66592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 1003

[Docket No. FR–4612–P–01]

RIN 2577–AC22

Revision to the Application Process for

the Indian Community Development

Block Grants Program for Indian

Tribes and Alaska Native Villages

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend HUD’s regulations for the Indian

Community Development Block Grants

program for Indian Tribes and Alaska

Native Villages (the ‘‘ICDBG’’ program).

These amendments will permit the

incorporation of the ICDBG grant

application and selection procedures

into HUD’s SuperNOFA process. The

SuperNOFA approach, in which the

great majority of HUD’s competitive

funds are announced in one document,

is designed to simplify the application

process, bring consistency and

uniformity to the application and

selection process, and accelerate the

availability of funding. In addition to

the SuperNOFA-related amendments,

this proposed rule would amend the

ICDBG program regulations to remove

certain obsolete regulatory provisions

and to clarify program requirements.

DATES: Comments Due Date: December

6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposed rule to the Regulations

Division, Office of General Counsel,

Room 10276, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410–

0500. Communications should refer to

the above docket number and title.

Facsimile (FAX) comments are not

acceptable. A copy of each

communication submitted will be

available for public inspection and

copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30

p.m. weekdays at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Kruszek, Office of Grants

Management, Office of Native American

Programs, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Suite 3390, 1999

Broadway, Denver, CO 80202, telephone

(303) 675–1690, extension 3306 (this is

not a toll-free telephone number).

Hearing or speech-impaired persons

may access this telephone number via

TTY by calling the Federal Information

Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. Ms.

Kruszek may also be contacted via email at:

Jacqueline_A._Kruszek@hud.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The ICDBG Program

The Indian Community Block Grant

Program for Indian Tribes and Alaskan

Native Villages (commonly referred to

as the ICDBG program) provides eligible

grantees with direct grants for use in

developing viable Indian and Alaskan

Native communities, including decent

housing, a suitable living environment,

and economic opportunities, primarily

for low- and moderate-income persons.

HUD’s regulations implementing the

ICDBG program are located in 24 CFR

part 1003. The program is administered

by the Office of Native American

Programs (ONAP) in HUD’s Office of

Public and Indian Housing.

ICDBG funds are distributed as annual

competitive grants. Funds are allocated

to each of the six Area ONAPs, so

applicants compete for funding only

with other tribes or eligible Indian

entities within their area. All federally

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaskan

Native Villages are eligible to participate

in the ICDBG program. Projects funded

by the ICDBG program must primarily

benefit low- and moderate-income

persons. ICDBG funds may be used to

improve housing stock, provide

community facilities, improve

infrastructure, and expand job

opportunities by supporting the

economic development of the

communities, especially by nonprofit

tribal organizations or local

development corporations.

B. This Proposed Rule—Conforming the

ICDBG Grant Application Procedures

With HUD’s SuperNOFA Process

This proposed rule would amend the

ICDBG program regulations in 24 CFR

part 1003. Specifically, the rule

proposes to make several amendments

to subpart D of these regulations, which

establishes the ICDBG grant application

and selection process. The principal

reason for the proposed changes is that

they would allow or facilitate the

integration of the application process for

the ICDBG program into HUD’s

SuperNOFA process.

In Fiscal Year 1998, HUD first

published its first Super Notice of

Funding Availability (SuperNOFA). The

SuperNOFA approach, in which the

great majority of HUD’s competitive

funds are announced in one document,

is designed to simplify the application

process, bring consistency and

uniformity to the application and

selection process, and accelerate the

availability of funding. Equally

important, the SuperNOFA approach is

designed to increase the ability of

applicants to consider and apply for

funding under a wide variety of HUD

programs. The most creative and novel

element of the SuperNOFA is that it

places heavy emphasis on the

coordination of activities assisted by

HUD funds to provide (1) greater

flexibility and responsiveness by

potential grantees in meeting local

housing and community development

needs, and (2) greater flexibility for

eligible applicants to determine what

HUD program resources best fit the

community’s needs.

The most recent SuperNOFA,

published on February 24, 2000 (65 FR

9322), included 39 grant categories

within programs operated and

administered by HUD. However, the

application process for funding under

the ICDBG program has been

implemented through separate standalone NOFAs. This was based, in part,

on a determination that the

considerations for grant award were

substantially different for the ICDBG

program when compared with those

included in the SuperNOFA. Based

upon closer review, HUD has

determined that the SuperNOFA

process, especially as it has evolved in

the last two years, affords the degree of

flexibility necessary to address

important distinctions in funding

considerations (such as project specific

thresholds), while at the same time

providing a framework within which

application simplification procedures

may be implemented.

Certain regulatory changes are

required in order to permit the

incorporation of the ICDBG program in

the SuperNOFA process. Accordingly,

HUD is issuing this proposed rule to

revise the ICDBG program regulations at

1003.301 and § 1003.303, which

establish the ICDBG application

selection and rating procedures.

II. SuperNOFA Related Amendments

The most significant SuperNOFA

related amendments that would be

made by this proposed rule are as

follows:

A. Use of SuperNOFA Rating Factors

(§ 1003.303)

Current § 1003.303 (entitled ‘‘Project

rating’’) establishes three separate rating

categories: housing, community

facilities, and economic development.

Further, § 1003.303 establishes specific

rating criteria for these categories

(although some categories share similar

criteria). The requirements for separate

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66593

rating categories and related criteria

based on the type of project are

inconsistent with SuperNOFA

requirements and procedures.

Therefore, this proposed rule would

amend § 1003.303 to provide for the use

of the five uniform rating factors used in

the SuperNOFA. Additional details

regarding the rating factors would be

provided in the ICDBG component of

the SuperNOFA. The five rating factors

are:

1. Capacity. This factor will address

the applicant’s organizational resources

necessary to successfully implement the

proposed activities in a timely manner.

2. Need/Extent of the problem. This

factor will address the extent to which

there is a need for the proposed project

to address a documented problem

among the intended beneficiaries.

3. Soundness of approach. This factor

will address the quality and cost

effectiveness of the proposed project,

the commitment to sustain the proposed

activities, and the degree to which the

proposed project provides other benefits

to community members.

4. Leveraging of resources. This factor

will address the level of tribal resources

and resources from other entities that

are used in conjunction with ICDBG

funds to support the proposed project.

HUD will evaluate the level of nonICDBG resources based on the

percentage of non-ICDBG resources

provided relative to project costs.

5. Comprehensiveness and

coordination. This factor will address

the extent to which the applicant’s

proposed activities are consistent with

the strategic plans or policy goals of the

community and further on-going

priorities and activities of the

community.

B. Conforming Changes to ICDBG

Selection Process (§ 1003.301)

As a result of the proposed

amendments to § 1003.303 described

above, certain conforming changes must

be made to § 1003.301, which

establishes the ICDBG selection process.

These conforming changes are as

follows:

1. Revised threshold requirements

(§ 1003.301(a)). Paragraph (a) of

§ 1003.301 establishes the threshold

requirements for applicants of ICDBG

funding. This proposed rule would

amend § 1003.301(a) by removing the

threshold requirements regarding

community development

appropriateness, applicant capacity, and

applicant performance. The threshold

requirements set forth in these

paragraphs will more appropriately be

incorporated in the SuperNOFA rating

factors. As described above, the

SuperNOFA will contain ICDBG

specific rating factors to award points

based on the capacity of the applicant

and the soundness of the applicant’s

approach. These rating factors will

address, to the extent necessary, the

threshold requirements currently

contained in paragraph (a).

In several instances the current

threshold requirements have proven

unnecessary, and will not be included

in the SuperNOFA rating factors. For

example, HUD has determined that

current § 1003.301(a)(1)(ii), which

requires that the proposed project be

appropriate for the intended use, is

unnecessary. In addition, the housing

assistance threshold requirement

contained in current § 1003.301(a)(3)(ii)

has never been invoked. Given the

changes brought about by the Native

American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, (25 U.S.C.

4101 et seq.) (NAHASDA), it is unlikely

that this requirement would be a

consideration. (HUD’s regulations

implementing NAHASDA are located at

24 CFR part 1000.)

The proposed rule would retain a

revised version of the threshold

requirement contained in current

paragraph (a)(3)(iii) regarding

outstanding obligations. Specifically,

the proposed rule would continue to

provide that an applicant that has an

outstanding ICDBG obligation to HUD

that is arrears, or has not agreed to a

repayment schedule, will be

disqualified from the ICDBG

competition. The proposed rule,

however, would revise existing

paragraph (a)(3)(iii) by removing the

language regarding the effects of the

applicant’s failure to respond to a nonmonetary audit finding in a satisfactory

manner. This requirement will be

included in the SuperNOFA capacity

rating factor. The wording of current

§ 1003.301(a)(3)(iii) would also be

revised to provide that the outstanding

obligation need not only be the result of

an audit finding but could also be the

result of a determination of expenditure

ineligibility made through another

process (such as HUD monitoring).

2. Removal of reference to former

rating categories (§ 1003.301(c)). The

proposed rule would also make a

necessary conforming change to current

§ 1003.301(c), which regards the rating

of ICDBG applications. Specifically, the

proposed rule would remove the

references to the rating categories,

consistent with the changes made to

§ 1003.303.

III. Other Streamlining and Clarifying

Amendments to ICDBG Regulations

In addition to the SuperNOFA-related

amendments, HUD has taken the

opportunity provided by this proposed

rule to make several streamlining and

clarifying amendments to 24 CFR part

1003. These proposed amendments are

non-substantive, but remove obsolete

regulatory language and clarify existing

program requirements. These changes

are as follows:

A. Clarification Regarding Approval of

Individual Grant Amounts

(§ 1003.100(b)(2))

Section 1003.100(b)(2) identifies the

factors that an Area ONAP may take into

account in approving a grant amount

less than the requested amount. This

proposed rule would revise

§ 1003.100(b)(2) to clarify that the Area

ONAP may consider the reasonableness

of the project costs in making this

determination.

B. Rating of Applications by Area

ONAPs (§ 1003.301(c))

The wording of existing § 1003.301(c)

would be amended to remove the

requirement that applications be rated

by each Area ONAP. Although fund

allocation and competition for these

funds would be made for and limited to

each Area ONAP jurisdiction, HUD

wishes the flexibility to consider such

options as a national rating panel to

help expedite the funding approval

process.

IV. Justification for 30-Day Comment

Period

In general, it is HUD’s policy that

notices of proposed rulemaking are to

afford the public not less than 60 days

for submission of comments, in

accordance with its regulations on

rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. However,

HUD has determined that there is good

cause to reduce the public comment

period for this proposed rule to 30 days.

As discussed in more detail earlier in

this preamble, the proposed regulatory

amendments are necessary to permit the

incorporation of the ICDBG grant

application and selection procedures

into HUD’s SuperNOFA process.

Inclusion in the SuperNOFA will

greatly benefit ICDBG program

applicants. The SuperNOFA process

simplifies and brings consistency to the

application procedures for the majority

of HUD’s competitive funding programs.

The SuperNOFA’s promotion of

coordination and comprehensive

planning also provides greater flexibility

to potential grantees in meeting local

housing and community development

66594 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

needs, and allows for the delivery of a

wider more integrated array of services.

HUD wishes to ensure that the

proposed regulatory amendments are

effective in time to ensure inclusion of

the ICDBG program in the Fiscal Year

2001 SuperNOFA. Provision of the

customary 60-day public comment

period has the potential to delay the

rulemaking process and might

jeopardize the incorporation of the

ICDBG program in the SuperNOFA

process. The reduced 30-day comment

period will help to ensure that ICDBG

program participants are not deprived of

the benefits conveyed by participation

in the SuperNOFA.

HUD also notes that it provided

Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages

the opportunity to comment on the

substance of the proposed regulatory

changes during the development of this

proposed rule. HUD received 7

comments on the proposed revisions, all

in support of the regulatory changes and

the incorporation of the ICDBG program

requirements in the SuperNOFA

process. Accordingly, the reduced 30-

day comment period will not unduly

restrict the ability of ICDBG program

participants to express their views on

this proposed rule, since they have

already been afforded an opportunity to

comment on the regulatory changes.

Further, the comments received by HUD

indicate that the proposed regulatory

changes are not controversial, and are

supported by most Indian Tribes and

Alaska Native Villages.

For the above reasons, HUD has

determined that the 30-day comment

period for this proposed rule should

provide sufficient notice and

opportunity for interested entities to

comment. However, HUD recognizes the

importance of public comment in the

development of its regulations, and

welcomes public comment on the

proposed rule. All public comments

will be considered in the development

of the final rule.

V. Findings and Certifications

Environmental Impact

In accordance with 24 CFR 50.19(c)(2)

of the Department’s regulations, the

amendments made by this proposed

rule would not direct, provide for

assistance or loan and mortgage

insurance for, or otherwise govern or

regulate, real property acquisition,

disposition, leasing, rehabilitation,

alteration, demolition, or new

construction, or establish, revise, or

provide for standards for construction or

construction materials, manufactured

housing, or occupancy. Therefore, this

proposed rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary has reviewed this

proposed rule before publication, and

by approving it certifies, in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 605(b)), that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. To the extent that the proposed

amendments have an impact on small

Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native

Villages, it will be to reduce burden and

expedite the ICDBG funding process. As

described more fully in the preamble,

the amendments made by this proposed

rule will permit the incorporation of the

ICDBG program application and

selection procedures into HUD’s highly

successful SuperNOFA process. The

inclusion of the ICDBG program in the

SuperNOFA will simplify the ICDBG

application process, conform the ICDBG

application and selection procedures

with those of other HUD competitive

grant programs, and accelerate the

availability of funding. Notwithstanding

HUD’s determination that this rule will

not have a significant economic effect

on a substantial number of small

entities, HUD specifically invites

comments regarding any less

burdensome alternatives to this rule that

will meet HUD’s objectives as described

in this preamble.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (entitled

‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from

publishing any rule that has federalism

implications if the rule either imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

State and local governments and is not

required by statute, or the rule preempts

State law, unless the agency meets the

consultation and funding requirements

of section 6 of the Executive Order. This

proposed rule would not have

federalism implications and would not

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on State and local governments or

preempt State law within the meaning

of the Executive Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–

1538) establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments, and on the

private sector. This proposed rule

would not impose any Federal mandates

on any State, local, or tribal

governments, or on the private sector,

within the meaning of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Number for the Indian

Community Development Block Grant

program is 14.862.

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 1003

Alaska, Community development

block grants, Grant programs—housing

and community development, Indians,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons described

in the preamble, HUD proposes to

amend 24 CFR part 1003 to read as

follows:

PART 1003—COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS FOR

INDIAN TRIBES AND ALASKA NATIVE

VILLAGES

1. The authority citation for 24 CFR

part 1003 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301 et

seq.

2. Revise 1003.100(b)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 1003.100 General.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Individual grant amounts. An Area

ONAP may approve a grant amount less

than the amount requested. In doing so,

the Area ONAP may take into account

the size of the applicant, the level of

demand, the scale of the activity

proposed relative to need and

operational capacity, the number of

persons to be served, the amount of

funds required to achieve project

objectives, the reasonableness of the

project costs, and the administrative

capacity of the applicant to complete

the activities in a timely manner.

3. Revise § 1003.301 to read as

follows:

§ 1003.301 Selection process.

(a) Threshold requirement. An

applicant that has an outstanding

ICDBG obligation to HUD that is in

arrears, or one that has not agreed to a

repayment schedule, will be

disqualified from the competition.

(b) Application rating. NOFAs will

define and establish weights for the

selection criteria, will specify the

maximum points available, and will

describe how point awards will be

made.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66595

3. Revise § 1003.303 to read as

follows:

§ 1003.303 Project rating.

Each project included in an

application that meets the threshold

requirements shall be competitively

rated within each Area ONAP’s

jurisdiction under the five following

rating factors. Additional details

regarding the rating factors will be

provided in the periodic NOFAs.

(a) Capacity. This factor will address

the applicant’s organizational resources

necessary to successfully implement the

proposed activities in a timely manner.

(b) Need/Extent of the problem. This

factor will address the extent to which

there is a need for the proposed project

to address a documented problem

among the intended beneficiaries.

(c) Soundness of Approach. This

factor will address the quality and cost

effectiveness of the proposed project,

the commitment to sustain the proposed

activities, and the degree to which the

proposed project provides other benefits

to community members.

(d) Leveraging of resources. This

factor will address the level of tribal

resources and resources from other

entities that are used in conjunction

with ICDBG funds to support the

proposed project. HUD will evaluate the

level of non-ICDBG resources based on

the percentage of non-ICDBG resources

provided relative to project costs.

(e) Comprehensiveness and

coordination. This factor will address

the extent to which the applicant’s

proposed activities are consistent with

the strategic plans or policy goals of the

community and further on-going

priorities and activities of the

community.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Harold Lucas,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

[FR Doc. 00–28309 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P