Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40713 

1 80 FR 42357. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on 

August 7, 2018. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17621 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, 

and 903 

[Docket No. FR–6123–A–01] 

RIN 2529–AA97 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: 

Streamlining and Enhancements 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, HUD. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) invites 

public comment on amendments to 

HUD’s affirmatively furthering fair 

housing (AFFH) regulations. The goal of 

the regulations is to provide HUD 

program participants with a specific 

planning approach to assist them in 

meeting their statutory obligation to 

affirmatively further the purposes and 

policies of the Fair Housing Act. HUD 

is committed to its mission of achieving 

fair housing opportunity for all, 

regardless of race, color, religion, 

national origin, sex, disability, or 

familial status. However, HUD’s 

experience over the three years since the 

newly-specified approach was 

promulgated demonstrates that it is not 

fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient 

means for guiding meaningful action by 

program participants. Accordingly, HUD 

has determined that a new approach 

towards AFFH is required. As HUD 

begins the process of developing a 

proposed rule to amend the existing 

AFFH regulations, it is soliciting public 

comment on changes that will: 

Minimize regulatory burden while more 

effectively aiding program participants 

to plan for fulfilling their obligation to 

affirmatively further the purposes and 

policies of the Fair Housing Act; create 

a process that is focused primarily on 

accomplishing positive results, rather 

than on performing analysis of 

community characteristics; provide for 

greater local control and innovation; 

seek to encourage actions that increase 

housing choice, including through 

greater housing supply; and more 

efficiently utilize HUD resources. HUD 

is also reviewing comments submitted 

in response to the withdrawal of the 

Local Government Assessment Tool and 

will consider those comments during 

HUD’s consideration of potential 

changes to the AFFH regulations. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: October 15, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments to the 

Office of the General Counsel, Rules 

Docket Clerk, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, 

DC 20410–0001. Communications 

should refer to the above docket number 

and title and should contain the 

information specified in the ‘‘Request 

for Comments’’ section. There are two 

methods for submitting public 

comments. 

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. Due to 

security measures at all federal agencies, 

however, submission of comments by 

mail often results in delayed delivery. 

To ensure timely receipt of comments, 

HUD recommends that comments 

submitted by mail be submitted at least 

two weeks in advance of the public 

comment deadline. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://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 comments immediately 

available to the public. Comments 

submitted electronically through the 

http://www.regulations.gov website can 

be viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow 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 notice. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(fax) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Comments. All 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

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). 

Copies of all comments submitted are 

available for inspection and 

downloading at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krista Mills, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Office of Policy, Legislative Initiatives, 

and Outreach, Office Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW, Room 5246, Washington, 

DC 20410; telephone number 202–402– 

6577. Individuals with hearing or 

speech impediments 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 16, 2015, HUD published in 

the Federal Register its Affirmatively 

Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final 

rule.1 The principal AFFH regulations 

are codified in 24 CFR part 5, subpart 

A, with other AFFH related regulations 

codified in 24 CFR parts 91, 92, 570, 

574, 576, and 903. The stated purpose 

of the AFFH final rule was to provide 

HUD program participants with a 

revised planning approach to assist 

them in meeting their legal obligation to 

affirmatively further the purposes and 

policies of the Fair Housing Act. Since 

issuance of the final rule, however, HUD 

has concluded that the current 

regulations are ineffective in helping 

program participants to meet this 

obligation. The highly prescriptive 

regulations give participants inadequate 

autonomy in developing fair housing 

goals as suggested by principles of 

federalism. Additionally, the current 

regulations are ineffective in addressing 

the lack of adequate housing supply, 

which has particular adverse impact on 

protected classes under the Fair 

Housing Act. Finally, evidence from 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
40714 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence 

Katz. 2016. ‘‘The Effects of Exposure to Better 

Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from 

the Moving to Opportunity Project.’’ American 

Economic Review 106 (4). 

3 82 FR 4373. 

4 80 FR 81840. 

5 82 FR 4388. 

6 83 FR 23922. 7 82 FR 22344. 

peer-reviewed literature indicates that 

the positive outcomes of policies 

focused on deconcentrating poverty are 

likely limited to certain age and 

demographic groups 2 and are difficult 

to implement at scale and without 

disrupting local decision making. HUD 

reached these determinations for the 

following reasons: 

1. Ineffectiveness of assessment tools. 

Under the AFFH rule, HUD program 

participants are required to use an 

Assessment Tool to conduct and submit 

an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) to 

HUD. Because of the variations in the 

HUD program participants subject to the 

AFFH rule, HUD went through a process 

to develop three separate assessment 

tools: One for local governments, one for 

public housing agencies (PHAs), and 

one for States and Insular Areas. 

There are currently no approved 

assessment tools that are available for 

program participants to use. The 

different assessment tools are 

unavailable for different reasons. A final 

State and Insular Area Assessment Tool 

has not yet been developed by HUD. In 

the case of the Assessment Tool for use 

by PHAs, HUD published a Federal 

Register notice on January 13, 2017,3

announcing that the Assessment Tool 

was not yet available for use by PHAs 

because the HUD data needed to make 

the Assessment Tool workable was not 

yet available. HUD announced the 

availability of a Local Government 

Assessment Tool in a Federal Register 

notice published on December 31, 

2015 4 and renewal of the Tool in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

January 13, 2017.5

Since publication of the January 13, 

2017, notice, HUD became aware of 

significant deficiencies in the Local 

Government Assessment Tool impeding 

completion and acceptance of 

meaningful assessments by program 

participants. Accordingly, HUD 

withdrew the Local Government 

Assessment Tool in a Federal Register 

notice published on May 23, 2018.6 As 

more fully explained in the May 23, 

2018, withdrawal notice, HUD’s 

decision was informed by its review of 

the initial round of AFH submissions 

that were developed using the Local 

Government Assessment Tool. This 

review led HUD to conclude that the 

Tool is unworkable based upon: (1) The 

high failure rate from the initial round 

of submissions; and (2) the level of 

technical assistance HUD provided to 

this initial round of 49 AFHs, which 

cannot be scaled up to accommodate the 

increase in the number of local 

government program participants with 

AFH submission deadlines in 2018 and 

2019. Specifically, 63% of the initial 49 

AFH submissions (31/49) were not 

accepted on initial submission. HUD 

returned 35% of these (17/49) as 

unacceptable. Many other AFH 

submissions (28% or 14/49) were 

accepted only after the program 

participants submitted revisions and 

additional information in the form of 

addendums in response to HUD’s 

technical assistance. Interested readers 

are referred to the May 23, 2018, 

Federal Register notice for additional 

explanation regarding HUD’s 

withdrawal of the Local Government 

Assessment Tool. 

2. Public comments on HUD 

regulatory reform efforts. The request for 

comments contained in this ANPR is 

also consistent with HUD’s efforts to 

carry out the Administration’s 

regulatory reform efforts. On May 15, 

2017, HUD published a Federal Register 

notice consistent with Executive Orders 

13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ and 

13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ inviting public 

comments to assist HUD in identifying 

existing regulations that may be 

outdated, ineffective, or excessively 

burdensome.7 HUD received 299 

comments in response to the Notice, 

and 136 (45% of the total) discussed the 

AFFH rule. 

While some of the comments 

expressed support for the AFFH rule, 

most of the comments were critical of 

the rule and cited its complexity and the 

costs associated with completing an 

AFH. The commenters wrote that the 

final rule fails to consider critical factors 

for program participants, such as the 

scarcity of available resources and other 

program priorities. Many of these 

commenters complained that the 

estimates contained in the final rule 

regarding the amount of time it would 

take to complete an AFH were 

unrealistically low. Small PHAs, in 

particular, wrote that compliance with 

the rule would result in their incurring 

large expenses. Other commenters 

complained that the rule is overly 

prescriptive. Still others noted 

deficiencies with the data program 

participants are required to rely on in 

completing their AFHs. 

II. This Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

As HUD begins the process of 

developing a proposed rule to amend 

the existing AFFH regulations, it is 

soliciting public comment on changes 

that will: (1) Minimize regulatory 

burden while more effectively aiding 

program participants to meet their legal 

obligations; (2) create a process that is 

focused primarily on accomplishing 

positive results, rather than on 

performing analysis of community 

characteristics; (3) provide for greater 

local control and innovation; (4) seek to 

encourage actions that increase housing 

choice, including through greater 

housing supply; and (5) more efficiently 

utilize HUD resources. 

While the following list is not 

exhaustive, HUD is particularly 

interested in comments on the following 

questions: 

1. What type of community 

participation and consultation should 

program participants undertake in 

fulfilling their AFFH obligations? Do the 

issues under consideration in 

affirmatively furthering fair housing 

merit separate, or additional, public 

participation and consultation 

procedures than those already required 

of program participants in preparing 

their annual plans for housing and 

community development (i.e., the 

Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, 

or PHA Plan)? Conversely, should 

public input on AFFH be included as 

part of the Consolidated Plan/PHA Plan 

public involvement process? 

2. How should the rule weigh the 

costs and benefits of data collection and 

analysis? Should the proposed rule 

allow program participants to develop 

or use the data of their choice? 

Alternatively, should HUD require the 

use of a uniform data set by all program 

participants in complying with their 

AFFH obligation? Should it vary by the 

nature of the program participant? 

Instead of a data-centric approach, 

should jurisdictions be permitted to rely 

upon their own experiences? If the 

latter, how should HUD assess this more 

qualitative approach? 

3. How should PHAs report their 

AFFH plans and progress? Should 

jurisdictions be required to provide a 

detailed report of the analysis 

performed or only summarize the goals? 

How often should program participants 

be required to report on their AFFH 

efforts? Should the proposed rule retain 

or revise the current timeframes for 

required AFFH submissions? Should 

program participants continue reporting 

annually on their AFFH actions and 

results in their program plans and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40715 

annual performance reports or, given 

the long-term nature of many AFFH 

goals, should the reporting period be 

longer? Should planning and/or results 

be integrated into existing report 

structures, such as Consolidated Plans 

and Consolidated Annual Performance 

and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), or 

utilize an alternative structure? 

4. Should the proposed rule specify 

the types of obstacles to fair housing 

that program participants must address 

as part of their AFFH efforts, or should 

program participants be able to 

determine the number and types of 

obstacles to address? Should HUD 

incentivize program participants to 

collaborate regionally to identify and 

address obstacles to affirmatively 

furthering fair housing, without holding 

localities accountable for areas outside 

of their control? Should HUD 

incentivize grantees and PHAs to 

collaborate in the jurisdiction and the 

region to remove fair housing obstacles? 

What are examples of obstacles that the 

AFFH regulations should seek to 

address? How might a jurisdiction 

accurately determine itself to be free of 

material obstacles? 

5. How much deference should 

jurisdictions be provided in establishing 

objectives to address obstacles to 

identified fair housing goals, and 

associated metrics and milestones for 

measuring progress? 

6. How should HUD evaluate the 

AFFH efforts of program participants? 

What types of elements should 

distinguish acceptable efforts from those 

that should be deemed unacceptable? 

What should be required of, or imposed 

upon, jurisdictions with unacceptable 

efforts (other than potential statutory 

loss of Community Development Block 

Grant, HOME, or similar funding 

sources)? How should HUD address 

PHAs whose efforts to AFFH are 

unacceptable? 

7. Should the rule specify certain 

levels of effort on specific actions that 

will be deemed to be in compliance 

with the obligation to affirmatively 

further the purposes and policies of the 

Fair Housing Act (i.e., ‘‘safe harbors’’), 

and if so, what should they be? 

8. Are there any other revisions to the 

current AFFH regulations that could 

help further the policies of the Fair 

Housing Act, add clarity, reduce 

uncertainty, decrease regulatory burden, 

or otherwise assist program participants 

in meeting their AFFH obligations? 

III. Findings and Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

This ANPR is exclusively concerned 

with nondiscrimination standards. 

Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3), 

it is categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4347). 

Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Per Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), a 

determination must be made whether a 

regulatory action is significant and 

therefore, subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

order. Executive Order 13563 

(Improving Regulations and Regulatory 

Review) directs executive agencies to 

analyze regulations that are ‘‘outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal them in accordance 

with what has been learned.’’ Executive 

Order 13563 also directs that, where 

relevant, feasible, and consistent with 

regulatory objectives, and to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are to 

identify and consider regulatory 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public. This ANPR was 

reviewed by OMB and determined to 

likely result in a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Dated: August 9, 2018. 

Anna Maria Farı ́as, 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17671 Filed 8–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0212; FRL–9982– 

29—Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan and 

Other Plan Elements for the Moderate 

Nonattainment Chicago Area for the 

2008 Ozone Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the 

base year emissions inventory, 

reasonable further progress (RFP), RFP 

contingency measure, nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), and motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the Wisconsin portion of the 

Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-IndianaWisconsin nonattainment area (Chicago 

area) for the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards). EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to approve this SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110 and part D of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations because 

it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, 

RFP contingency measure, NOX RACT, 

I/M, and transportation conformity 

requirements for the Wisconsin portion 

of the Chicago area, which is classified 

as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0212, at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS