[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66592-66595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28309]



[[Page 66591]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Housing and Urban Development





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



24 CFR Part 1003



Revision to the Application Process for the Indian Community 
Development Block Grants Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 
Villages; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 66592]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail 
at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79db6b4a6a2b2bbbeb9b28896f9889ca5a2a4adb2bc97bfa2b3f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="377d56544642525b5e5952687619687c4542444d525c775f425319505841">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 stand-alone 
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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 1003.303)

    Current Sec. 1003.303 (entitled ``Project rating'') establishes 
three separate rating categories: housing, community facilities, and 
economic development. Further, Sec. 1003.303 establishes specific 
rating criteria for these categories (although some categories share 
similar criteria). The requirements for separate

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 non-ICDBG 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 (Sec. 1003.301)

    As a result of the proposed amendments to Sec. 1003.303 described 
above, certain conforming changes must be made to Sec. 1003.301, which 
establishes the ICDBG selection process. These conforming changes are 
as follows:
    1. Revised threshold requirements (Sec. 1003.301(a)). Paragraph (a) 
of Sec. 1003.301 establishes the threshold requirements for applicants 
of ICDBG funding. This proposed rule would amend Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1003.301(a)(3)(ii) has 
never been invoked. Given the changes brought about by the Native 
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 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 non-
monetary audit finding in a satisfactory manner. This requirement will 
be included in the SuperNOFA capacity rating factor. The wording of 
current Sec. 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 
(Sec. 1003.301(c)). The proposed rule would also make a necessary 
conforming change to current Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
(Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 1003.301(c))

    The wording of existing Sec. 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

[[Page 66594]]

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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 1003.301 to read as follows:


Sec. 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.

[[Page 66595]]

    3. Revise Sec. 1003.303 to read as follows:


Sec. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>