

timely access to employment centers, 

educational opportunities, services, and 

other basic needs by workers as well as 

expanded business access to markets. 

4. Support existing communities. 

Target Federal funding toward existing 

communities—through such strategies 

as transit-oriented, mixed-use 

development and land recycling—to 

increase community revitalization, 

improve the efficiency of public works 

investments, and safeguard rural 

landscapes. 

5. Coordinate policies and leverage 

investment. Align Federal policies and 

funding to remove barriers to 

collaboration, leverage funding, and 

increase the accountability and 

effectiveness of all levels of government 

to plan for future growth, including 

making smart energy choices such as 

locally generated renewable energy. 

6. Value communities and 

neighborhoods. Enhance the unique 

characteristics of all communities by 

investing in healthy, safe, and walkable 

neighborhoods—rural, urban, or 

suburban. 

The Partnership for Sustainable 

Communities has observed that regions 

that have already adopted a more 

integrated approach to regional 

planning tend to exhibit a variety of 

desirable qualities including: More 

diversified and resilient economies; 

improved employer attraction and 

retention; more opportunities to lead 

healthier and more affordable lifestyles; 

lower per capita public infrastructure 

costs; lower vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) per capita and, thus, reduced air 

pollution; and lower rates of 

concentrated poverty. These regions 

have built a shared vision for the future 

that allows greater and more broadbased support of community 

development and investment decisions. 

However, these effects are not 

guaranteed, and communities face a 

number of competing objectives in these 

areas. In addition, the best ways to 

measure progress are rightly debated as 

policy goals and methodologies evolve. 

While the benefits of integrated 

regional planning are numerous, the 

incentives, institutions, and funding for 

such efforts are not widely available. 

Decisions made by local jurisdictions 

about the locations of housing, 

shopping, and employment are often 

disjointed both within and across 

jurisdictions and are, therefore, unable 

to incorporate either the impact on 

accessibility to different types of 

destinations or the broader impact on 

mobility and livability in a region. This 

fragmented approach results in a host of 

unintended consequences including: 

Spatial mismatch between affordable 

housing and opportunities for 

employment and education; long and 

expensive commutes; permanent loss of 

agricultural land; reduced water quality 

in streams, lakes, and other water 

bodies; higher emissions of greenhouse 

gasses and other damaging pollutants. 

Despite the presence of Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations, Councils of 

Governments, and other regional 

planning entities, there is too often a 

misalignment of transportation, 

housing, and infrastructure systems due 

in part to the lack of coordination when 

plans by different agencies are prepared 

separately. While separate resources 

may be available for housing, economic 

development, water infrastructure, and 

transportation planning, few funding 

sources help communities address 

challenges and opportunities in an 

integrated fashion. 

II. Sustainable Communities Planning 

Grant Program 

The Sustainable Communities 

Planning Grant Program (the Program) is 

intended to help build the capacity of 

communities to address the complex 

challenges of growth and revitalization 

in the 21st century in a comprehensive, 

multidisciplinary way. Funding from 

this Program will support the 

development and implementation of 

Sustainable Regional Development 

Plans. A priority will be placed on 

supporting regions that demonstrate a 

commitment to take well-developed 

plans and move them into 

implementation. The Appropriations 

Act directs the Secretary of HUD to 

establish a regional planning grant 

program that provides grants to assist 

regional entities and consortia of local 

governments with integrated housing, 

transportation, economic development, 

water infrastructure, and environmental 

planning. HUD’s Office of Sustainable 

Housing and Communities is working in 

partnership with DOT and EPA to 

define all aspects of this Program. HUD 

will serve as the lead agency for all 

grants and will consult with its agency 

partners throughout the Program. 

The final product of a Sustainable 

Communities Planning Grant will be a 

Regional Plan for Sustainable 

Development and/or implementation 

strategy that meet the requirements of 

existing HUD, DOT, and EPA programs, 

such as Consolidated Plans, Long Range 

Transportation Plans and Stormwater 

Master Plans. Building on these 

requirements, a Regional Plan for 

Sustainable Development would be a 

plan that: 

(A) Identifies housing, transportation, 

economic development, land use, 

environmental, energy, green space and 

water infrastructure priorities and goals 

in a region; 

(B) Establishes locally appropriate 

performance goals and measures the 

future outcomes of baseline and 

alternative growth and reinvestment 

scenarios against those goals, and 

includes standardized metrics 

developed by the Partnership; 

(C) Provides strategies for meeting 

those priorities and goals; 

(D) Prioritizes projects that facilitate 

the implementation of the regional plan; 

and identifies responsible implementing 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
6692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 

entities (public or private) and funding 

sources; and 

(E) Engages residents and 

stakeholders substantively in the 

development of the shared vision and 

its implementation plan early and 

throughout the process. 

III. Solicitation of Comments on 

Proposed Program Structure 

As noted above, HUD and its partners 

are soliciting comments through this 

Advance Notice on how the Program 

should be structured, what funding 

categories and activities are most 

appropriate to support, which entities 

should be eligible grantees, and how 

best to evaluate regional needs, so that 

the Program has the most meaningful 

impact on regional planning for 

sustainable development. The 

discussion below outlines in general 

terms the key questions HUD is 

considering in preparing the final NOFA 

for the Program and identifies some 

specific issues for comment. HUD 

encourages meaningful input on the 

Program more generally as well. HUD 

has provided the avenues for input in 

the ADDRESSES section of this notice and 

highlights that it has established a Wiki 

site to allow additional comment and 

dialogue regarding addressing these 

issues. 

A. Proposed Funding Categories and 

Eligible Activities 

HUD and its partner agencies 

recognize that regions are at different 

stages of readiness and capacity to 

engage in efforts to plan for a 

sustainable future. Some regions have 

formed multi-jurisdictional and multisector coalitions that are ready to 

embark on an effort to envision a future 

to help direct growth or stimulate 

investment sustainably. Other regions 

have already adopted a sustainable 

vision, but lack the resources to put in 

place the specific strategies that ensure 

follow-through and implementation of 

that vision. A few regions are on the 

cutting edge and have demonstrated the 

capacity to plan for the long-term, build 

broad-based coalitions in support of 

sustainable communities and use an 

array of tools to incent investment in 

development, land preservation, and 

infrastructure that implements their 

sustainable vision. 

Given this broad spectrum, the 

Partnership is considering supporting 

activities to meet the needs of each of 

these three categories of regions. In this 

comment period, HUD specifically seeks 

feedback on the extent to which these 

categories are of benefit to potential 

applicants, the types of activities that 

should be allowed in each category, and 

the extent to which the Program should 

support project-level implementation 

investments. HUD is also soliciting 

feedback on appropriate common 

performance metrics for each funding 

category. 

Category 1: Regional Plans for 

Sustainable Development. Funds would 

support stakeholder-driven visioning 

and scenario planning exercises that 

will address and harmonize plans for 

the location, scale and type of housing, 

education and job centers; identify 

appropriate transportation and water 

infrastructure; and proactively consider 

risks from disasters and climate change. 

Applicants would be expected to 

identify a set of locally-appropriate 

performance metrics that are consistent 

with the Partnership’s Livability 

Principles, as well as the Partnership’s 

own metrics, and then measure the 

outcomes of proposed growth/ 

reinvestment scenarios against those 

metrics. Funding in this category would 

support data analysis, urban design and 

outreach efforts to achieve broad 

consensus among groups, citizens, and 

decisionmakers for a single vision/ 

scenario and to have that plan adopted 

by all appropriate regional 

governmental bodies. 

HUD seeks comments on the 

following questions: 

—What specific types of eligible 

activities would support this effort 

and which parties should be part of 

the regional planning process? 

—What elements should be part of the 

plan, such as a region-wide vision and 

statement of goals, long-term 

development and infrastructure 

investment map, implementation 

strategy and/or funding plan? 

—How can citizens best participate, 

such as through a requirement for 

participation in a minimum number 

of public meetings to ensure broad 

regional consensus? 

—Should Regional Plans for Sustainable 

Development be expected to 

harmonize and be consistent with 

HUD, DOT, and EPA-required plans 

and, if so, how? Should Regional 

Plans for Sustainable Development 

show a linkage to local formula-based 

programs supported by HUD, DOT, 

and EPA; and, if so, to what extent 

should such linkage be required? 

Category 2: Detailed Execution Plans 

and Programs. Funds in this category 

would support the preparation and 

adoption of detailed plans and programs 

to implement an adopted integrated 

regional sustainable vision. Because 

implementation needs will vary 

significantly from region to region 

depending on the goals of a sustainable 

plan and the gaps that exist, the funds 

from this category would likely support 

a wide range of implementation 

activities but still be measured against 

the common and consistent metrics and 

outcome goals highlighted in the 

previous section. For example, interjurisdictional affordable and fair 

housing strategies, regional 

transportation investment programs, 

corridor transit-oriented development 

plans, sector or area plans, land banking 

and acquisition strategies, revenue 

sharing strategies, economic 

development strategies, plans to 

improve access to community 

amenities, and other specific activities 

that help ensure that the goals of the 

regional vision are implemented. 

Regional coalitions would be eligible to 

apply for this category on the basis of 

demonstrating the adoption of a regional 

vision that is substantially consistent 

with the Livability Principles, program 

goals and metrics identified in the 

published NOFA. 

HUD seeks comments on the 

following questions: 

—What specific types of activities 

should be eligible for funding in this 

category? 

—What criteria should be used to 

evaluate whether a previously 

adopted regional vision is consistent 

with the Livability Principles 

discussed above? 

—Should the amount of local and 

contributed resources to support, 

expand, and enhance the 

development of implementation 

strategies be rewarded in application 

scoring or are there other means to 

leverage other funds and resources? 

Category 3: Implementation 

Incentives. Recognizing that those 

regions that have already fully embraced 

sustainable regional planning provide 

important models to the nation, the 

Partnership is considering ways in 

which the Program can reward and 

incent further action by cutting edge 

regions. 

First, HUD is evaluating the extent to 

which applicants that have an adopted 

Regional Sustainable Development Plan 

and appropriate implementation 

programs in place could be pre-certified 

as having met HUD, DOT, and EPA’s 

criteria for sustainability and livability 

factors in other discretionary federal 

funding programs. 

Second, HUD is considering 

providing a limited number of grants to 

complete a financing package for 

projects that would accelerate the 

implementation of a Regional 

Sustainable Development Plan. As 

envisioned, this category would support 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Notices 6693 

pre-development costs, capital costs for 

a regionally significant development or 

infrastructure investment, or land 

acquisition investments. We are 

considering how to make best use of 

new federal dollars in the context of 

existing programs and their 

requirements—and also in the context of 

innovative practices in the field. 

Applicants would need to demonstrate 

that they have in place an adopted 

regional vision that is substantially 

consistent with the Livability 

Principles, metrics identified in the 

published NOFA to measure 

performance, and have commitments 

from affected participating partners to 

initiate implementation efforts, but have 

funding gaps that could be closed 

within the grant limits for this program. 

HUD seeks comments on the 

following questions: 

—Would ‘‘pre-certification’’ be an added 

value and, if so, what programs 

should this approach apply to? What 

criteria should be considered for 

meeting the ‘‘pre-certification’’ status? 

—Is the direct support of 

implementation activities appropriate 

within this Program given the limited 

amount of resources and the expected 

modest size of grants? 

—What criteria should be used to judge 

that an applicant successfully 

demonstrates that it has an adopted 

regional vision and that the project for 

funding under this category is truly 

catalytic? 

—Specifically, what criteria should be 

considered for a project to be 

catalytic? 

—What types of activities might be 

included, the timeframe by what time 

the project should be completed, and 

how much leveraging should be 

considered appropriate for 

demonstrating that the proposed 

investment will serve as a region’s 

commitment to a sustainable future? 

B. Entities Eligible for Funding 

In the Program, HUD is considering as 

an eligible entity a multi-jurisdictional 

and multi-sector partnership consisting 

of a consortium of units of general local 

government and all government, civic, 

philanthropic and business entities with 

a responsibility for implementing a 

Regional Plan for Sustainable 

Development. 

HUD seeks input on the following 

questions: 

—Should certain entities be required 

partners in multi-jurisdictional 

regions such as a metropolitan 

planning organization as defined in 

23 CFR 450.104, or a rural planning 

organization or network of rural 

planning organizations in a rural area? 

—What definitions should HUD use to 

define a rural multi-jurisdictional 

region eligible for funding? 

—What units of government should be 

allowed to serve as a lead agency for 

funding purposes? 

—What should demonstrate 

commitment on the part of each 

member organization, and whether 

there should be a minimum number 

of member organizations? 

C. Selection Criteria 

In evaluating an application for a 

grant, HUD, in partnership with DOT 

and EPA, will evaluate whether the 

application furthers the creation of 

livable communities by advancing 

regional planning that integrates 

housing, transportation, and 

environmental decisions and the extent 

to which the applicant represents a 

strong collaboration effort for the region 

in question. 

HUD seeks input on how to judge the 

capacity of the regional entity to carry 

out the proposed Program, including the 

extent of technical and organizational 

capacity to conduct the project in the 

proposed timeframe, past experience in 

implementing a planning process, and/ 

or an implementation project as 

proposed, and the extent to which the 

consortium has developed partnerships 

throughout an entire metropolitan or 

rural area, including, as appropriate, 

partnerships with the entities described 

above. Specifically, should a needs 

assessment be required as an 

application submission requirement, 

and, if so, what data elements should be 

mandatory in judging need and the 

scope of the needs assessment to ensure 

that it addresses the comprehensive 

needs of the region? 

While HUD specifically seeks 

comment on the foregoing questions, 

HUD welcomes additional information 

that will help inform the Sustainable 

Communities Planning Grant Program. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

Ron Sims, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2979 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection for 1029–0057 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing 

that the information collection request 

for 30 CFR part 882, Reclamation on 

Private Land, has been forwarded to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval. This 

information collection request describes 

the nature of the information collection 

and its expected burden and cost. 

DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to 

approve or disapprove the information 

collection requests but may respond 

after 30 days. Therefore, public 

comments should be submitted to OMB 

by March 12, 2010, in order to be 

assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Department of the Interior Desk 

Officer, via e-mail at 

OIRA_Docket@omb.eop.gov, or by 

facsimile to (202) 395–5806. Also, 

please send a copy of your comments to 

John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 

Constitution Aye, NW., Room 202–SIB, 

Washington, DC 20240, or electronically 

to jtrelease@osmre.gov. Please reference 

1029–0057 in your correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

receive a copy of the information 

collection request, contact John Trelease 

at (202) 208–2783. You may also contact 

Mr. Trelease at jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has 

submitted the request to OMB to renew 

its approval for the collection of 

information found at 30 CFR part 882. 

OSM is requesting a 3-year term of 

approval for this information collection 

activity. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for this collection of 

information is 1029–0057, and may be 

found in OSM’s regulations at 30 CFR 

882.10. States and Tribes are required to 

respond to obtain a benefit. 

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a 

Federal Register notice soliciting 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES