1878 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Secretary

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

968

[Docket No. R–94–1731; FR–3611–F–02]

RIN 2501–AB72

Consolidated Submission for

Community Planning and Development

Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the

Department’s existing regulations to

completely replace the current

regulations for Comprehensive Housing

Affordability Strategies (CHAS) with a

rule that consolidates into a single

consolidated submission the planning

and application aspects of the

Department’s Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter

Grant (ESG), HOME Investment

Partnerships (HOME), and Housing

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

(HOPWA) formula programs with the

requirements for the CHAS. This new

consolidated submission will replace

the current CHAS, the HOME program

description, the Community

Development plan and the CDBG final

statement, and the ESG and HOPWA

applications. The rule also consolidates

the reporting requirements for these

programs, replacing five general

performance reports with one

performance report. Thus, in total, the

consolidated plan and consolidated

report will replace 12 documents.

Although this rule does not

incorporate the public housing

Comprehensive Grant process into the

consolidated planning and application

process, it makes a modification to the

Comprehensive Grants rule to encourage

cooperation in the development of the

Comprehensive Grant plan and the

consolidated plan. The changes are

intended to ensure that the needs and

resources of public housing authorities

are included in a comprehensive

planning effort to revitalize distressed

neighborhoods and help low-income

residents locally.

In addition, the rule amends the

separate regulations for the CDBG,

HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs to

remove some duplicative provisions,

cross-reference the new provisions, and

to conform terminology to that used in

the consolidated plan rule (revised part

91).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph F. Smith, Director, Policy

Coordination, Office of Community

Planning and Development, 451

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20410–7000, telephone (202) 708–1283

(voice) or (202) 708–2565 (TDD). (These

are not toll-free telephone numbers.)

Copies of this rule will be made

available on tape or large print for those

with impaired vision that request them.

They may be obtained at the above

address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information Collections

The information collection

requirements for the planning process,

the application process, and the

reporting process contained in this rule

have been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (42

U.S.C. 3501–3520) and assigned

approval number 2506–0117, which

expires on March 31, 1995.

II. Background

This final rule providing for a

consolidated plan and a single

performance report for all HUD

community planning and development

formula grant programs reflects the

Department’s view that the purpose to

be served by the submissions is to

enable States and localities to examine

their needs and design ways to address

those needs that are appropriate to their

circumstances. The planning activities

embodied in the rule are those of the

Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy (CHAS) requirements, enacted

by the Cranston-Gonzalez National

Affordable Housing Act (NAHA, at 42

U.S.C. 12701), and of the Community

Development Plan requirements, added

to the CDBG program by NAHA (42

U.S.C. 5304).

The consolidated plan was a result of

discussions with local jurisdictions and

community groups all over the United

States representing many different

viewpoints. The intent of this rule is to

(1) promote citizen participation and the

development of local priority needs and

objectives by providing comprehensive

information on the jurisdiction that is

easy to understand; (2) coordinate these

statutory requirements in such a manner

as to achieve the purposes of the Acts

in a comprehensive way, while reducing

paperwork and minimizing the federal

intrusion into State and local planning

activities and to simplify the process of

requesting and obtaining federal funds

available to the jurisdictions on a

formula basis; (3) promote the

development of an action plan that

provides the basis for assessing

performance; and (4) encourage

consultation with public and private

agencies, including those outside a

single jurisdiction, to identify shared

needs and solutions. In addition, HUD

is providing software for jurisdictions to

facilitate meeting the planning,

application and reporting requirements,

helping to move us into the 21st

century.

In keeping with this approach, the

rule emphasizes the role citizens and

community groups should play in

identifying their needs and

recommending actions government

should take in addressing those needs.

Thus, the outcome is determined at the

level of government closest to the

affected persons. However, to assure

that a jurisdiction does not ignore

identified needs, the rule includes the

language from the CHAS instructions to

require that the consolidated plan

contain a comparative analysis of the

needs identified, and explain how the

jurisdiction determined priority needs

and include proposed actions that

address the identified needs.

The proposed rule for the

consolidated plan was published on

August 5, 1994 (59 FR 40129). During

the process of developing both the

proposed and final rule, the Department

has indicated its intent to apply the new

rule to Federal Fiscal Year 1995

funding. Therefore, affected

jurisdictions have been in contact with

HUD about the expectations for speedy

publication of a final rule that would

permit them to start preparation of this

new consolidated plan in time to make

the projected deadlines.

Another proposed rule was published

in August of 1994 that would affect

some of the provisions dealing with the

CDBG program that are covered by this

rule. That rule, ‘‘Community

Development Block Grant Program:

Miscellaneous Amendments to Correct

Identified Deficiencies’’ (59 FR 41196,

August 10, 1994), proposed changes to

the citizen participation process and in

treatment of CDBG ‘‘float-funded

activities,’’ for example. This rule makes

changes covering both of these topics

(discussed below) but leaves other

provisions of that ‘‘CDBG miscellaneous

amendments’’ rule untouched, for final

disposition through that separate

rulemaking. In fact, the performance

standards for the certification found in

this rule that a jurisdiction is

‘‘following’’ its HUD-approved

consolidated plan will be included in

that final rule. In light of the emphasis

on economic development in the CDBG

program, HUD will shortly issue a final
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1879

rule on economic development

guidelines for the CDBG program.

A proposed rule on citizen

participation for the CDBG Entitlement

program was published on March 28,

1990 (55 FR 11556). This rule reflects

consideration of the public comments

on that rule, and constitutes the final

rule for that rulemaking.

III. Public Comments

The proposed rule drew 138 public

comments from 38 local governments or

groups representing their interests, 19

States or groups representing State

interests, 62 groups advocating for the

interests of low-income persons, 15

groups advocating for the interests of

persons with disabilities, three

professional organizations with no

apparent client constituency, and one

individual.

In addition, the Department officials

have talked by telephone to

representatives of 19 national groups

that had submitted written comments,

to more fully understand their views.

These groups are: National Association

for County Community and Economic

Development, Council Of State

Community Development Agencies,

National Community Development

Association, Local Initiatives Support

Corporation, National Association of

Housing and Redevelopment Officials,

Housing Assistance Council, AIDS

Council, National Coalition for the

Homeless, Center for Community

Change, National Low Income Housing

Coalition, National Alliance to End

Homelessness, National Council of State

Housing Agencies, Corporation for

Supportive Housing, Enterprise

Foundation, United Cerebral Palsy,

Coalition for Low Income Community

Development, Lawyers Committee for

Civil Rights under Law, National

Association for Developmental

Disabilities, and the National Housing

Law Project. Low-income advocates,

cities and States often had diametrically

opposing views on the rule.

The general views of the low-income

and disability advocacy groups were

that data requirements concerning needs

had been removed from the CHAS to

produce the consolidated plan; a

stronger linkage between need, strategy,

and action should be required to be

stated in the plan; ‘‘worst case’’ needs

should be addressed on the basis of a

‘‘fair share’’ of the funds to be made

available from HUD; the citizen

participation process should be

augmented and adequate notice should

be provided for hearings. Many of these

concerns apply equally to the CHAS

process as to the consolidated plan.

Many low-income advocates also

expressed concern about the

requirement making the consolidated

plan applicable for Fiscal Year 1995

funding of the formula programs, with

the short deadlines that this will require

for jurisdictions—and the impact it

would have on their clients.

To respond to these concerns, the

Department has added a clearer

statement of specific data requirements

on needs (including a specific

description of the needs of nonhomeless persons with disabilities), a

statement on how the priorities in the

strategic plan relate to the statement of

needs, and a clearer statement on how

the activities proposed in the action

plan relate to the strategic plan. Citizen

participation has been strengthened in a

number of places, including improved

guidelines for providing adequate

notice.

The Entitlement communities

responded to the rule with diverse

concerns. Some objected to the use of

and reporting on ‘‘extremely lowincome’’ category particularly with

regard to CDBG. Many expressed

concern about the usefulness of

estimating needs for community

development facilities in terms of the

dollars to address those needs.

Although the term ‘‘extremely lowincome’’ (0–30 percent) was retained in

the plan, since this category was

familiar in the CHAS, the reporting

burden for CDBG has been reduced by

requiring reporting on beneficiaries by

income only where income data is

required for CDBG eligibility. Language

has been added codifying the field office

authority to grant exceptions and

extensions for FY 1995 for good cause.

To meet concerns of these communities

that the rule has gone beyond the statute

and become too prescriptive,

suggestions for revisions that would

have added significant detail to the plan

were rejected. Other changes to

accommodate entitlement community

concerns are to require that the basis be

assigned for relative priority to each

category of needs in the strategic plan

rather than each separate need; that

flexibility be provided for consortia; that

more flexible amendment language be

provided; and that the time period for

comments on performance reports be

reduced to 15 days.

A number of States had a particular

concern about being required to

implement the plan in FY 1995,

particularly those with early program

years. Other States wanted specific

guidance on citizen participation

specifically for the States because of

their unique situation. They felt that it

was inappropriate to offer technical

assistance directly to low-income

groups under the citizen participation

plan at the State level. Several States

suggested that HUD and the Department

of Health and Human Services should

get together with regard to making

estimates of homeless needs. Several

States said that the priority needs tables,

goals, and target dates for completion

are too detailed for the States since they

have less degree of control over what

actions are taken than entitlement

jurisdictions do. Other States felt that it

was unrealistic that States show how

funds were distributed geographically

since most States distributed funds by

competition for different categories of

assistance and cannot control

geographical distribution.

Most States have been in contact with

the appropriate HUD field office about

the timing and content of their

submissions for FY 1995. In most cases,

agreement has already been reached on

both matters. With respect to tables, the

States are expected to complete the

information to the extent that they are

able to do so. The requirement for

information about geographic

distribution is included because it is a

CHAS statutory requirement. To the

extent that funds are distributed by

competition and a prediction of the

ultimate geographic distribution cannot

be made, the State should so indicate.

A separate section on citizen

participation has been added that

applies just to States. The Department

believes that it is responsive to the

comments of the States, including the

request to remove the technical

assistance provision.

In order to provide technical

assistance, HUD intends to issue

supplemental guidance on effective

ways to undertake consolidated

planning, prepare adequate

submissions, and implement subsequent

projects and activities. In addition, the

Department will issue supplemental

guidance on various cross-cutting

concerns. These include historic

preservation, the role of community

based organizations, urban design and

strategic planning, environmental

justice, viable communities and

sustainable development.

One comment that was made by both

low-income advocates and local

governments was that the status of the

guidelines should be clarified. The

commenters noted that the regulations

specify the requirements for the

consolidated plan, and the guidelines

appear to state the recommendations for

the plan. They asked, ‘‘How closely will

grantees be held to the

‘recommendations’?’’

The Department agrees that this

subject needs clarification. The
1880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

regulations state the requirements. The

guidelines contain the tables and

instructions for data submissions, which

constitute the ‘‘required format’’

referenced in the regulations. Therefore,

these tables and instructions are

required, but the specific format may be

modified with HUD approval. Other

suggestions or recommendations

included in the guidelines are to assist

jurisdictions in the preparation of the

plan.

A county and a State complained

about the Department’s Federalism

Impact discussion. They stated that the

rule requires duplication of effort by

State and local governments, since both

will be preparing consolidated plans for

their jurisdiction. They argued that

consolidation has resulted in

overregulation of previously less

regulated programs. They suggested that

the Department seek legislative change

to really streamline the requirements.

The Department believes that there is

not much duplication of effort between

State and local consolidated plans, since

the State plans focus on the

nonentitlement areas of the State that

are not covered by the consolidated plan

of a locality. In creating a new

framework for submissions for the CPD

formula grant programs covered, a few

requirements, such as the more detailed

citizen participation requirements, have

been applied to programs not previously

covered. However, the consolidation

will give governments and citizens the

advantage of looking at the needs to be

addressed by HUD programs all at once.

Legislative changes have been sought to

combine the McKinney Act programs,

but those changes have not been

enacted. Statutory change is not

necessary just to coordinate the

submissions for the different programs.

The following is a section by section

summary of comments received and

HUD responses.

Section 91.1 Purpose

This section states the goals of the

community development and planning

programs covered by the part and the

function of the consolidated plan. There

were four primary areas of comment on

the goals portion (§ 91.1(a)) of this

section.

First, a low-income advocacy group

and the State of Florida took stands on

the Department’s attempt to restate and

consolidate the statutory goals of the

various programs covered. The lowincome advocacy group praised the

broad discussion of goals, while the

State criticized the language as

confusing and failing to reflect all the

goals of the covered programs. For

example, the State said that the CDBG

goal of eliminating slum and blight is

not included. It also stated that the

NAHA goal of increasing the supply of

decent housing that is accessible to job

opportunities has been converted to

‘‘provision of jobs accessible to housing

affordable to low-income persons.’’

Obviously, the low-income advocacy

group recommended preserving the

language, while the State advocated

citing the specific legislative language of

goals to be served by the specific

programs.

The Department believes that this

statement of broad goals is useful. The

language concerning job accessibility

mirroring the NAHA statutory language

is included in the paragraph on decent

housing, while the economic

development language of the CDBG

statute is reflected in the paragraph on

expansion of economic opportunity.

Elimination of slum and blight is

implicit in the language of the goals

provision pertaining to improving the

safety and livability of neighborhoods.

Second, several disabilities groups

objected to the phrasing of the goals

section on supportive housing, stating

that it is potentially stigmatizing,

because it assumes that all persons with

special needs require housing with

special features, unlike other housing

that exists in the community. The

potentially offending section reads

‘‘ * * * Decent housing also includes

increasing the supply of supportive

housing, which combines structural

features and services needed to enable

persons with special needs to live with

dignity and independence.’’ These

commenters suggested modifying the

sentence to read ‘‘ * * * Decent housing

also includes increasing the supply of

housing, which may or may not require

certain unique structural features and

which can be linked to on-site or

community based services desired by

persons with special needs.’’

The Department does not disagree

with the point that many disabled

persons may require housing which

does not need structural modifications.

Jurisdictions are free to provide such

housing for persons with disabilities.

However, the statement of purpose on

this item was taken directly from

purposes section of the National

Affordability Housing Act, and it is not

necessary to change this statement.

Third, several disability groups

advocated changing the language about

‘‘assisting homeless persons to obtain

appropriate housing’’ to include the

concept of ‘‘permanent housing.’’ The

Department agrees that among the

actions taken to address the needs of

homeless persons is providing

permanent housing (along with

providing emergency and transitional

shelter). Such an approach is part of a

total homeless strategy laid out in the

strategic plan. However, to carry out this

plan, it is not necessary to change the

statement of purpose to focus on only

one element of this approach. Therefore,

the final rule contains no change in

response to this request.

Fourth, several States objected to the

impact on them of the expanded

definition of ‘‘suitable living

environment’’ and ‘‘economic

opportunity’’ found in the goals section.

They indicated that the requirement that

the State’s short and long term goals

‘‘must be developed in accordance with

the statutory goals described in § 91.1’’

puts greater emphasis on these goals

than is desirable, from their point of

view. They also note that the goals

emphasize low-income housing and the

effort to tie public facility and economic

development activities to low income

and public housing, while objectives set

forth in the CDBG statute are missing.

States indicated that the emphasis on

expanding economic opportunity

including job creation creates a linkage

to community development that is often

made at the local level rather than being

imposed from the State. States will

explore these new linkages in

community building, but where such

linkages are not appropriate or possible,

neither the State nor its grantees should

be penalized.

The description of what is meant by

expanded economic opportunity is

consistent with the current CDBG

program requirements for States at

§ 570.483(b)(4). This language should

not limit grantees’ flexibility, and

therefore, it is not being changed in the

final rule.

Section 91.5 Definitions

a. Income Categories

The proposed rule used the terms

‘‘very low-income household’’ and

‘‘low-income household’’ for the

households traditionally identified in

the CDBG program as ‘‘low-income

households’’ and ‘‘moderate-income

households.’’ This change drew two

types of comments. First, a State

pointed out that a CDBG proposed rule

published on August 10, 1994 used the

traditional CDBG terms, and the two

rules should be consistent. Second, a

city, county, and a professional

organization of government CDBG

administrators, recommended that the

consolidated plan rule should use the

terms traditionally used in the CDBG

program. They argued that to do

otherwise is damaging to the perception

of the program in cities that are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1881

struggling to keep income balance in

their community, whose citizens are

more willing to see CDBG funds devoted

to income groups that appear to be more

inclusive of average families.

The Department believes that the

consolidated plan must use uniform

definitions of income categories for all

programs covered by the plan. The

terms chosen in the proposed rule (as in

the CHAS) were drawn from the

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable

Housing Act, which created the

Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy (that is applicable to all the

CPD formula grant programs) and the

HOME program. However, we believe

that the comments have merit.

Therefore, this final rule returns to the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974 terms: ‘‘low-income’’ (does

not exceed 50 percent of median

income) and ‘‘moderate-income’’ (does

not exceed 80 percent of median

income). This rule adds a new term

‘‘middle income’’ to encompass the

group described as ‘‘moderate income’’

in the proposed rule, to fulfill the

responsibility under the CHAS statute to

consider affordable housing needs for

this category of families and to include

impact on them in the performance

report.

The ‘‘extremely low-income’’ category

of 0–30 percent of median income was

praised by low-income advocacy groups

and some States, while local

jurisdictions and some States took issue

with its addition to the evaluation of

needs and performance reports as not

statutorily required and too

burdensome.

The purpose of including this income

category is to assure that jurisdictions

consider the needs of the households

that have the least ability to improve

their access to affordable housing on

their own. It is a category that was

addressed in the CHAS tables and there

was much support from low-income

advocates for its use in the consolidated

plan.

The data for the needs assessment is

census data provided by HUD that has

been used under the CHAS rule. The

data for the performance report is

similarly available. To accommodate the

concern about data availability, the

language has been changed to require

reporting on the number of extremelylow, low-, moderate-income, and

middle-income persons served by each

activity only where information on

income by family size is required to

determine the eligibility of the activity.

b. Definitions of Terms That Were in the

CHAS

Two local jurisdictions stated that the

rule should contain definitions for terms

that are used in § 91.205(b) of the rule—

moderate income, elderly, large family,

cost burden, and severe cost burden—

and which were defined in the CHAS

rule. An advocate for low-income

households stated that the rule needs

definitions for additional terms: assisted

family, disabled family, federal

preference, and overcrowding. These

definitions are needed to define ‘‘worst

case’’ housing needs, which another

low-income advocacy group wanted

included in the defined terms. (‘‘Worst

case needs’’ was a term defined only in

the CHAS guidelines; it was not a term

found in the CHAS rule.)

The terms mentioned above that are

essential to the consolidated plan rule

are being added in the final rule. Those

terms are ‘‘moderate income,’’ ‘‘elderly

person,’’ ‘‘person with disability,’’

‘‘large family,’’ ‘‘cost burden,’’ ‘‘severe

cost burden,’’ and ‘‘overcrowding.’’ The

last three terms are derived from the

census, and the definitions used in the

rule are, therefore, those of the census.

The other definitions being added

follow the definitions provided for those

terms in the CHAS rule.

One disability group advocate urged

HUD to adopt the definition of ‘‘persons

with disabilities’’ used in the Americans

with Disabilities Act. The definition

used in the CHAS rule is consistent

with the one required for use in the

assisted housing programs. The

Department sees no reason to abandon

this definition.

The terms ‘‘assisted family,’’ ‘‘federal

preference,’’ and ‘‘worst case’’ are not

being used in the rule, and therefore no

definitions for them are needed.

c. Homeless

Legal service agencies, homeless and

low-income advocates, and various

disability and public interest

organizations were concerned that the

rule’s definition of ‘‘homeless’’ was not

identical to the definition of that term

in the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Act. The definition requires

the individual or family to both lack ‘‘a

fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime

residence; and [have] a primary

nighttime residence that is [a supervised

emergency shelter]; * * * an institution

that provides a temporary residence for

individuals intended to be

institutionalized; or a * * * place not

designed for, or ordinarily used as, a

regular sleeping accommodation for

human beings.’’ The commenters argued

that the McKinney Act defines a

homeless individual as either one who

lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate

nighttime residence or one whose

primary nighttime residence is one of

the three described types. Their point

seems to be that families that are

overcrowded, because more than one

original family unit resides in a housing

unit intended for one, should be

considered ‘‘homeless.’’

The Department agrees that the

definition used in this rule should be

essentially the same as the definition in

the McKinney Act. This change does

not, however, signal that the

Department is altering its position that

the definition must read within the

context of the findings and purpose

section of the McKinney Act. It is clear

to the Department that the McKinney

Act was enacted in 1987 to assist the

rapidly growing numbers of persons

living on the streets and in shelters. It

was not enacted for the purpose of

assisting the substantially larger number

of persons who unfortunately live in

substandard housing or with others in

so-called doubled-up arrangements

because of the problem of a lack of

affordable housing. The latter problems

have been the subject of legislation

since 1934, and the Department

administers many programs designed to

address these problems. Persons living

in substandard housing or in doubledup arrangements are not homeless,

although they may be at high risk of

becoming homeless. Although the

Department is not changing the core

definition of homelessness in the

McKinney Act, it should be noted that

the prevention of homelessness is an

essential part of a larger homeless

program and the homeless plan includes

actions to help low-income families

avoid becoming homeless. This would

include persons who are precariously

housed.

The Department does believe that the

wording of the definition for ‘‘homeless

family’’ in the proposed rule was

confusing. Therefore, the definition has

been renamed ‘‘homeless family with

children,’’ and the language has been

clarified.

d. Other Definitions

A local jurisdiction pointed out that

the definition of ‘‘consolidated plan’’

indicates that it is a document

submitted annually. Only parts of it are

submitted annually—the action plan

and the certifications. The Department

agrees that the definition of

consolidated plan needs to be clarified

so that it does not appear that every

element must be submitted annually. A

modification of the proposed language
1882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

that adds references to provisions of the

rule has been adopted in the final rule.

Local and State governments

suggested that the definitions of income

categories need to be clarified with

respect to whether they apply to

‘‘household’’ or ‘‘family.’’ The terms

seem to be used interchangeably,

although they have distinct

demographic meanings resulting in

different median incomes.

The final rule defines the income

categories in terms of ‘‘family’’. For

planning purposes, the definition HUD

uses for that term in its assisted housing

programs is used in this rule (in

accordance with the definition that is

adopted by the Cranston-Gonzalez

National Affordable Housing Act). The

connection between data supplied by

the Census, which uses a different

definition of ‘‘family’’, is explained in

the Guidelines. The individual program

definitions govern the actual use of the

funds and reporting on beneficiaries.

The District of Columbia points out

that the definition of ‘‘State’’ includes

the District of Columbia and the

definition ‘‘unit of general local

government’’ excludes the District of

Columbia; however, the District is

defined as an entitlement jurisdiction

(local government) for purposes of the

CDBG and ESG programs. These

definitions should not adversely impact

grant allocations or application

requirements. The final rule removes

reference to the District of Columbia

from the definitions, and adds a new

section to the rule to specify

consolidated plan requirements for the

District of Columbia.

A State suggests that the definition of

‘‘jurisdiction’’ should be clarified to

assure that it includes only those

jurisdictions receiving funds directly

from HUD. It states that the rule, as

written, appears to apply directly to the

units of general local government that

are State recipients of HOME and CDBG

funds. The applicability section,

§ 91.2(b), states that ‘‘[a] jurisdiction

must have a consolidated plan that is

approved by HUD as a prerequisite to

receiving funds from HUD under the

following programs. * * *.’’ The

provision does not state that a

jurisdiction must have such a plan in

order to receive funds from a State.

However, the section has been revised

to clarify its applicability rather than to

revise the definition of ‘‘jurisdiction.’’

Section 91.10 Program Year

Representatives of county officials

and local governments commented on

the requirement that a jurisdiction must

have one program year for all four of its

CPD formula programs. One city praised

this change as ‘‘a positive step in

streamlining the application process.’’ It

went on to say that the flexibility of

permitting the jurisdiction to select this

program year also is beneficial. On the

other hand, an organization of county

officials stated that the change of

program year will cause additional

administrative costs. It proposed that

HUD permit waiver of the cap on

administrative costs in the first year

under this rule to accommodate the

additional cost of changing program

years.

The administrative cap is statutory.

Section 91.15 Submission date

One concern of States, local

governments, disability group

advocates, and low-income advocates

was the timing of the deadline for

submission of the first consolidated

plan. The proposed rule states that the

consolidated plan must be submitted to

HUD ‘‘at least 45 days before the start

of its program year.’’ Since the

Department has made it known that it

plans to implement the rule for Federal

Fiscal Year 1995 funds, many

commenters have indicated that there is

insufficient time before the required

submission date to comply with the

process required under the rule. More

specifically, they indicate that the stated

submission deadlines do not provide for

the negotiation of exceptions to a

jurisdiction’s implementation of the

consolidated plan for FY 1995, as

expected.

Several alternatives were suggested:

(1) Delay implementation until FY 1996

or make implementation optional in FY

1995; (2) implement the new rule by a

demonstration, giving incentive grants

to several jurisdictions to gain

experience with the process; (3) start

implementation with jurisdictions that

have a program year beginning 180 days

following the effective date of the rule;

or (4) give explicit authority in the rule

to HUD field offices to provide

exceptions to the submission deadline

where they are warranted. One large city

commented that it is pleased with the

apparent expanded role of local HUD

offices in granting exceptions and

would like the criteria for their action to

be stated in the final rule.

The Department has chosen option

number 4. The rule has been revised to

add a provision, § 91.20, that explicitly

authorizes HUD field offices to grant

three types of exceptions: from the

requirement to submit all or part of the

consolidated plan in FY 1995 (and

permit submission of a CHAS annual

update plus the individual program

submissions), from the deadline for

submission, and from the guidelines.

Exceptions to requirements found in the

guidelines require that no statutory or

regulatory requirements may be

overridden and that there must be a

finding of good cause by the HUD field

office, documented by sending written

memoranda periodically to HUD

Headquarters stating the authorized

exception and the basis for the

exception.

Commenters who suggested option

number 4 commended HUD for

empowering its field offices, a change

that will allow local HUD staff to more

effectively coordinate the process to

accommodate local needs. One

commenter recommended that the

exception provision state what steps

must be taken by a jurisdiction in order

to request an exception. The rule does

not deal with the procedure in this level

of detail. However, any interested

jurisdiction should contact its HUD

field office for the specific information

to be contained in a particular request.

Many States have been in contact

with their HUD field offices and have

worked out agreed upon schedules for

complying with the requirements of this

rule. It is anticipated that most

jurisdictions will work out

arrangements that are mutually

agreeable for the submission of a

consolidated plan that comes close to

that envisioned in this rule for this

fiscal year.

Another deadline stated in the

proposed rule (§ 91.15(a)(2)) is the date

required by the CDBG statute: ‘‘Failure

to submit the plan by August 16 will

automatically result in a loss of the

CDBG funds to which the jurisdiction

would otherwise be entitled.’’ State,

county and local government entities

stated that this provision does not

appear to encompass the flexibility

expected from HUD, based on

discussions with HUD field office staff.

They recommend that the rule allow

some flexibility on HUD’s part not to

penalize jurisdictions that may have a

bona fide problem in making the

complete submission in any given year.

The August 16 date for CDBG

submissions has been established

pursuant to section 116(b) of the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5316) as the final

date for submission of final statements

for each fiscal year.

Section 91.100 Consultation

a. Adjacent Local Governments

Several local governments criticized

the proposed rule’s requirement to

notify adjacent local governments

regarding priority nonhousing

community development needs and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1883

suggested that it should be deleted. On

the other hand, two low-income

advocates expressed support for the

regulatory section providing that the

jurisdiction should consult with

adjacent local governments.

One local government believed the

provision on consultation should be

deleted because it is burdensome,

particularly for large local governments

which have dozens of adjacent local

governments. The needs of its own

residents are overwhelming and will use

all available resources. Consultation

with adjacent local governments would

unreasonably raise expectations for

services and assistance.

Another local government wanted

clarification regarding whether

consultation with local governments is

required or optional and the subject of

the consultation. Another local

government said the language regarding

notification and consultation is vague

and the purpose to be served by

‘‘notifying’’ another jurisdiction is

unclear.

The consultation provision with

respect to adjacent local governments is

statutorily required. The CDBG statute

(section 104(m)(2)(A)) of the HCDA (42

U.S.C. 5304(m)) states, that in preparing

the community development plan (‘‘CD

plan’’) describing the jurisdiction’s

priority nonhousing community

development needs, the jurisdiction

must, ‘‘to the extent practicable, notify

adjacent units of general local

government and solicit the views of

citizens on [these] needs.’’ The

following paragraph of the statute

requires submission of the CD plan to

the State or any other unit of general

local government within which the

jurisdiction is located, as well as to

HUD.

From the statutory context, the

Department presumes that the views of

adjacent jurisdictions are to be

welcomed on the validity of the needs

identified by these governments, just as

the comments of the citizens are to be

considered. Consultation with adjacent

jurisdictions is not to be assumed to

entail taking financial responsibility for

satisfying the needs of the adjacent

jurisdictions, but only reflects the

perspective that adjacent jurisdictions

may have occasion to know of needs of

their neighbors.

With respect to the burden of

notifying a multitude of adjacent

jurisdictions, the rule does not require

personal meetings with each one. The

burden of mailing a document that has

been prepared by the jurisdiction to a

number of adjacent jurisdictions should

be minimal.

An urban county asked for

clarification on how this provision

applies to an urban county. If there is no

adjacent unit of general local

government, the intergovernmental

consultation requirement requires only

submission of the CD plan to the State.

(The language concerning submission of

the CD plan to the State was not

included in the proposed rule but has

been added to the section in this final

rule.)

Two local governments recommended

that all jurisdictions in areas that

receive funding under the HOPWA

program should assist the jurisdiction

responsible for submitting the HOPWA

allocation in the preparation of its

consolidated plan. This is the type of

issue that was intended to be covered by

the rule’s provision concerning

consultation for problems that go

beyond a single jurisdiction, found in

the penultimate sentence of § 91.100(a).

The Department has determined that

the provision concerning consultation

for problems and solutions that go

beyond a single jurisdiction should have

one more element added: consultation

with ‘‘agencies with metropolitan-wide

planning responsibilities where they

exist.’’

b. Public and Private Service Providers

One county commented that the

regulation should recommend, rather

than require, consultation with public

and private agencies because the current

CDBG citizen participation process is

sufficient to ensure an open process for

citizen participation. On the other side

of the issue, several nonprofit disability

advocates commented that the

regulation should mandate, rather than

encourage, consultation with public and

private agencies. They suggest that the

consultation should be undertaken at

least 30 days before the jurisdiction

develops its proposed consolidated

plan.

The CHAS statute (section 105(b)(17),

42 U.S.C. 12705(b)(17)) requires a

jurisdiction to consult with public and

private agencies concerning programs

and services to be provided in

accordance with the housing strategy.

Consequently, the proposed rule

required such consultation. Section

91.100(a) provides: ‘‘When preparing

the plan, the jurisdiction shall consult

with other public and private agencies

that provide assisted housing, health

services, and social services (including

those focusing on services to children,

elderly persons, persons with

disabilities—including HIV/AIDS,

homeless persons) during preparation of

the plan.’’ However, the Department

does not want to prescribe the precise

timetable for these consultations.

Presumably, the consultation will take

place well in advance of the

jurisdiction’s submission of its proposed

consolidated plan.

Homeless and low-income advocates

recommended that the regulation

specifically mention consultation with

specific entities. Most of the suggested

groups are already included in the

categories stated in the proposed rule. In

addition, as residents, any persons not

contacted as part of the consultation

process will receive notice of and have

the opportunity to participate in the

development of the consolidated plan as

part of the citizen participation process,

described in § 91.105. In fact, residents

in public and assisted housing

developments are specifically

mentioned in paragraph (a)(3) of that

section. The Department believes it is

unnecessary to lengthen the list of

entities consulted.

A homeless advocate suggested

adding a new paragraph to this section

dealing with consultation on homeless

needs. The advocate wanted the

regulation to require the jurisdiction to

convene a local board whose members

are appointed by the jurisdiction and a

majority of whom are currently or

formerly homeless or nonprofit

providers serving the homeless. The

local board would be responsible for

completing the homeless portions of the

consolidated plan, which would be

submitted to the jurisdiction for

inclusion in the overall plan. The board

would be responsible for considering

comments on the homeless portion of

the plan. This proposal may be

authorized by legislative change;

however, there is no statutory basis for

it now. Elsewhere, the Department is

encouraging communities to establish

coordinating boards to carry out a

homeless plan, but it is inappropriate to

require it now in this rule.

c. Public Housing Agency

Paragraph (c) of this section of the

proposed rule requires the jurisdiction

‘‘to consult with the local public

housing agency participating in an

approved Comprehensive Grant

program concerning consideration of

public housing needs and planned

Comprehensive Grant program

activities.’’ One large housing authority

commented that there should be a

mutual exchange of information

between the jurisdiction and the

housing authority needed for the

housing authority’s Comprehensive

Grant Program plan and for the

jurisdiction’s consolidated plan.

One local government interest group

commented that HUD should be
1884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

sensitive to the difficulties involved in

the requirement of consultation and

interagency coordination, particularly

with public housing authorities over

which the jurisdiction has no control.

They recommended that HUD pursue

public housing regulation which require

public housing agencies (PHAs) to work

with the department of the jurisdiction

that has responsibility for the

consolidated plan. One city commented

that the Comprehensive Grant program

regulations already provide for local

government cooperation in providing

resident program and services to lowincome public housing residents. The

proposed rule contained a change in

that regulation (§ 968.320) designed to

have exactly the effect suggested by the

first commenter.

d. Lead-Based Paint Consultation

The consultation requirement for the

portion of the consolidated plan

concerning lead-based paint hazards is

to consult with State or local health or

child welfare agencies and ‘‘examine

health department data on the addresses

of housing units in which children have

been identified as lead poisoned.’’ One

city stated that the information it

receives from its health department is

related to areas or blocks in which leadpoisoning cases have been identified,

not specific ‘‘addresses,’’ due to Privacy

Act concerns about making information

available to the public.

The CHAS statute (section 105(e)(2),

42 U.S.C. 12705(e)(2)) is stated in terms

of requiring the jurisdiction to consult

with the agencies and to ‘‘examine

existing data related to lead-based paint

hazards and poisonings, including

health department data on the addresses

of housing units in which children have

been identified as lead poisoned.’’ The

statute does not pre-empt the Privacy

Act, and the approach taken in this

particular jurisdiction is reasonable. In

addition, neither the statute nor the

regulation requires the jurisdiction to

provide data regarding the addresses to

the public. The consolidated plan

section for lead-based paint hazards

under the housing needs assessment

requires the plan to estimate the number

of housing units that are occupied by

low- and moderate-income families and

that contain lead-based paint hazards.

Several low-income advocates point

out that the regulation fails to restate the

statutory language concerning

consultation for lead-based paint

hazards to examine ‘‘existing data

related to lead-based paint hazards and

poisonings,’’ although the regulation

does include the statutory language to

examine data on the addresses of

housing units in which children have

been identified as lead poisoned. The

rule has been revised to include the

missing statutory language.

e. Description of the Consultation

Process

Disability community and lowincome community advocates

recommend that the consolidated plan

require a description of the consultation

process and an identification of those

who participated in the process. Such a

description is required under the CHAS

regulations (§ 91.15, as published on

September 1, 1992). The rule has been

revised to include such a provision.

Section 91.105 Citizen Participation

(‘‘CP’’) Plan

a. General

An urban county recommends that a

section be added for urban county

programs, enabling urban counties to

complete a consortium-wide citizen

participation plan, instead of a separate

plan for each municipality. No change

is needed. An urban county is the

jurisdiction, and the regulation requires

only one citizen participation plan for

the jurisdiction.

One State commented that the

regulation is not clear regarding what is

applicable or required for State

governments. The regulation seems to

impose additional requirements for the

planning process over and above CDBG

requirements. The State believes that in

the CDBG program, the State passes

citizen participation requirements to

local governments, which actually

propose and carry out activities. It

comments that the requirements

imposed by the proposed rule are

excessive and impractical at the State

level.

Two States and two State interest

groups commented that the guidelines

indicate that States do not have to

provide a detailed citizen participation

plan for citizens, but must have such a

plan for units of general local

government. The regulations detail a

laundry list of requirements and do not

mention the fact that States are exempt

from this requirement. Clarification is

needed.

One State agency commented that it

would be difficult to implement the

regulatory provision that encourages the

participation of all citizens, including

minorities, non-English speaking

persons, and persons with disabilities.

The State action plan does not require

the State to identify the geographic areas

within the state that will receive funds

or the specific activities to be funded.

Therefore, such participation would be

required by every potentially involved

geographic area of the state and every

potentially affected population. The

agency suggested that the rule permit

States to develop citizen participation

plans that include participation of

citizens and groups representative of

potentially affected geographic areas

(i.e., rural, urban and/or suburban) or

potentially affected populations.

Two State agencies commented on the

provision requiring the jurisdiction to

provide information to the public

housing agency about housing and

community development plan activities

related to its development and

surrounding communities, so the

housing agency can make this

information available at the public

hearing required under the

Comprehensive Grant program. One

State said that the provision does not

make sense for States and should not

apply to States. Another State explained

that it does not currently have ties with

every public housing authority

throughout the State, although it is

developing these relationships.

A citizen participation process is

statutorily required for the CDBG

program and the CHAS. Under the

CDBG program, citizen participation

requirements are imposed by the statute

for both the State and the local

governments. The rule has been revised

to have a separate section on the citizen

participation plan for States, which

takes into account the unique situation

of States, eliminating the requirement

that information be furnished to the

public housing agency for its use in

developing its Comprehensive Grant

program.

One local government thought that

this section was extremely confusing; it

is not clear whether hearings and

comments pertain to the citizen

participation plan, the consolidated

plan, or both. The Department agrees

that the language needs to be more

precise. This section has been

reorganized and clarified.

Low-income advocates commented

that HUD should give clear and precise

minimum standards to jurisdictions in

terms of time periods for each step in

the process and the type of notice, in

order to avoid confusion as to whether

or not the jurisdiction is complying with

HUD’s purpose and to ensure

meaningful citizen participation.

Expressing a different point of view, one

local government commented that the

requirement for more citizen and agency

participation may complicate an already

lengthy consultative process. This local

government already has a nine month

process to include citizens and agencies

in determining the elements of the

CDBG application; adding components
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1885

could significantly slow down an

already unwieldy process. On balance,

the Department has decided not to

prescribe additional detailed minimums

for all elements, since that would

reduce the flexibility of the

jurisdictions. It is up to the jurisdictions

to adopt a detailed citizen participation

plan (with citizen input) that fits local

conditions.

The Department notes that the

statutes require more extensive citizen

participation for the proposed CHAS/

final statement/consolidated plan than

for amendments and reports, which

only require notice and an opportunity

to comment. The final rule has been

revised to distinguish the citizen

participation required for the

consolidated plan from the citizen

participation required for reports and

amendments.

One local government requested that

the rule address the citizen participation

process in a jurisdiction where separate

agencies administer homeless services

and housing services. The city would

like to be able to continue to use two

separate citizen participation processes

and to incorporate the homeless plan

into the consolidated plan. The

Department believes that two separate

processes would hinder a key premise

of the consolidated plan, i.e., to require

the jurisdiction to comprehensively

consider and address the housing and

community development needs of all

persons within the jurisdiction.

b. Applicability

This section of the regulation requires

the jurisdiction to adopt a citizen

participation plan for the consolidated

plan process before a jurisdiction’s start

of the next program year. The rule also

provides that any amendment of a

jurisdiction’s current citizen

participation plan for the CDBG

program to satisfy these requirements

must be completed before the beginning

of the program year, if it starts on or

after 180 days after the effectiveness of

the final rule.

Several low-income and disability

community advocates recommended

that the regulation must clearly provide

that the citizen participation plan must

be adopted by the jurisdiction before the

development of the proposed

consolidated plan, and the plan must

describe the jurisdiction’s specific

efforts to ensure participation of

housing consumers, including people

with mental retardation and other

disabilities and their advocates. One

individual commenter stated that the

new citizen participation plan must be

adopted as soon as possible, not after

the initial consolidated submission is

submitted.

Since the Department is eager to

implement the consolidated plan

expeditiously, the rule does not require

that the citizen participation plan be

developed, approved, and used, before

any consolidated planning process

begins. It merely requires that the

citizen participation plan be completed,

in accordance with this rule, before the

first program year under the

consolidated plan begins. In the first

year, the jurisdiction must follow the

substance of the citizen participation

plan requirements, but it does not have

to have a written citizen participation

plan that follows the specific provisions

of § 91.105 if its program year starts

within 180 days of the effective date of

the rule. In the following years, the new

written citizen participation plan will

be used in developing the consolidated

plan.

Several disability and low-income

community advocates suggested that the

regulation set forth the process for

developing and adopting the citizen

participation plan, e.g., publish the

citizen participation plan for comment,

require one or more public hearings on

the plan, require a 30 day comment

period, and publish the final plan. The

proposed rule’s provision requires only

a ‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ to comment,

not a hearing process. The Department

has concluded, after listening to the

suggestions of jurisdictions, that it

should not impose greater procedural

requirements on the development of the

citizen participation plan, although we

have made a few modifications to the

citizen participation requirements to

reflect improved notice to citizens.

Two local governments commented

that it is unclear whether the citizen

participation plan is a specific, written

document that must be submitted for

approval, or whether the jurisdiction

may merely report on its activities to

meet the requirements of the citizen

participation plan. The regulation

suggests a separate document is

required, but the guidelines are unclear.

A separate document is required;

however, the citizen plan is not required

to be submitted to HUD. The

requirement for a citizen participation

plan came from the CDBG statute.

c. Affected Citizens

Several disability and low-income

community advocates requested that the

regulation state that the plan must

‘‘provide for’’, not just ‘‘encourage’’,

participation by residents of low and

moderate income neighborhoods. They

also wanted the word ‘‘although’’

stricken from the beginning of

paragraph (a)(2) because it diminishes

the importance of the first part of the

sentence. These changes have been

made.

Several low-income community

advocates supported the regulatory

language encouraging the participation

by minorities, non-English speakers,

persons with mobility, visual, or hearing

impairments, and public housing

residents. One disability community

advocate wanted the language

broadened to include ‘‘persons with

disabilities,’’ not just those with

physical impairments. Although it may

be more difficult for a jurisdiction to

determine how to provide for

participation of persons with disabilities

other than the physical ones specified,

the Department agrees that the

obligation should relate to the whole

category of persons with disabilities.

The rule has been revised accordingly.

Several low-income community

advocates said that the regulation does

not sufficiently address the statutory

requirement that ‘‘affected citizens’’

must be given a reasonable opportunity

to examine the contents of the proposed

consolidated plan and to submit

comments. They want the regulation to

state that ‘‘extremely low and very lowincome’’ people are among those most

‘‘affected.’’ They want the regulation to

require the jurisdictions to take

additional actions to publicize/give

notice to these affected citizens, e.g.,

notice should be in the non-legal section

of major daily newspapers, in major

non-English newspapers, and in public

service announcements on TV and

radio.

The rule is written in terms of all

citizens, rather than just ‘‘affected’’

citizens. One could certainly argue that

all citizens in the jurisdiction are

affected. This comment is just another

way of saying that the citizen

participation requirements should be

stated in greater detail. That level of

detail will be provided not in this

section of the HUD rule but in the

citizen participation plan prepared by

the jurisdiction.

d. Information To Be Provided

This section of the rule requires that,

before it adopts a consolidated plan, a

jurisdiction must make available to the

public ‘‘information that includes the

amount of assistance the jurisdiction

expects to receive and the range of

activities that may be undertaken,

including the amount that will benefit

persons of low- and moderate-income

and the plans to minimize displacement

of persons and to assist any persons

displaced.’’
1886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

Fearing that jurisdictions will make

this information available the day before

a consolidated plan is adopted, lowincome advocates urged that the

regulation specify a time period for the

jurisdiction to make information

available to the public. The commenters

suggested various periods of 10 to 30

days before the consolidated plan is

prepared, and at least 30 days or 60 days

before the consolidated plan is adopted.

This requirement is derived from both

the CDBG statute and the CHAS statute.

Since the Department is not aware of

any controversy concerning the

implementation of the CDBG

requirement to furnish information, it

declines to impose a time limit in this

rule, whose purpose is to consolidate

requirements—not to impose more strict

timeframes on jurisdictions. Again, the

jurisdiction’s citizen participation plan

is the appropriate place for these

timeframes.

Local governments and local

government interest groups supported

the regulation for permitting publication

of a summary of the proposed

consolidated plan, rather than the entire

plan. Low-income and disability

community advocates indicated

disapproval of this proposal. One local

government requested that the

regulation should list precise content

requirements for the plan summary to

avoid lengthy disputes about what

content is acceptable. The Department

continues to believe that publication of

a summary of the consolidated plan is

more meaningful to stimulate general

interest in the process than publication

of the lengthy and complicated

document. However, the rule is not

being revised to specify its precise

contents.

Low-income and disability

community advocates indicated that the

entire draft consolidated plan, plan

amendments, and the performance

reports, must be made available to

citizens within a period such as two

working days free of charge. The

Department agrees that the documents

needed for public comment must be

made available without charge in a

timely fashion. This requirement is

being added to the rule.

Low-income advocates want the

consolidated plan computer software to

be made available to community-based

organizations. They suggested that one

local grassroots organization could be

chosen to act as a lead and to share the

software with other such organizations.

The software should also be made

available at no or reduced cost to local

libraries. Among the options that HUD

is considering at this point are

participating in a number of

demonstrations with city-wide low

income coalitions where HUD would

provide the software and providing

reduced cost copies of the software to

various groups.

One local government asked when the

period begins for access to records and

information relating to the jurisdiction’s

use of program assistance during the

preceding five years. The commenter

also said that the CDBG program only

requires records to be maintained for

three years and suggests the regulation

be amended to give access to records for

the preceding three years. The current

CDBG program regulation requires

records to be maintained for three years

after the date of submission of the

performance report in which the

specific activity is reported on for the

final time. The CHAS statute requires

access to records regarding assistance

received during the preceding five year

period. Blending these provisions to

cover all the programs requires use of

the five-year period.

Accordingly, the program regulations

are being amended in this rule to

require records to be retained for a

longer period than is currently required.

Since performance reports are submitted

after the program year, retention of

records for four years after the activity

is last included in a performance report

yields a five-year retention period. For

the CDBG program, the retention period

has been changed to four years after the

CDBG activity is last included in the

performance report. Since program

closeout would occur no earlier than the

end of the program year in which the

activity is initiated, retention of records

for four years after closeout yields a

five-year retention period. For programs

other than the CDBG program, the

retention period has been changed to

four years after closeout.

e. Notice

Some low-income advocates support

the requirements in the proposed

regulation for the kind of citizen

participation required, but virtually all

of the advocates believe that the

regulation fails to provide sufficient

specificity regarding ‘‘publish’’ and

‘‘notice’’ and reasonable opportunity to

comment.

Suggestions for specific elements to

be included in the rule were the

following: how notice is given; what

groups and populations must receive

notice; time period for advance notice

before issuance of the draft plan (45

days); and responses provided in draft

plan to all oral and written comments

received at or before the first public

hearing. The notice should be in the

non-legal section of major daily

newspapers, in major non-English

newspapers, and in public service

announcements on TV and radio. The

jurisdiction should maintain a mailing

list of interested individuals, nonprofit

organizations, low-income

neighborhood organizations, and other

interested parties and be required to

send written notice of the opportunity

to comment on the proposed

consolidated plan, as well as a copy of

the final plan. Copies also should be

available at public and private agencies

that provide assisted housing, health

services, and social services. In

addition, a reasonable number of copies

are to be provided without charge to

citizens and groups that request a copy.

The Department declines to add all of

these elements to the rule. However,

recognizing that citizen notice of

hearings is critical to success of citizen

participation, the Department has added

language to indicate that publishing

small print notices in the newspaper a

few days before the hearing does not

constitute adequate notice. Also, the

examples provided by commenters are

excellent examples of how to provide

notice, and they will be included in the

Guidelines issued to assist jurisdictions

in implementing the rule.

The proposed rule contained three

provisions related to accessibility of the

process to persons with disabilities: the

statement about encouraging the

participation in the citizen participation

process in paragraph (a)(2), discussed

above, the statement that

accommodations for persons with

disabilities must be made at public

hearings in paragraph (b)(5), and the

statement about accessibility of the

citizen participation plan in paragraph

(c).

Several disability community

advocates commented that section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794)

requires each jurisdiction to make the

content of the proposed plan available

to persons with disabilities in a form

that is accessible to them. Further, they

stated that it is essential that

announcements, materials, training

sessions, and hearings related to the

plan are accessible to persons with

disabilities.

Several cities asked whether the

format accessible to persons with

disabilities had to be available

regardless of demand for the format.

Two cities suggested that the regulatory

provision for the citizen participation

plan to be made available in a format

accessible to persons with disabilities

should be based upon a specific request.

One city based this suggestion on the

fact that taped or Braille version of

information had not been requested in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1887

the past 20 years. The rule has been

revised to require provision of the

materials in accessible form, upon

request.

f. Comment Period

Comments were received about the

appropriateness of the 30-day comment

period on the consolidated plan, as well

as on the 30-day comment period for

plan amendments and for performance

reports. Several local governments

believe that the 30-day comment period

for the consolidated plan is reasonable.

Several low-income advocates want the

minimum period for the jurisdiction to

receive comment from citizens on the

consolidated plan to be increased from

30 days to 60 days to give residents

more adequate opportunity to research,

discuss, and comment on the proposed

consolidated plan.

The opportunity to comment on the

consolidated plan derives from the

CHAS statute, section 107(a), which

requires that a jurisdiction provide a

reasonable opportunity to examine the

content of the proposed housing strategy

and to submit comments on the

proposed housing strategy and from the

CDBG statute, section 104(a)(2)(B),

which requires CDBG grantees to

provide a reasonable opportunity to

examine the content of the proposed

statement of CDBG activities and to

submit comments on the proposed

statement. The Department believes the

30-day period specified in the rule for

this process is appropriate, especially

given the comments from both sides of

the issue.

Thirty days was stated to be too long

and burdensome a comment period for

amendments by several local

governments. The commenters

suggested a 15-day comment period for

amendments to the plan or suggest that

the regulation not prescribe the period

and instead required a ‘‘reasonable

period.’’

One local government stated the 30

day period for receiving comments on

reports is a new requirement and is

infeasible because the report is due 90

days after the end of the program year

and the report will require information

on all the formula programs. Two other

local governments agreed that the

requirement for notification and a 30

day comment period for performance

reports is time consuming, redundant,

and should be eliminated. Others

suggested a 15-day period for the

performance report or a ‘‘reasonable

period.’’

A public comment period is required

for substantial amendments and

performance reports in accordance with

the CHAS statute, section 107(b).

Section 91.62 of the current CHAS rule

contains this same requirement. The

requirement, therefore, is not totally

new, although jurisdictions may not

have been required to submit

performance reports concerning formula

grant programs for public comment

before submitting them to HUD.

We note that not all changes in

activities constitute a ‘‘substantial

amendment’’ that will trigger this public

comment process. See the provision that

permits the jurisdiction’s citizen

participation plan to determine what

type of change requires a substantial

amendment.

The final rule has been revised to

provide that the comment period for

performance reports is 15 days, instead

of 30 days, and the deadline for

submission of the reports is preserved at

90 days after the end of the program

year.

Several low-income community

advocates also suggested that the

regulation specify a period between the

end of the comment period and the

submission of the plan so that the

jurisdiction will be able to make

changes in plan based on citizen

comments. Different timeframes were

suggested: at least 10 working days, 30

days. The final rule has been

reorganized so that the provision

requiring a minimum 30 day public

comment period also requires that the

jurisdiction must consider the

comments. The jurisdictions need to

give themselves adequate time to

consider the comments, but the

regulation does not prescribe this time

period.

g. Technical Assistance

Paragraph (b)(4) of the proposed rule

requires that the citizen participation

plan ‘‘must provide for technical

assistance to groups representative of

persons of low- and moderate-income

that request such assistance in

developing proposals for funding

assistance under any of the programs

covered by the consolidated plan, with

the level and type of assistance

determined by the jurisdiction.’’

One State and one State interest group

asked for clarification of how this

provision would apply to States. They

indicated that since some States do not

develop proposals for CDBG and HOME

programs, but instead receive requests

from local governments for funds for

what they determine to be their local

needs, the States would not be in a

position to provide this type of

technical assistance. A local government

wanted clarification regarding whether

this requirement is statutory, and

suggested eliminating it if it is not

statutorily required.

This provision comes from the CDBG

statute and has applied to the CDBG

State and Entitlement programs since

1988, so it cannot be eliminated.

However, the CDBG rule has applied the

requirement to States via the local

governments’ citizen participation plans

(see § 570.486(a)(4)). The final rule has

been revised to treat it the same way in

the separate States provision on citizen

participation.

Two states commented that the

regulation is unclear on the extent of the

technical assistance that is to be

provided. Government interest groups

and a local government expressed

support for the regulation language,

which requires the jurisdiction to

determine the level and type of

technical assistance. There is no change

to the final rule on this issue, although

more guidance is provided on it in the

Guidelines.

Two agencies from one State wanted

to know the source of funds to provide

the technical assistance and requested

that the regulation specifically permit

federal administrative funds to cover the

costs of providing technical assistance.

One low-income advocate also asked

whether funds will be available to

jurisdictions to provide this technical

assistance to them. Another State also

wanted to know the extent of any

tracking of such assistance that might be

required. Technical assistance is an

eligible administrative expense under

the CDBG and HOME programs.

One low-income advocate suggested

that technical assistance available to

groups representative of very low and

low-income people should be advertised

via mailings to all such groups in the

jurisdiction. Available technical

assistance should include written

guidance, telephone contact and one-onone meetings. Low-income and

disability community advocates want

HUD to provide funding to their

organizations to develop materials and

training for citizen groups to allow for

meaningful participation. The rule does

not prescribe the forms of technical

assistance, but the implementing

guidelines will include suggestions.

h. Public Hearings

Local government interest groups

stated that they believe that public

hearings are not the most effective way

to obtain citizen views. One city and

low-income advocate recommended

neighborhood meetings as useful in the

process. The rule follows the statute in

requiring public hearings, but is open to

other forms of involving the public.
1888 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

One local government suggested that

HUD interpret ‘‘public hearing’’ to mean

traditional public hearings, as well as,

public meetings. This would give

jurisdictions flexibility to use public

meetings and other public forums to

gather citizen comments. Formal public

hearings in local government require

city council members to be present and

for comments to be tape recorded. The

requirement for public hearing has been

in the CDBG statute for many years, and

HUD has not found it necessary to

define what this means. Public hearings

are governed by state and local law.

The question of how many hearings

are required and at what point was

raised by a number of commenters.

Several local government

representatives read the regulation to

require two public hearings during the

plan development process and believe

only one should be required. The lowincome advocates commented that the

regulation should require three

hearings, instead of two, each program

year, indicating that they believe the

CDBG statute requires three hearings.

Various timeframes for these hearings

were also suggested.

The proposed rule was based on the

requirements of the CDBG statute,

which requires (at 42 U.S.C.

5304(a)(3)((D)) that a jurisdiction have a

citizen participation plan that

Provides for public hearings to obtain

citizen views and respond to proposals and

questions at all stages of the community

development program, including at least the

development of needs, the review of

proposed activities, and review of program

performance * * *

One local government requested that

the regulation clearly say how many

hearings are required and what topics

are required to be covered. In an attempt

to give jurisdictions as much flexibility

as possible, the regulation requires a

minimum of two public hearings, since

the statutory language uses the plural

‘‘hearings,’’ to be conducted at two

different stages of the process. Under

this wording, the jurisdiction may

combine the hearing on needs for the

coming year’s planning with the hearing

on the previous year’s performance, for

example. However, a jurisdiction may

choose to hold one public hearing on

needs, a second on the draft

consolidated plan, and a third on the

draft performance report.

One advocate wanted the regulation

to require the hearing on needs to be

expanded to permit citizens the

opportunity to respond to proposals and

questions. The rule has been revised to

reflect the CDBG statutory language

requiring response to proposals and

questions.

The low-income and disability

community advocates stated that the

development of needs in the

consolidated plan must be based on

determination of housing needs made

after public hearings. Several disability

community advocates commented that

the timeframes for citizen participation

through the public hearing process do

not require citizen participation in the

earliest stages of the consolidated

planning process, when ‘‘worst case’’

housing needs can be identified. They

argued that timeframes permitted by the

regulation significantly reduce the

likelihood that meaningful housing

needs information or housing strategies

will be sought from persons with

disabilities, advocates, or service

providers as the consolidated plan is

developed. The rule does require that

the hearing on needs be conducted

before the proposed consolidated plan is

published.

One nonprofit and several lowincome advocates stated that HUD must

assure that meeting places and times are

convenient to the persons most affected

by these programs, by providing

guidance in the rule. The rule requires

the citizen participation plan to provide

that hearings be held at times and

locations convenient to potential and

actual beneficiaries.

A local government interest group

commended HUD for not prescribing

how the needs of non-English speaking

residents will be met. The rule does

require that the citizen participation

plan specify how the jurisdiction will

meet these needs.

Clarification was requested by

jurisdictions on whether flexibility is

also permitted to meet the needs of

disabled persons. Disability advocates

stated that the physical accessibility of

meeting or hearing sites should be

ensured. Since accommodation for

persons with disabilities is required by

the CDBG statute (42 U.S.C.

5304(a)(3)(D)), by section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.

794) and by the Americans with

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101–12213)

and implementing regulations, it does

not seem necessary for the rule to spell

out exactly what is required for

accommodation in this rule.

i. Comments and Complaints

Local governments and local

government interest groups believe that

the requirement to attach a summary of

public comments or views and set forth

the reasons for not accepting comments

should be eliminated because it is not

statutory, is too burdensome, and

creates additional paperwork. One low

income advocate wanted the regulation

to require detailed summaries of

comments indicating the number of

comments for each constituency type

and responding appropriately to each

comment that was not incorporated into

the final version of the consolidated

plan.

Section 107(c) of the CHAS statute, 42

U.S.C. 12707(c), requires the

jurisdiction to consider comments and

views and to attach a summary.

Although the statute does not require a

discussion of the consideration of the

views/comments, the Department

believes that such a provision

strengthens the citizen participation

process.

Low-income advocates suggested that

the regulation include a time period

from close of the comment period to

submission of the consolidated plan to

ensure that the jurisdiction has adequate

time to consider the comments. The

Department is reluctant to specify

additional time periods that must be

honored, but citizens can certainly seek

addition of this element to a local

government’s citizen participation plan.

One large city and one local

government interest group commented

that the regulation should not require

‘‘substantive responses’’ to every citizen

complaint within 15 days because it is

not practicable in its city to respond to

every comment individually within 15

days. HUD should delete the reference

to 15 days in the rule and allow local

control over public response time. The

CDBG statute and the consolidated plan

regulation specify the 15 day period,

‘‘where practicable.’’

Several low-income advocates stated

that the regulatory requirement for a

timely substantive written response to

written complaints is not sufficient to

provide resolution of the complaints.

Advocates also wanted the regulation to

set forth an appeals process to HUD on

complaints and on comments on the

consolidated plan.

The CDBG statute (section

104)(a)(3)(E)) requires a ‘‘written

answer,’’ while the CHAS statute

(section 107(d)) requires a jurisdiction

to follow HUD-established ‘‘procedures

appropriate and practicable for

providing a fair hearing and timely

resolution of citizen complaints.’’ The

rule requires each jurisdiction to specify

in its citizen participation plan the

procedures it has determined are

‘‘appropriate and practicable’’ to resolve

complaints. A system involving an

appeal to HUD would not be possible,

given the limited staff available.

One state agency commented that it is

unclear whether each commenter on the

consolidated plan is required to be sent

an individual response, separately from
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1889

the responses that must be prepared as

a part of the consolidated plan

document. If so, this would be

burdensome. The provision on

responses to complaints was not

intended to cover comments on the

consolidated plan. The rule has been

revised to have a separate paragraph for

comments and a separate paragraph for

complaints.

j. Criteria for Amendments

One state interest group commented

on behalf of a state that the citizen

participation plan is very idealistic and

will restrict states’ flexibility to amend

individual programs. The regulation

requires the citizen participation plan to

specify the criteria that the jurisdiction

will use to determine what constitutes

a ‘‘substantial change’’ which

necessitates citizen participation to

amend the consolidated plan.

k. Adoption of Citizen Participation

Plan

One state commenter believes that

HUD presents no rationale for the

provision requiring citizen input on the

citizen participation plan and it exceeds

the statute. The state is also concerned

that the need to allow for input on the

citizen participation plan will require a

much earlier initiation of actions than

may have been contemplated by many

states.

The Department believes that input by

citizens and their advocates is necessary

for a meaningful citizen participation

plan that will meet the needs of citizens

in the jurisdiction, particularly those

who are the intended beneficiaries of

programs covered by the consolidated

plan. The regulation does not require

adoption of a new citizen participation

plan each year.

l. Pending CDBG Rule on Citizen

Participation

The citizen participation

requirements in the consolidated plan

regulation incorporate the citizen

participation requirements of the CDBG

program and supersede the pending

rulemaking on citizen participation for

the CDBG Entitlement program. In that

rulemaking, a proposed rule was

published on March 28, 1990 (55 FR

11556). Publication of a final CDBG

regulation on citizen participation was

delayed primarily by a moratorium on

rulemaking.

HUD received comments on citizen

participation requirements in the

proposed CDBG program from eight

commenters. Some of the comments on

public hearings duplicated comments

made on the proposed consolidated

plan regulation and are addressed

above. Comments that apply equally to

citizen participation under the

consolidated plan have been considered

by HUD in the development of the final

consolidated plan regulation as follows.

Two commenters expressed concern

about the proposed requirements that

grantees must provide citizens an

opportunity to comment on the original

citizen participation plan and any

amendments to the plan, and must make

the plan public. The comments

expressed the view that these

requirements were duplicative and

would only serve to increase costs of

compliance with little benefit to the

objective of public participation.

The Department disagrees. Because

the plan sets forth the detailed

mechanisms for involving citizens in

the development and review of the

grantee’s CDBG program and

consolidated plan, it must certainly be

made public. But it is also important

that the citizens, who will be so much

affected by the approaches selected by

the grantee for involving them, be given

the opportunity to comment on the

development and amendment of that

plan. Although this will be more costly

than simply making the plan public, it

is largely a one-time added expense and

is fully justified in light of the

importance placed on meaningful

involvement of citizens in the

development and review of local CDBG

programs and the consolidated plan.

One of the commenting citizen

organizations recommended that the

rule require that hearings be held each

time a final statement is proposed to be

amended and that language be added to

encourage the use of hearings for the

purpose of enabling citizens to

participate in project design and

implementation. Neither of the

suggestions was adopted. The

Department believes that to require

hearings to discuss amendments would

be very costly, since a grantee could be

expected to have several amendments

during a program year. It is also highly

questionable that holding a hearing to

discuss an amendment would be more

effective in getting citizen views than

the current requirement of providing

citizens the opportunity to comment in

writing. It is reasonable to assume that

many citizens would be willing to

submit comments in writing about a

proposal but would not be willing or

able to attend a hearing to register those

comments.

In a related matter, another

commenter recommended the removal

of the requirement that the hearings be

held at different times during the year.

This requirement is statutory.

A commenter recommended that the

requirement that the grantee provide

‘‘reasonable’’ notice of public hearings

be replaced with the need for providing

‘‘adequate’’ notice, noting that the

statute had used the word ‘‘adequate’’

for this purpose. The Department

believes that there is little difference

between the meaning of the two words

in this application. Accordingly, the

final rule uses the word contained in the

statute. The commenter also

recommended that the rule set a

standard for ‘‘adequate notice,’’

suggesting as a model what the

Department of Treasury has established

for small-issue private purpose

industrial revenue bonds. The final rule

does not contain such a model, since

HUD believes that each grantee should

be given the flexibility to meet the

notice requirement in its own way,

describing in its plan how it will

provide adequate notice.

One commenter questioned the

inclusion of the requirement that

grantees provide ‘‘timely notice of local

meetings’’ (other than for public

hearings) in addition to the requirement

that they provide ‘‘reasonable and

timely access to local meetings,

information, and records * * * ’’. The

commenter noted that the requirement

to provide timely notice went beyond

the provision in the statute, and

appeared to require formal legal notices

in daily newspapers. Believing this to be

unnecessary and costly, the commenter

suggested that the regulation simply

retain the statutory language. This

suggestion is adopted in the final rule.

A large city expressed concern about

the need for targeting citizen

participation to low- and moderateincome persons residing in certain

areas. This requirement is statutory and

cannot be removed from the rule. This

commenter also objected to the

requirement that the citizen

participation plan contain information

on the types and levels of assistance to

be provided to persons who may be

displaced by CDBG-assisted activities. It

was noted that this information is

already required to be made public and

the need to duplicate it in another

document would be costly. The

regulations do not duplicate

requirements concerning plans for

displacement. Instead, the citizen

participation requirements in the

proposed CDBG regulation and in the

consolidated plan regulation combine

all citizen participation requirements,

including the requirement the plan for

displacement, into a single citizen

participation plan.

One of the citizen organizations

suggested that grantees be required to
1890 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

maintain all of the key CDBG materials

together in several locations throughout

the community to make it easier for

citizens to involve themselves in the

program. HUD is unwilling to require

this of all grantees, but notes that local

citizen groups having particular

problems in this regard may want to

press their grantee to do this on a

voluntary basis.

One commenter recommended that

grantees be required to identify the

amount of ‘‘unexpended’’ funds

allocated in previous years at the time

it provides information to citizens about

the amount of CDBG funds available in

the coming year. The expressed

objectives of this suggestion were that it

would help citizens identify problem

areas (presumably with performance)

and would highlight that certain needs

will not have to be addressed in the

coming year’s program because of

earlier allocation decisions.

The Department does not believe that

such a change would be appropriate,

since the rule already requires sufficient

disclosure of performance. (The rule

requires that performance be covered at

a public hearing and that the grantee’s

performance report be subjected to

public review and comment.)

Section 91.205 Housing and homeless

needs assessment

a. Categories of Persons Affected

Numerous low-income and disability

community advocates commented that

the proposed rule does not require the

level of detail on subpopulations that

was required in the CHAS Table 1C.

They argue that this information is

essential to illustrate the needs of

special populations. A disability group

advocate indicates that the rule fails to

create a comprehensive, inclusive and

detailed needs analysis for programs

that address the needs of persons living

with HIV/AIDS. The commenter states

that all jurisdictions are likely to be

affected by the HIV epidemic and

should have a needs assessment for

residents in their areas who are living

with HIV/AIDS, even if they are not

seeking funds under the HOPWA

program.

The low-income advocates also note

that the proposed rule does not require

that the needs of single, non-elderly or

households of nonrelated individuals be

identified. Also missing is the

requirement to identify needs of

nonhomeless people with disabilities,

especially those with AIDS.

The Department has revised the rule

to specify that the needs must be

estimated for the number and type of

families by income groups and tenure.

The requirement now includes specific

reference to single persons. Nonelderly

persons presumably fall into the general

categories of persons whose needs are

identified. Households of nonrelated

individuals are covered by the HUD

definitions.

Nonhomeless people with special

needs are now the subject of a separate

paragraph (d) in § 91.205. This category

covers elderly, frail elderly, persons

with disabilities (mental, physical

developmental), persons with alcohol or

other drug addiction, persons with HIV/

AIDS and their families, and any other

categories the jurisdiction may specify.

We note that with regard to

identification of special needs

populations, the use of HOME tenantbased rental assistance to be used

exclusively for assistance to one

subpopulation of the disabled will only

be permitted if the grantee can

demonstrate that (1) the need has been

documented in its consolidated plan,

and (2) the reason for their preferential

treatment is to narrow the gap in

available benefits and services to the

group. Therefore, this element is

essential to the consolidated plan.

The Department declines to require

all the information contained in CHAS

Table 1C, because that would be

contrary to our efforts to avoid

unnecessary requirements and detailed

tables. However, we have attempted to

assure that the categories of special need

to be served by the Department’s

programs are adequately addressed in

the assessment of need.

Low-income advocates also stated that

an indicator of need which should be

included is analysis of the public

housing and Section 8 waiting lists. We

are including this suggestion in the

implementing Guidelines.

Several public interest groups and

local government commenters

questioned the requirement to collect

data on ‘‘extremely low-income’’

families, indicating that this information

was not statutorily required, not

required by the four grant programs

included in the proposed rule for

targeting program assistance, and not

required in the past. As described above

in the discussion of definitions, the term

‘‘extremely low-income’’ has been

preserved in the final rule.

b. Disproportionate Need

Two local governments disagreed

with the methodology on

disproportionate need, indicating that it

should be weighted for population size.

Several low-income advocacy

commenters thought the approach was

excellent. The Department is preserving

the language on calculation of

disproportionate need from the

proposed rule.

c. Lead-Based Paint Hazards

Several local government commenters

requested that they not be required to

provide data on lead-based paint

hazards, since it was not easily

available. One local government

commenter suggested a rough analysis

between Census data on pre-1970

housing and low-income occupancy

data as a way to yield a pool of units

likely to have some of lead-based paint.

The requirement to provide this

information is statutory. The

commenter’s suggestion for a method to

estimate the scope of hazard is not

unreasonable. However, the

consultation section (§ 91.100) does

require consultation with local health

and child welfare agencies and

examination of health department data

on this subject in the preparation of the

consolidated plan.

d. Homeless

Several low-income advocates and

disability community advocates

complained about the deletion of the

CHAS rule’s more detailed homeless

needs assessment. Commenters

indicated that the rule should spell out

in detail the data required to be

submitted. The proposed rule requires

that a homeless needs table be included

in the plan that is prescribed by HUD.

This follows the statutory language. The

final rule preserves this provision intact.

e. Racial Impact

A number of low-income advocates

stated that racial impact should be

addressed in the needs assessment. In

fact, several groups advocated that if

this rule were implemented without the

anticipated Fair Housing Plan rule it

should contain consideration of racial

impact in every element of the

consolidated plan.

The Department has decided to deal

with the more comprehensive issue of a

Fair Housing Plan in a separate

proposed rule, which is expected to be

published shortly. To assure that some

minimal requirements for compliance

with the statutorily required

certification that a jurisdiction is

affirmatively furthering fair housing,

this rule includes, in the certification

section, the requirement that an analysis

of impediments be done and that the

steps to address the impediments be

described, mirroring the language added

to the CDBG regulations on the same

subject. In addition, the performance

report now includes for all programs the

element of data on race and ethnicity of

beneficiaries.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1891

Section 91.210 Housing Market

Analysis

a. General Characteristics

A few low-income advocates

suggested that a description of housing

stock be related to income, race and

neighborhoods and ranked as housing

needs are. The language of the rule does

require the description to relate to

income, race, and neighborhoods. Since

this section does not deal with needs,

but with the available stock, ranking

would be inappropriate.

There were several comments on

redundancy between what must be

reported in the market analysis section

and what must be reported in the

strategy, especially on coordination,

institutional structure and barriers to

affordable housing. The final rule has

been revised by consolidating the

provisions on coordination and

institutional structure with the

provisions on the same subject in the

strategy section. However, the provision

on barriers to affordable housing is seen

as necessary to an analysis of the

housing market and have been retained

in this section.

Two commenters suggested that a

description of the housing market

should include information on vacancy

rates and the availability of credit. Such

language is not being added to the rule,

but it will be included in the

implementing Guidelines.

Local definitions of areas of lowincome and minority concentrations

may be inconsistent with the fair

housing rule once it is published, local

government commenters suggested.

They requested the ability to choose

either local or HUD’s definitions. This

rule will permit local definitions.

However, when the Fair Housing Plan

rule is published as a final rule, it will

prescribe use of its definitions for this

purpose.

One low-income advocacy commenter

suggested that a city should be required

to assess whether it has sufficient sites

to meet the low-income housing needs

in its community. The consolidated

plan rule is not being expanded to

require this assessment in this section.

However, the Department does plan to

address the question of site selection in

a later proposed rule.

b. Public and Assisted Housing

Eight disability community advocates

indicated that jurisdictions must assess

the loss of public housing units which

will occur because of the

implementation of Title VI of Housing

and Community Development Act of

1992. They recommended that an

analysis of these issues be required by

reviewing the PHA’s allocation plan and

identifying the number of units lost to

persons with disabilities. The provision

to which the commenters refer is the

provision that permits public housing

and Section 8 housing projects to be

designated for only elderly families,

only disabled families, or for either. The

Department is considering how to

encourage balancing the resources

available for these different groups. If

special funding is announced to further

this end, applicants will need to supply

such information.

c. Barriers to Affordable Housing

Several local government and

government interest group commenters

objected to the provision requiring cities

to identify public policies that affect the

cost or incentive to develop affordable

housing. They should not be required to

do a self-analysis but only relate

criticisms they have received. Cities

suggested that they be required to list

Federal policies that create barriers.

This element is statutorily required,

so it has not been eliminated. The

Department believes that listing of

Federal policies in this part of the local

plan is not appropriate. However, HUD

will work with localities to assess the

impact of HUD policies separately.

Section 91.215 Strategies, Priority

Needs, and Objectives

a. General

The majority of low-income and

disability community advocates

recommended inclusion of the link

between needs and priorities, with the

worst case needs being given the highest

priority. Several commenters wanted to

restore the comparative analysis

required by the CHAS at 91.19(b)(1),

matching housing inventory with

severity of needs and types of housing

problems of each priority category.

Some recommended that the rule

require that a jurisdiction commit to

providing a ‘‘fair share’’ of its resources

to meet the ‘‘worst case’’ needs.

The Department agrees with the lowincome and disability community

advocates that the strategy must explain

how the priorities have been established

and how the strategic plan addresses the

needs identified in the needs

assessment. The rule has been

strengthened to require a comparative

analysis of the severity of housing

problems and needs of extremely lowincome, low-income, and moderateincome renters and owners. The

rationale for establishing the priorities

and determining the relative priorities

should flow logically from this analysis.

The title of the section has been revised

to ‘‘Strategic Plan’’ to emphasize the

cohesive nature of this section of the

document.

The Department declines, however,

the suggestion to adopt a ‘‘fair share’’

approach. The Department’s goal for

this rule is to provide the framework for

communities to have meaningful plans,

serving low-income families. The

Department does not want to substitute

its judgment for locally developed plans

and priorities framed through a strong

citizen participation process.

However, by establishing a stronger

rationale for relating priorities to needs,

the Department hopes to discourage

such situations as the following: A

major city identified a large need for

housing by low-income groups and

homeless persons and proposed actions

to address these needs. Then the city

council overturned these proposals and

built a high profile ‘‘trophy’’ project

which completely ignored those needs.

Several commenters were critical

about the level of detail which seems to

be required about specific objectives at

91.215(a)(2). This section seems to

require localities to quantify and

geographically locate Federal grant

budget resources for a 3 to 5 year period

in the consolidated plan. They claimed

this level of specificity is only practical

for an annual plan. There was a fear that

a listing of projects would preclude the

funding of other worthwhile projects

not on the list.

The burden of the analysis has been

decreased by focusing the discussion of

the basis for assigning the relative

priority given to priority needs by

category of priority needs instead of by

each priority need. In addition, the

information is to be provided for a

specific period of time, which is

determined by the jurisdiction.

Some low-income and disability

advocacy groups have argued that

priority needs of non-homeless persons

with disabilities should be added. The

Department agrees. A separate section

on this group has been added.

b. Affordable Housing

Several low-income advocacy

commenters wanted the Department to

require jurisdictions to address the

proposed availability of affordable

housing for each income group,

especially extremely low-income, very

low-income and low-income (as these

terms were used in the proposed rule),

and to define affordable housing as

housing for which a low-income family

pays less than 30 percent of income.

The Department agrees, and the rule has

been revised accordingly to more

closely approximate what was in the

CHAS. It requires specific housing
1892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

objectives that identify the number of

extremely low-, low-, and moderateincome families (using the revised

terminology) to whom the jurisdiction

will provide affordable housing.

c. Community Development

Several low-income advocates

recommended that needs of extremely

low-, very low- and low-income people

be expressly addressed in the CD plan.

One commenter suggested that this

discussion of needs belongs in § 91.205

with the discussion of housing and

homeless needs. Since there is a

statutory requirement for a discussion of

priority nonhousing community

development needs, the Department is

keeping the CD plan as a part of the

strategy, and not part of the housing and

homeless needs description. The

Department agrees that the needs of

these income groups need to be

discussed in this plan, and language

referring to the statutory goal of serving

these income groups has been added to

the paragraph on the CD plan.

In addition, language has been added

indicating that jurisdictions may elect to

develop a neighborhood revitalization

strategy that includes the economic

empowerment of area residents. HUD is

willing to provide greater flexibility in

program rules governing the use of

CDBG funds for jurisdictions that

develop such a strategy, in accordance

with rule changes being made in

another pending rulemaking. Approval

of the consolidated plan does not imply

approval of a neighborhood

revitalization strategy proposal. A

jurisdiction’s neighborhood

revitalization strategy must provide that

the area selected is primarily residential

and contains a percentage of lowincome and moderate-income residents

that is no less than 51 percent. In

addition, the jurisdiction should

consider the following:

(1) Developing the strategy in

consultation with the area’s

stakeholders, including residents,

owners/operators of businesses and

financial institutions, non-profit

organizations, and community groups

that are in or serve the area(s);

(2) Including an assessment of the

economic situation in the area and

examination of economic development

improvement opportunities and

problems;

(3) Developing a realistic

development strategy and

implementation plan to promote the

area’s economic progress;

(4) Focusing on activities to create

meaningful jobs for the unemployed and

low-income people in the area as well

as activities to promote the substantial

revitalization of the area(s); and

(5) Identifying the results expected to

be achieved, expressing them in terms

that are readily measurable.

With respect to the proposed rule,

local governments commented that the

information required in the table

prescribed by HUD to describe the

jurisdiction’s priority nonhousing

community development needs eligible

for assistance in dollar amounts is not

very useful, only raises expectations

concerning infrastructure needs that

cannot be met, and is very difficult to

cost out. Low-income advocates

commented that there is too little

information in this section compared to

the housing section.

It is clear that Congress wanted data

that could be aggregated nationally. The

key to the table is ‘‘priority needs’’ and

those covered in the table are to be those

activities that are eligible for CDBG

assistance. All needs do not have to be

covered. Further, it is not difficult to

estimate the dollar amounts when linear

or square feet for facilities are known

and the average cost per that unit of

measure is known. The guidelines will

be clarified on this point.

d. Barriers to Affordable Housing

One commenter requested that the

rule state that the plan cannot be

rejected for the content of its regulatory

barrier assessment. One commenter

admonished HUD to put stronger teeth

in the plan to make cities remove

barriers. The CHAS statute does not

permit HUD to reject a consolidated

plan on the basis of the jurisdiction’s

inaction to remove identified barriers.

The Department will comply with that

requirement but sees no need to add a

provision to the rule on the subject.

Another public interest group wanted

jurisdictions to explain the purpose of

the policy perceived as a barrier and

offer alternative options. The

Department declines to make this a

more burdensome requirement.

e. Anti-Poverty Strategy

Several public interest group and city

commenters were critical of this

paragraph, indicating that it was

difficult to measure how HUD programs

directly reduced the number of families

with incomes below the poverty line. Of

primary concern was describing their

actions in terms of ‘‘factors over which

the jurisdiction has control,’’ language

from the statute. They recommended

that the requirement be restated for

programs discussed in the housing

component of the consolidated plan that

the city directed to poverty families.

The rule has been revised accordingly.

Section 91.220 Action Plan

a. Linkage

The low-income and disability

community advocates were critical of

what they viewed as inadequate linkage

in the action plan between the needs of

the extremely low-income families and

those in the worst housing conditions

and the proposed activities to be

undertaken by the jurisdiction under the

draft language of this section.

In response to these concerns, the rule

has been revised to require a clearer

statement of priority needs and local

objectives covered in the strategic plan,

including the number and type of

families to be benefitted from the

activities proposed for the year, with a

required a target date for completion of

each activity. We also have required

information on location of projects, to

allow citizens to determine the degree to

which they are affected.

b. Resources

With regard to describing resources,

several commenters insisted that only

those resources under the control of the

jurisdiction should be listed. There was

resistance to including private and

nonfederal resources. The CHAS statute

requires private and nonfederal

resources that are reasonably expected

to be available to be identified. The

CHAS statute also requires the extent of

leverage of Federal resources to be

discussed. However, all discussion of

resources has been moved from the

strategic plan section of the rule to the

action plan section, in response to

commenters suggestions.

c. CDBG Float-Funded Activities

The CDBG ‘‘miscellaneous

amendments’’ rule included provisions

governing float-funded activities that are

perceived as providing some risk to the

CDBG program. A ‘‘float-funded

activity’’ is an activity that uses

undisbursed funds in the line of credit

or program account that have been

previously budgeted in an action plan

(formerly, the CDBG final statement) for

one or more activities that do not need

the funds immediately.

Ten comments were received with

respect to these requirements.

Responses to these comments and the

specific requirements for treatment of

CDBG float-funded activities will be

published in the final miscellaneous

amendments rule. However, for

purposes of this rule, the Department

notes that there are two primary risks to

the CDBG program inherent in the float

funding process. First, the float-funded

activity will not generate sufficient

program income in a manner to allow
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1893

for timely undertaking of previously

budgeted activities. Second, in

undertaking a float-funded activity that

exceeds a certain size or duration,

grantees are apparently relying on

additional CDBG funds being received

in future years to enable them to

continue funding previously budgeted

activities until the float-funded activity

generates program income.

The paragraph of the action plan

dealing with CDBG program-specific

requirements now deals with floatfunded activities, requiring a

jurisdiction to show the stream of

income from repayment of float-funded

activities. This provision is designed to

address: (1) the problems identified by

the Department’s Inspector General in

managing such activities and (2) the

need for citizens to have sufficient

information for them to know the extent

to which they are likely to be affected

by these activities, particularly the

consequences of their default, so that

they may have an opportunity to object

to such a use of the funds.

The action plan section also requires

that jurisdictions receiving CDBG

entitlement funds may generally budget

no more than 10 percent of the total

available CDBG funds described for the

contingency of cost overruns. The

Department has had a longstanding

requirement that the amount so

budgeted must be reasonable in relation

to the grant. This is based largely on the

statutory requirement under section

104(a) of the HCD Act that, as a

prerequisite to receive its annual grant,

a community must submit a statement

describing how it intends to use the

funds. When the grantee’s statement

contains a set-aside of funds for

contingencies in an amount that goes

beyond the amount that reasonably may

be expected to be needed for cost

overruns of activities specifically

identified in the statement, the net effect

is that the grantee is simply deferring

making a decision as to the use of the

funds. The Department believes that this

is not allowable under the statute. The

Department provided guidance in the

form of a notice (dated September 18,

1992) that it would not question the

‘‘reasonableness’’ of a set-aside of up to

10 percent of the amount of CDBG funds

described in the final statement (now

part of the action plan) for cost

overruns. The regulatory language

contained in this rule now reflects this

threshold. This would not, however,

prohibit a jurisdiction from setting an

amount higher than 10 percent if the

jurisdiction has data available, drawing

on its prior experience, to show that

actual cost overruns are likely to require

a higher contingency amount.

d. Public Housing

A provision has been added to the

housing market analysis section, to the

institutional structure paragraph of the

strategic plan section, and, most

importantly, to the ‘‘other actions’’

paragraph of the action plan section, to

require a jurisdiction to state any

actions it is taking to assist a public

housing agency that has been designated

as ‘‘troubled’’ by HUD to overcome its

problems.

Section 91.225 Certifications

One commenter pointed out that the

paragraph on consultation ‘‘by States’’ is

inapplicable to local governments, who

are covered by this provision. Another

commenter recommended that the

certification currently found in the

CDBG program that a jurisdiction’s

notification, inspection, testing and

abatement procedures concerning leadbased paint will comply with the

provisions of § 570.608 should be

included here. We agree with both of

these comments, and the rule has been

revised accordingly.

One low-income advocate suggested

that jurisdictions should be required to

certify, in connection with the CDBG

program, that they have satisfied their

obligations under the regulation

interpreting section 109 of the Housing

and Community Development Act of

1974 (42 U.S.C. 5309), which is found

at 24 CFR 570.602. It requires a

jurisdiction that has discriminated in

the administration of the CDBG program

or activity, or where there is sufficient

evidence to conclude that there was

discrimination, on the basis of race,

color, national origin, or sex, to take

remedial affirmative action to overcome

the effects of the discrimination.

There are two provisions of the

certifications section that have a bearing

on anti-discrimination laws. The first

mirrors the current requirements for the

CDBG program to require specific

certification of compliance with two

civil rights laws: Title VI of the 1964 Act

and the Fair Housing Act. Although the

Department agrees that section 109 is

applicable to the CDBG program, it is

encompassed within the second

certification, which requires

certification that the jurisdiction/State

will comply with all applicable laws.

We note that the underlying CDBG

regulation requiring compliance with

section 109 remains in effect.

Section 91.235 Abbreviated Plan

One State pointed out that paragraph

(a) appears to make use of the

abbreviated plan permissive, but

paragraph (b)(1) appears to make it

required—if a jurisdiction is permitted

to use it. The commenter also

complained about the lack of any

requirement for the jurisdiction to

consult with the State.

The Department agrees that the

provision needs clarification, so it is

now clear that a jurisdiction eligible to

submit an abbreviated plan instead of a

full consolidated plan may do so, but is

not required to do so. Consultation with

the State has been added.

Section 91.305 Housing and Homeless

Needs Analysis

Two States complained that the

requirement for a State seeking HOPWA

funding to collect data about the size

and characteristics of the population

with HIV/AIDS and their families was

too burdensome and costly for States.

The language for this provision and its

local government counterpart have been

revised to require estimation, ‘‘to the

extent practicable,’’ of the number of

persons in various categories of special

need, including persons with HIV/AIDS

and their families.

Section 91.310 Housing Market

Analysis

A few low-income advocates

recommended requiring States to

describe substate markets, including

those that have higher poverty areas.

The rule requires analysis of the State’s

‘‘housing markets.’’ This implies that

there is more than one housing market

within the State.

One State commented that paragraphs

(b) (Low income tax credit use), (e)

(Institutional structure), and (f)

(Governmental coordination) relate not

to market analysis but to strategy. It

recommended moving them to § 91.315.

The Department agrees and has revised

the rule accordingly.

Several low-income advocates

recommended that the paragraph on

barriers to affordable housing should

require that all jurisdictions do their

‘‘fair share’’ to provide housing

opportunities to low-income persons.

They also stated that States should look

at cross-jurisdictional barriers. The

Department is constrained by the

statutory limit that prevents disapproval

of a plan that does not provide for

removal of barriers to affordable

housing. Therefore, it cannot require

such a ‘‘fair share’’ proposal. Analysis of

cross-jurisdictional barriers would be

beneficial, but the Department does not

want to add to the burden of

requirements imposed by this rule.
1894 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

Section 91.315 Strategy, Priority

Needs, and Objectives

Two States stated that the

requirement for a statement of the

reasons for the State’s choice of priority

needs is too detailed a requirement for

States, since they respond to priorities

established by localities and to their

requests for funding. Low-income

advocates, on the other hand, argued

that States should be required to

describe the basis for assigning the

relative priority to a category of needs

since the CHAS statute requires it. The

language of this provision has been

revised to refer to each category of

priority needs since that is the most

flexibility the Department can give to

States under the statute.

The priority needs table that the rule

requires States to complete was

criticized as being too detailed. The

table is less detailed than the table that

was required for the State CHAS.

However, HUD recognizes that the

States have less control over fulfillment

of this section than do local

jurisdictions.

Several States objected to the

requirement that the States include a

target date for completion of specific

objectives. The final rule indicates that

the State must identify the proposed

accomplishments that the State hopes to

achieve in quantitative terms, or in

other measurable terms as identified

and defined by the State.

A number of States objected to the

requirement that the State furnish a

projection of its resource allocation

geographically within the State, since

often the funds are awarded on the basis

of competitive selection rather than on

some geographic distribution plan. The

rule has been revised to reflect that a

State must describe how the State’s

method of distribution contributes to its

general priorities for allocating

investment geographically within the

State.

Three commenters recommended that

the only non-Federal funds that be

included in the resource description be

those that are ‘‘available for use in

conjunction with Federal funds to

address needs identified.’’ We decline to

make this change, since the CHAS

statute does not so limit the language.

Section 91.325 Certifications

One commenter pointed out that the

certification concerning excessive force

was not applicable to States. That

provision has been modified to clarify

that the States must require the

localities to make this certification.

Sections 91.400–91.435 Consortia

Several local governments

complained that the proposed rule was

confusing about which units of general

local government are directed to

participate in the development of a

consolidated plan of the consortium as

well as submit their own consolidated

plan to cover all programs other than

HOME. They suggested that § 91.400

should be revised to clarify that units of

local government that participate in a

consortium must participate in

submission of a consolidated plan for

the consortium, prepared in accordance

with subpart E, as well as submitting for

their own jurisdiction the following

components of subpart C: § 91.215(e)

(CD plan), § 91.220 (Action Plan) and

§ 91.225 (Certifications). The

preparation and submission of a

separate housing and homeless needs

assessment (§ 91.205), housing market

analysis (§ 91.210) and strategies,

priority needs and objectives (§ 91.215)

for the entitlement jurisdictions should

be optional not a requirement. We agree,

and the rule has been modified

accordingly.

The majority of the commenters on

this issue raised the problems presented

by the same program year for all

consortium members; suggesting this

will cause consortia to break up. One

suggested solution was to eliminate the

requirement. Instead the consortium

would develop its housing and

homeless needs, housing market

analysis and strategy on a planning year

that coincides with the program year of

the earliest entitlement jurisdiction in

the consortium. Individual action plans

would be submitted on individual

entitlement members’ program year

cycle. Individual CD plans would be

submitted at the same time as the

strategic plan or with the individual

entitlement submissions. The lead

agency’s action plan and program year

would control the timing of the HOME

program year. The rule has not been

changed; however, we will develop

waiver policies to handle this issue with

consortia.

Local governments urged that

§§ 91.105 and 91.430 be clarified to

explain what citizen participation

requirements apply to entitlement

jurisdictions that are part of a

consortium. Such clarification is now

provided in § 91.401.

Section 91.500 HUD Approval Action

Low-income advocacy groups argued

that the standards for review of the

consolidated plan do not provide

adequate guidance to participating

jurisdictions, citizens, and HUD field

offices about what would constitute an

acceptable plan. They suggest that a

consolidated plan should be approved

by HUD only if it ‘‘demonstrates

integrity when read as a whole.’’ They

suggest that the needs assessment,

priority assignments, and action plan

must be sound and consistent with each

other and with the purposes of the

statute. For example, they state that a

housing strategy that failed to seriously

address ‘‘worst case’’ needs would lack

the logical link between needs and

action required by section 105(b)(8) of

the CHAS statute.

We agree that the current regulations

provide few guidelines on the standards

for approval. We have modified the

proposed regulations to make them

more similar to the existing CHAS rule.

While we agree with the desirability of

internal consistency and require a

certification that housing activities

undertaken under CDBG, HOME, ESG,

and HOPWA funds are consistent with

the strategic plan, we feel that the

provision recommended by the

advocacy groups is needlessly directive.

Section 91.505 Amendments to

Consolidated Plan

Several government interest groups,

citing HUD’s proposed CDBG rule

published on August 10, 1994, suggest

that jurisdiction be allowed to notify

HUD after adoption of amendments to

the consolidated plan. The majority of

the commenters were concerned that the

specificity of the action plan will trigger

a number of amendments that will need

to undergo citizen participation and

submission to the Department. The

preference was to list major activities

under which projects could fall without

creating the need for amendments. One

community suggested if the jurisdiction

deemed a change consistent with its

need section it could be done without

citizen participation or HUD review. An

alternate suggestion was to consider an

increase or decrease in the original

allocation mix over 35 percent as a

substantial change.

Jurisdictions are free to determine and

describe in the citizen participation

plan what constitutes a ‘‘substantial

amendment,’’ upon which public

comment is required. The suggestions

offered by these commenters may be

good options for defining when a

change requires a ‘‘substantial

amendment.’’

Section 91.510 Consistency

Determinations

One commenter suggested that HUD

clarify the meaning of this section by

stating that it only applies to sources of

funds that are not applied for through
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1895

the consolidated plan; for example, the

HOPE Program and Section 811. This

section has been revised to cover

competitive programs only. In addition,

because the CHAS statute requires this

statement of consistency for the formula

grant programs as well, the certifications

have been changed to require

consistency with the strategic plan.

Section 91.520 Performance Reports

One commenter objected to reporting

on the results of on-site inspections of

affordable rental housing assisted with

HOME funds, citing it as a new

requirement. This is a statutory

requirement at section 226(b) of the

NAHA (42 U.S.C. 12756) and is

contained at § 92.504(e)(1) of the HOME

regulation. That rule requires annual onsite inspections of projects of 25 units

or more, requiring every other year

inspections of projects of fewer than 25

units.

Two commenters stated that the 90-

day period provided after the program

year for submission of the performance

report is inadequate time, especially for

large cities, given the lack of

information about the format of the

report and the computer software that

HUD says it will make available for this

purpose. The 30-day comment period

on the performance report increases the

difficulty of making the 90-day

deadline.

As discussed above in the citizen

participation section, the comment

period on reports has been shortened to

15 days. Therefore, the final rule retains

the 90 day deadline for performance

reports. HUD will facilitate the

provision of information needed by the

jurisdictions to submit the reports.

Several local governments

complained about the requirement to

report on the degree to which the CDBG

program was used to benefit extremely

low-income persons. The reasons stated

for eliminating the requirement are that

it is not required by statute, the program

is not targeted to that specific group,

and it is burdensome. A low-income

community advocate found the language

of the provision inadequate in that it

was not strong enough in emphasizing

the requirement of the CDBG statute that

the program benefit low-income and

moderate-income persons.

In fact, both the CDBG and HOME

programs have specific requirements

with regard to income targeting.

Previous reporting instructions (if not

regulations) have required information

about benefits to extremely low-income

persons for activities where income

information and family data are

required to justify the activity. In these

cases, the information is readily

available, and therefore this reporting is

not considered to be a burdensome

requirement.

Sections 570.487, 570.601 and 570.904

Fair Housing Certifications

One commenter stated that there was

no justification for imposing new CDBG

fair housing requirements. The

commenter argued that the changes to

these sections provide minimal

requirements for compliance with the

certification that a jurisdiction will

affirmatively further fair housing. The

rule now states requirements rather than

performance standards for affirmatively

furthering fair housing. The

requirements include conducting an

analysis of impediments, taking actions

to address the impediments, and

maintaining records reflecting both. A

jurisdiction need not do an analysis of

impediments every year, but is expected

to have conducted its first analysis of

impediments no later than 12 months

following February 6, 1995.

Subpart G Insular Areas

In the proposed rule, there was a

heading reserved for a separate subpart

to specify the consolidated plan

requirements for insular areas. There

were no public comments received on

this topic. The Department has decided

to handle the few jurisdictions that are

insular areas individually, through

administrative guidance. Therefore, this

rule contains no subpart G.

Findings and Certifications

Regulatory Review

This rule was reviewed by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review. Any changes

made to the rule as a result of that

review are clearly identified in the

docket file, which is available for public

inspection in the office of the

Department’s Rules Docket Clerk, room

10276, 451 Seventh St., SW.,

Washington, DC.

Impact on the Environment

A Finding of No Significant Impact

with respect to the environment has

been made in accordance with HUD

regulations at 24 CFR part 50 that

implement section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332. The Finding of No

Significant Impact is available for public

inspection and copying during regular

business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)

in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk,

room 10276, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20410–0500.

Federalism Impact

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under section 6(a) of

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies contained

in this rule do not have significant

impact on States or their political

subdivisions since the requirements of

the rule are limited to requirements

imposed by the statutes being

implemented. The final rule reflects

revisions to decrease the impact on

States, in particular. Duplication of

effort by State and local governments is

being avoided by focusing the efforts of

the States on the CDBG nonentitlement

areas within their borders.

Impact on the Family

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under Executive

Order 12606, The Family, has

determined that this rule does not have

potential for significant impact on

family formation, maintenance, and

general well-being, and, thus is not

subject to review under the Order. The

rule merely carries out the mandate of

federal statutes with respect to planning

documents for housing and community

development programs.

Impact on Small Entities

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), has reviewed this rule before

publication and by approving it certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, because it does not place major

burdens on jurisdictions.

Regulatory Agenda

This rule was listed as sequence

number 1723 under the Office of the

Secretary in the Department’s

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

published on November 14, 1994 (59 FR

57632, 57641), under Executive Order

12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility

Act.

Catalog

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance numbers for the programs

affected by this rule are 14.218, 14.231.

14.239, and 14.241.

List of Subjects

24 CFR Part 91

Grant programs—Indians,

Homeownership, Low and moderate

income housing, Public housing.

24 CFR Part 92

Grant programs—housing and

community development, Manufactured

homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and

record keeping requirements.
1896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

24 CFR Part 570

Administrative practice and

procedure, Grant programs—housing

and community development, American

Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands,

Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto

Rico, Virgin Islands.

24 CFR Part 574

Community facilities, Disabled,

Emergency shelter, Grant programs—

health programs, Grant programs—

housing and community development,

Grant programs—social programs, HIV/

AIDS, Homeless, Housing, Low and

moderate income housing, Nonprofit

organizations, Rent subsidies, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Technical assistance.

24 CFR Part 576

Community facilities, Emergency

shelter grants, Grant programs—housing

and community development, Grant

programs—social programs, Homeless,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

24 CFR Part 968

Grant programs—housing and

community development, Loan

programs—housing and community

development, Public housing, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, parts 91, 92, 570, 574,

576, and 968 of title 24 of the Code of

Federal Regulations are amended as

follows:

1. Part 91 is revised to read as follows:

PART 91—CONSOLIDATED

SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMS

Subpart A—General

Sec.

91.1 Purpose.

91.2 Applicability.

91.5 Definitions.

91.10 Consolidated program year.

91.15 Submission date.

91.20 Exceptions.

Subpart B—Citizen Participation and

Consultation

91.100 Consultation; local governments.

91.105 Citizen participation plan; local

governments.

91.110 Consultation; States.

91.115 Citizen participation plan; States.

Subpart C—Local Governments; Contents

of Consolidated Plan

91.200 General.

91.205 Housing and homeless needs

assessment.

91.210 Housing market analysis.

91.215 Strategic plan.

91.220 Action plan.

91.225 Certifications.

91.230 Monitoring.

91.235 Special case; abbreviated

consolidated plan.

91.236 Special case; District of Columbia.

Subpart D—State Governments; Contents

of Consolidated Plan

91.300 General.

91.305 Housing and homeless needs

assessment.

91.310 Housing market analysis.

91.315 Strategic plan.

91.320 Action plan.

91.325 Certifications.

91.330 Monitoring.

Subpart E—Consortia; Contents of

Consolidated Plan

91.400 Applicability.

91.401 Citizen participation plan.

91.402 Consolidated program year.

91.405 Housing and homeless needs

assessment.

91.410 Housing market analysis.

91.415 Strategic plan.

91.420 Action plan.

91.425 Certifications.

91.430 Monitoring.

Subpart F—Other General Requirements

91.500 HUD approval action.

91.505 Amendments to the consolidated

plan.

91.510 Consistency determinations.

91.515 Funding determinations by HUD.

91.520 Performance reports.

91.525 Performance review by HUD.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601–3619,

5301–5315, 11331–11388, 12701–12711,

12741–12756, and 12901–12912.

Subpart A—General

§ 91.1 Purpose.

(a) Overall goals. (1) The overall goal

of the community planning and

development programs covered by this

part is to develop viable urban

communities by providing decent

housing and a suitable living

environment and expanding economic

opportunities principally for low- and

moderate-income persons. The primary

means towards this end is to extend and

strengthen partnerships among all levels

of government and the private sector,

including for-profit and non-profit

organizations, in the production and

operation of affordable housing.

(i) Decent housing includes assisting

homeless persons to obtain appropriate

housing and assisting persons at risk of

becoming homeless; retention of the

affordable housing stock; and increasing

the availability of permanent housing in

standard condition and affordable cost

to low-income and moderate-income

families, particularly to members of

disadvantaged minorities, without

discrimination on the basis of race,

color, religion, sex, national origin,

familial status, or disability. Decent

housing also includes increasing the

supply of supportive housing, which

combines structural features and

services needed to enable persons with

special needs, including persons with

HIV/AIDS and their families, to live

with dignity and independence; and

providing housing affordable to lowincome persons accessible to job

opportunities.

(ii) A suitable living environment

includes improving the safety and

livability of neighborhoods; increasing

access to quality public and private

facilities and services; reducing the

isolation of income groups within a

community or geographical area through

the spatial deconcentration of housing

opportunities for persons of lower

income and the revitalization of

deteriorating or deteriorated

neighborhoods; restoring and preserving

properties of special historic,

architectural, or aesthetic value; and

conservation of energy resources.

(iii) Expanded economic

opportunities includes job creation and

retention; establishment, stabilization

and expansion of small businesses

(including microbusinesses); the

provision of public services concerned

with employment; the provision of jobs

involved in carrying out activities under

programs covered by this plan to lowincome persons living in areas affected

by those programs and activities;

availability of mortgage financing for

low-income persons at reasonable rates

using nondiscriminatory lending

practices; access to capital and credit for

development activities that promote the

long-term economic and social viability

of the community; and empowerment

and self-sufficiency opportunities for

low-income persons to reduce

generational poverty in federally

assisted and public housing.

(2) The consolidated submission

described in this part 91 requires the

jurisdiction to state in one document its

plan to pursue these goals for all the

community planning and development

programs, as well as for housing

programs. It is these goals against which

the plan and the jurisdiction’s

performance under the plan will be

evaluated by HUD.

(b) Functions of plan. The

consolidated plan serves the following

functions:

(1) A planning document for the

jurisdiction, which builds on a

participatory process at the lowest

levels;

(2) An application for federal funds

under HUD’s formula grant programs;

(3) A strategy to be followed in

carrying out HUD programs; and

(4) An action plan that provides a

basis for assessing performance.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1897

§ 91.2 Applicability.

(a) The following formula grant

programs are covered by the

consolidated plan:

(1) The Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) programs (see 24

CFR part 570, subparts D and I);

(2) The Emergency Shelter Grants

(ESG) program (see 24 CFR part 576);

(3) The HOME Investment

Partnerships (HOME) program (see 24

CFR part 92); and

(4) The Housing Opportunities for

Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program

(see 24 CFR part 574).

(b) The following programs require

either that the jurisdiction receiving

funds directly from HUD have a

consolidated plan that is approved by

HUD or that the application for HUD

funds contain a certification that the

application is consistent with a HUDapproved consolidated plan:

(1) The HOPE I Public Housing

Homeownership (HOPE I) program (see

24 CFR Subtitle A, Appendix A);

(2) The HOPE II Homeownership of

Multifamily Units (HOPE II) program

(see 24 CFR Subtitle A, Appendix B);

(3) The HOPE III Homeownership of

Single Family Homes (HOPE III)

program (see 24 CFR part 572);

(4) The Low-Income Housing

Preservation (prepayment avoidance

incentives) program, when administered

by a State agency (see 24 CFR 248.177);

(5) The Supportive Housing for the

Elderly (Section 202) program (see 24

CFR part 889);

(6) The Supportive Housing for

Persons with Disabilities program (see

24 CFR part 890);

(7) The Supportive Housing program

(see 24 CFR part 583);

(8) The Single Room Occupancy

Housing (SRO) program (see 24 CFR

part 882, subpart H);

(9) The Shelter Plus Care program (see

24 CFR part 582);

(10) The Community Development

Block Grant program—Small Cities (see

24 CFR part 570, subpart E);

(11) HOME program reallocations;

(12) Revitalization of Severely

Distressed Public Housing (section 24 of

the United States Housing Act of 1937,

(42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.));

(13) Hope for Youth: Youthbuild (see

24 CFR part 585);

(14) The John Heinz Neighborhood

Development program (see 24 CFR part

594);

(15) The Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction program (see 24 CFR part 35);

(16) Grants for Regulatory Barrier

Removal Strategies and Implementation

(section 1204, Housing and Community

Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.

12705c)); and

(17) Competitive grants under the

Housing Opportunities for Persons With

AIDS (HOPWA) program (see 24 CFR

part 574).

(c) Other programs do not require

consistency with an approved

consolidated plan. However, HUD

funding allocations for the Section 8

Certificate and Voucher Programs are to

be made in a way that enables

participating jurisdictions to carry out

their consolidated plans.

§ 91.5 Definitions.

Certification. A written assertion,

based on supporting evidence, that must

be kept available for inspection by HUD,

by the Inspector General of HUD, and by

the public. The assertion shall be

deemed to be accurate unless HUD

determines otherwise, after inspecting

the evidence and providing due notice

and opportunity for comment.

Consolidated plan (or ‘‘the plan’’).

The document that is submitted to HUD

that serves as the planning document

(comprehensive housing affordability

strategy and community development

plan) of the jurisdiction and an

application for funding under any of the

Community Planning and Development

formula grant programs (CDBG, ESG,

HOME, or HOPWA), which is prepared

in accordance with the process

prescribed in this part.

Consortium. An organization of

geographically contiguous units of

general local government that are acting

as a single unit of general local

government for purposes of the HOME

program (see 24 CFR part 92).

Cost burden. The extent to which

gross housing costs, including utility

costs, exceed 30 percent of gross

income, based on data available from

the U.S. Census Bureau.

Elderly person. A person who is at

least 62 years of age.

Emergency shelter. Any facility with

overnight sleeping accommodations, the

primary purpose of which is to provide

temporary shelter for the homeless in

general or for specific populations of the

homeless.

Extremely low-income family. Family

whose income is between 0 and 30

percent of the median income for the

area, as determined by HUD with

adjustments for smaller and larger

families, except that HUD may establish

income ceilings higher or lower than 30

percent of the median for the area on the

basis of HUD’s findings that such

variations are necessary because of

prevailing levels of construction costs or

fair market rents, or unusually high or

low family incomes.

Homeless family with children. A

family composed of the following types

of homeless persons: at least one parent

or guardian and one child under the age

of 18; a pregnant woman; or a person in

the process of securing legal custody of

a person under the age of 18.

Homeless person. A youth (17 years

or younger) not accompanied by an

adult (18 years or older) or an adult

without children, who is homeless (not

imprisoned or otherwise detained

pursuant to an Act of Congress or a State

law), including the following:

(1) An individual who lacks a fixed,

regular, and adequate nighttime

residence; and

(2) An individual who has a primary

nighttime residence that is:

(i) A supervised publicly or privately

operated shelter designed to provide

temporary living accommodations

(including welfare hotels, congregate

shelters, and transitional housing for the

mentally ill);

(ii) An institution that provides a

temporary residence for individuals

intended to be institutionalized; or

(iii) A public or private place not

designed for, or ordinarily used as, a

regular sleeping accommodation for

human beings.

Homeless subpopulations. Include but

are not limited to the following

categories of homeless persons: severely

mentally ill only, alcohol/drug addicted

only, severely mentally ill and alcohol/

drug addicted, fleeing domestic

violence, youth, and persons with HIV/

AIDS.

HUD. The United States Department

of Housing and Urban Development.

Jurisdiction. A State or unit of general

local government.

Large family. Family of five or more

persons.

Lead-based paint hazards. Any

condition that causes exposure to lead

from lead-contaminated dust, leadcontaminated soil, lead-contaminated

paint that is deteriorated or present in

accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or

impact surfaces that would result in

adverse human health effects as

established by the appropriate Federal

agency.

Low-income families. Low-income

families whose incomes do not exceed

50 percent of the median family income

for the area, as determined by HUD with

adjustments for smaller and larger

families, except that HUD may establish

income ceilings higher or lower than 50

percent of the median for the area on the

basis of HUD’s findings that such

variations are necessary because of

prevailing levels of construction costs or

fair market rents, or unusually high or

low family incomes.

Middle-income family. Family whose

income is between 80 percent and 95
1898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

percent of the median income for the

area, as determined by HUD, with

adjustments for smaller and larger

families, except that HUD may establish

income ceilings higher or lower than 95

percent of the median for the area on the

basis of HUD’s findings that such

variations are necessary because of

prevailing levels of construction costs or

fair market rents, or unusually high or

low family incomes. (This corresponds

to the term ‘‘moderate income family’’

under the CHAS statute, 42 U.S.C.

12705.)

Moderate-income family. Family

whose income does not exceed 80

percent of the median income for the

area, as determined by HUD with

adjustments for smaller and larger

families, except that HUD may establish

income ceilings higher or lower than 80

percent of the median for the area on the

basis of HUD’s findings that such

variations are necessary because of

prevailing levels of construction costs or

fair market rents, or unusually high or

low family incomes.

Overcrowding. A housing unit

containing more than one person per

room.

Person with a disability. A person

who is determined to:

(1) Have a physical, mental or

emotional impairment that:

(i) Is expected to be of long-continued

and indefinite duration;

(ii) Substantially impedes his or her

ability to live independently; and

(iii) Is of such a nature that the ability

could be improved by more suitable

housing conditions; or

(2) Have a developmental disability,

as defined in section 102(7) of the

Developmental Disabilities Assistance

and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6001–

6007); or

(3) be the surviving member or

members of any family that had been

living in an assisted unit with the

deceased member of the family who had

a disability at the time of his or her

death.

Poverty level family. Family with an

income below the poverty line, as

defined by the Office of Management

and Budget and revised annually.

Severe cost burden. The extent to

which gross housing costs, including

utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross

income, based on data available from

the U.S. Census Bureau.

State. Any State of the United States

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Transitional housing. A project that is

designed to provide housing and

appropriate supportive services to

homeless persons to facilitate movement

to independent living within 24 months,

or a longer period approved by HUD.

For purposes of the HOME program,

there is no HUD-approved time period

for moving to independent living.

Unit of general local government. A

city, town, township, county, parish,

village, or other general purpose

political subdivision of a State; an urban

county; and a consortium of such

political subdivisions recognized by

HUD in accordance with the HOME

program (24 CFR part 92) or the CDBG

program (24 CFR part 570).

Urban county. See definition in 24

CFR 570.3.

§ 91.10 Consolidated program year.

(a) Each of the following programs

shall be administered by a jurisdiction

on a single consolidated program year,

established by the jurisdiction: CDBG,

ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Except as

provided in paragraph (b) of this

section, the program year shall run for

a twelve month period and begin on the

first calendar day of a month.

(b) Once a program year is

established, the jurisdiction may either

shorten or lengthen its program year to

change the beginning date of the

following program year, provided that it

notifies HUD in writing at least two

months before the date the program year

would have ended if it had not been

lengthened or at least two months before

the end of a proposed shortened

program year.

(c) See subpart E of this part for

requirements concerning program year

for units of general local government

that are part of a consortium.

§ 91.15 Submission date.

(a) General. (1) In order to facilitate

continuity in its program and to provide

accountability to citizens, each

jurisdiction should submit its

consolidated plan to HUD at least 45

days before the start of its program year.

(But see § 92.52(b) of this subtitle with

respect to newly eligible jurisdictions

under the HOME program.) With the

exception of the August 16 date noted

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, HUD

may grant a jurisdiction an extension of

the submission deadline for good cause.

(2) In no event will HUD accept a

submission earlier than November 15 or

later than August 16 of the Federal fiscal

year for which the grant funds are

appropriated. (Failure to submit the

plan by August 16 will automatically

result in a loss of the CDBG funds to

which the jurisdiction would otherwise

be entitled.)

(3) A jurisdiction may have a program

year that coincides with the Federal

fiscal year (e.g., October 1, 1995 through

September 30, 1996 for Federal fiscal

year 1996 funds. However, the

consolidated plan may not be submitted

earlier than November 15 of the Federal

fiscal year and HUD has the period

specified in § 91.500 to review the

consolidated plan.

(4) See § 91.20 for HUD field office

authorization to grant exceptions to

these provisions.

(b) Frequency of submission. (1) The

action plan and the certifications must

be submitted on an annual basis.

(2) The complete submission must be

submitted less frequently, in accordance

with a period to be specified by the

jurisdiction; however, in no event shall

the complete submission be submitted

less frequently that every five years.

§ 91.20 Exceptions.

The HUD field office may grant a

jurisdiction an exception from

submitting all or part of the

consolidated plan in FY 1995, from the

submission deadline, or from a

requirement in the implementation

guidelines for good cause, as

determined by the field office, and

reported in writing to HUD

Headquarters—to the extent the

requirement is not required by statute or

regulation.

Subpart B—Citizen Participation and

Consultation

§ 91.100 Consultation; local governments.

(a) General. (1) When preparing the

consolidated plan, the jurisdiction shall

consult with other public and private

agencies that provide assisted housing,

health services, and social services

(including those focusing on services to

children, elderly persons, persons with

disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and

their families, homeless persons) during

preparation of the consolidated plan.

(2) When preparing the portion of its

consolidated plan concerning leadbased paint hazards, the jurisdiction

shall consult with State or local health

and child welfare agencies and examine

existing data related to lead-based paint

hazards and poisonings, including

health department data on the addresses

of housing units in which children have

been identified as lead poisoned.

(3) When preparing the description of

priority nonhousing community

development needs, a unit of general

local government must notify adjacent

units of general local government, to the

extent practicable. The nonhousing

community development plan must be

submitted to the state, and, if the

jurisdiction is a CDBG entitlement

grantee other than an urban county, to

the county.

(4) The jurisdiction also should

consult with adjacent units of general
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1899

local government, including local

government agencies with metropolitanwide planning responsibilities where

they exist, particularly for problems and

solutions that go beyond a single

jurisdiction.

(b) HOPWA. The largest city in each

eligible metropolitan statistical area

(EMSA) that is eligible to receive a

HOPWA formula allocation must

consult broadly to develop a

metropolitan-wide strategy for

addressing the needs of persons with

HIV/AIDS and their families living

throughout the EMSA. All jurisdictions

within the EMSA must assist the

jurisdiction that is applying for a

HOPWA allocation in the preparation of

the HOPWA submission.

(c) Public housing. The jurisdiction

shall consult with the local public

housing agency participating in an

approved Comprehensive Grant

program concerning consideration of

public housing needs and planned

Comprehensive Grant program

activities. This consultation will help

provide a better basis for the

certification by the local Chief Executive

Officer that the Comprehensive Grant

Plan/annual statement is consistent

with the local government’s assessment

of low-income housing needs (as

evidenced in the consolidated plan) and

that the local government will cooperate

in providing resident programs and

services (as required by § 968.320(d) of

this title for the Comprehensive Grant

program). It will also help ensure that

activities with regard to local drug

elimination, neighborhood

improvement programs, and resident

programs and services, funded under

the public housing program and those

funded under a program covered by the

consolidated plan are fully coordinated

to achieve comprehensive community

development goals.

§ 91.105 Citizen participation plan; local

governments.

(a) Applicability and adoption of the

citizen participation plan. (1) The

jurisdiction is required to adopt a

citizen participation plan that sets forth

the jurisdiction’s policies and

procedures for citizen participation.

(Where a jurisdiction, before March 6,

1995, adopted a citizen participation

plan that complies with section

104(a)(3) of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1974

(42 U.S.C. 5304(A)(3)) but will need to

amend the citizen participation plan to

comply with provisions of this section,

the citizen participation plan shall be

amended by the first day of the

jurisdiction’s program year that begins

on or after 180 days following March 6,

1995.)

(2) Encouragement of citizen

participation. (i) The citizen

participation plan must provide for and

encourage citizens to participate in the

development of the consolidated plan,

any substantial amendments to the

consolidated plan, and the performance

report.

(ii) These requirements are designed

especially to encourage participation by

low- and moderate-income persons,

particularly those living in slum and

blighted areas and in areas where CDBG

funds are proposed to be used, and by

residents of predominantly low- and

moderate-income neighborhoods, as

defined by the jurisdiction. A

jurisdiction also is expected to take

whatever actions are appropriate to

encourage the participation of all its

citizens, including minorities and nonEnglish speaking persons, as well as

persons with disabilities.

(iii) The jurisdiction shall encourage,

in conjunction with consultation with

public housing authorities, the

participation of residents of public and

assisted housing developments, in the

process of developing and

implementing the consolidated plan,

along with other low-income residents

of targeted revitalization areas in which

the developments are located. The

jurisdiction shall make an effort to

provide information to the housing

agency about consolidated plan

activities related to its developments

and surrounding communities so that

the housing agency can make this

information available at the annual

public hearing required under the

Comprehensive Grant program.

(3) Citizen comment on the citizen

participation plan and amendments.

The jurisdiction must provide citizens

with a reasonable opportunity to

comment on the original citizen

participation plan and on substantial

amendments to the citizen participation

plan, and must make the citizen

participation plan public. The citizen

participation plan must be in a format

accessible to persons with disabilities,

upon request.

(b) Development of the consolidated

plan. The citizen participation plan

must include the following minimum

requirements for the development of the

consolidated plan.

(1) The citizen participation plan

must require that, before the jurisdiction

adopts a consolidated plan, the

jurisdiction will make available to

citizens, public agencies, and other

interested parties information that

includes the amount of assistance the

jurisdiction expects to receive

(including grant funds and program

income) and the range of activities that

may be undertaken, including the

estimated amount that will benefit

persons of low- and moderate-income.

The citizen participation plan also must

set forth the jurisdiction’s plans to

minimize displacement of persons and

to assist any persons displaced,

specifying the types and levels of

assistance the jurisdiction will make

available (or require others to make

available) to persons displaced, even if

the jurisdiction expects no displacement

to occur. The citizen participation plan

must state when and how the

jurisdiction will make this information

available.

(2) The citizen participation plan

must require the jurisdiction to publish

the proposed consolidated plan in a

manner that affords citizens, public

agencies, and other interested parties a

reasonable opportunity to examine its

contents and to submit comments. The

citizen participation plan must set forth

how the jurisdiction will publish the

proposed consolidated plan and give

reasonable opportunity to examine the

contents of the proposed consolidated

plan. The requirement for publishing

may be met by publishing a summary of

the proposed consolidated plan in one

or more newspapers of general

circulation, and by making copies of the

proposed consolidated plan available at

libraries, government offices, and public

places. The summary must describe the

contents and purpose of the

consolidated plan, and must include a

list of the locations where copies of the

entire proposed consolidated plan may

be examined. In addition, the

jurisdiction must provide a reasonable

number of free copies of the plan to

citizens and groups that request it.

(3) The citizen participation plan

must provide for at least one public

hearing during the development of the

consolidated plan. See paragraph (e) of

this section for public hearing

requirements, generally.

(4) The citizen participation plan

must provide a period, not less than 30

days, to receive comments from citizens

on the consolidated plan.

(5) The citizen participation plan

shall require the jurisdiction to consider

any comments or views of citizens

received in writing, or orally at the

public hearings, in preparing the final

consolidated plan. A summary of these

comments or views, and a summary of

any comments or views not accepted

and the reasons therefor, shall be

attached to the final consolidated plan.

(c) Amendments. (1) Criteria for

amendment to consolidated plan. The

citizen participation plan must specify
1900 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

the criteria the jurisdiction will use for

determining what changes in the

jurisdiction’s planned or actual

activities constitute a substantial

amendment to the consolidated plan.

(See § 91.505.) It must include among

the criteria for a substantial amendment

changes in the use of CDBG funds from

one eligible activity to another.

(2) The citizen participation plan

must provide citizens with reasonable

notice and an opportunity to comment

on substantial amendments. The citizen

participation plan must state how

reasonable notice and an opportunity to

comment will be given. The citizen

participation plan must provide a

period, not less than 30 days, to receive

comments on the substantial

amendment before the amendment is

implemented.

(3) The citizen participation plan

shall require the jurisdiction to consider

any comments or views of citizens

received in writing, or orally at public

hearings, if any, in preparing the

substantial amendment of the

consolidated plan. A summary of these

comments or views, and a summary of

any comments or views not accepted

and the reasons therefor, shall be

attached to the substantial amendment

of the consolidated plan.

(d) Performance reports. (1) The

citizen participation plan must provide

citizens with reasonable notice and an

opportunity to comment on

performance reports. The citizen

participation plan must state how

reasonable notice and an opportunity to

comment will be given. The citizen

participation plan must provide a

period, not less than 15 days, to receive

comments on the performance report

that is to be submitted to HUD before its

submission.

(2) The citizen participation plan

shall require the jurisdiction to consider

any comments or views of citizens

received in writing, or orally at public

hearings in preparing the performance

report. A summary of these comments

or views shall be attached to the

performance report.

(e) Public hearings. (1) The citizen

participation plan must provide for at

least two public hearings per year to

obtain citizens’ views and to respond to

proposals and questions, to be

conducted at a minimum of two

different stages of the program year.

Together, the hearings must address

housing and community development

needs, development of proposed

activities, and review of program

performance. To obtain the views of

citizens on housing and community

development needs, including priority

nonhousing community development

needs, the citizen participation plan

must provide that at least one of these

hearings is held before the proposed

consolidated plan is published for

comment.

(2) The citizen participation plan

must state how and when adequate

advance notice will be given to citizens

of each hearing, with sufficient

information published about the subject

of the hearing to permit informed

comment. (Publishing small print

notices in the newspaper a few days

before the hearing does not constitute

adequate notice. Although HUD is not

specifying the length of notice required,

it would consider two weeks adequate.)

(3) The citizen participation plan

must provide that hearings be held at

times and locations convenient to

potential and actual beneficiaries, and

with accommodation for persons with

disabilities. The citizen participation

plan must specify how it will meet these

requirements.

(4) The citizen participation plan

must identify how the needs of nonEnglish speaking residents will be met

in the case of public hearings where a

significant number of non-English

speaking residents can be reasonably

expected to participate.

(f) Meetings. The citizen participation

plan must provide citizens with

reasonable and timely access to local

meetings.

(g) Availability to the public. The

citizen participation plan must provide

that the consolidated plan as adopted,

substantial amendments, and the

performance report will be available to

the public, including the availability of

materials in a form accessible to persons

with disabilities, upon request. The

citizen participation plan must state

how these documents will be available

to the public.

(h) Access to records. The citizen

participation plan must require the

jurisdiction to provide citizens, public

agencies, and other interested parties

with reasonable and timely access to

information and records relating to the

jurisdiction’s consolidated plan and the

jurisdiction’s use of assistance under the

programs covered by this part during

the preceding five years.

(i) Technical assistance. The citizen

participation plan must provide for

technical assistance to groups

representative of persons of low- and

moderate-income that request such

assistance in developing proposals for

funding assistance under any of the

programs covered by the consolidated

plan, with the level and type of

assistance determined by the

jurisdiction. The assistance need not

include the provision of funds to the

groups.

(j) Complaints. The citizen

participation plan shall describe the

jurisdiction’s appropriate and

practicable procedures to handle

complaints from citizens related to the

consolidated plan, amendments, and

performance report. At a minimum, the

citizen participation plan shall require

that the jurisdiction must provide a

timely, substantive written response to

every written citizen complaint, within

an established period of time (within 15

working days, where practicable, if the

jurisdiction is a CDBG grant recipient).

(k) Use of citizen participation plan.

The jurisdiction must follow its citizen

participation plan.

(l) Jurisdiction responsibility. The

requirements for citizen participation do

not restrict the responsibility or

authority of the jurisdiction for the

development and execution of its

consolidated plan.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.110 Consultation; States.

When preparing the consolidated

plan, the State shall consult with other

public and private agencies that provide

assisted housing (including any State

housing agency administering public

housing), health services, and social

services (including those focusing on

services to children, elderly persons,

persons with disabilities, persons with

HIV/AIDS and their families, homeless

persons) during preparation of the

consolidated plan. When preparing the

portion of its consolidated plan

concerning lead-based paint hazards,

the State shall consult with State or

local health and child welfare agencies

and examine existing data related to

lead-based paint hazards and

poisonings, including health

department data on the addresses of

housing units in which children have

been identified as lead poisoned. When

preparing its method of distribution of

assistance under the CDBG program, a

State must consult with local

governments in nonentitlement areas of

the State.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.115 Citizen participation plan; States.

(a) Applicability and adoption of the

citizen participation plan. (1) The State

is required to adopt a citizen

participation plan that sets forth the

State’s policies and procedures for

citizen participation. (Where a State,

before March 6, 1995, adopted a citizen

participation plan that complies with

section 104(a)(3) of the Housing and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1901

Community Development Act of 1974

(42 U.S.C. 5304(A)(3)) but will need to

amend the citizen participation plan to

comply with provisions of this section,

the citizen participation plan shall be

amended by the first day of the State’s

program year that begins on or after 180

days following March 6, 1995.

(2) Encouragement of citizen

participation. The citizen participation

plan must provide for and encourage

citizens to participate in the

development of the consolidated plan,

any substantial amendments to the

consolidated plan, and the performance

report. These requirements are designed

especially to encourage participation by

low- and moderate-income persons,

particularly those living in slum and

blighted areas and in areas where CDBG

funds are proposed to be used and by

residents of predominantly low- and

moderate-income neighborhoods, as

defined by the State. A State also is

expected to take whatever actions are

appropriate to encourage the

participation of all its citizens,

including minorities and non-English

speaking persons, as well as persons

with disabilities.

(3) Citizen and local government

comment on the citizen participation

plan and amendments. The State must

provide citizens and units of general

local government a reasonable

opportunity to comment on the original

citizen participation plan and on

substantial amendments to the citizen

participation plan, and must make the

citizen participation plan public. The

citizen participation plan must be in a

format accessible to persons with

disabilities, upon request.

(b) Development of the consolidated

plan. The citizen participation plan

must include the following minimum

requirements for the development of the

consolidated plan.

(1) The citizen participation plan

must require that, before the State

adopts a consolidated plan, the State

will make available to citizens, public

agencies, and other interested parties

information that includes the amount of

assistance the State expects to receive

and the range of activities that may be

undertaken, including the estimated

amount that will benefit persons of lowand moderate-income and the plans to

minimize displacement of persons and

to assist any persons displaced. The

citizen participation plan must state

when and how the State will make this

information available.

(2) The citizen participation plan

must require the State to publish the

proposed consolidated plan in a manner

that affords citizens, units of general

local governments, public agencies, and

other interested parties a reasonable

opportunity to examine its contents and

to submit comments. The citizen

participation plan must set forth how

the State will publish the proposed

consolidated plan and give reasonable

opportunity to examine the contents of

the proposed consolidated plan. The

requirement for publishing may be met

by publishing a summary of the

proposed consolidated plan in one or

more newspapers of general circulation,

and by making copies of the proposed

consolidated plan available at libraries,

government offices, and public places.

The summary must describe the

contents and purpose of the

consolidated plan, and must include a

list of the locations where copies of the

entire proposed consolidated plan may

be examined. In addition, the State must

provide a reasonable number of free

copies of the plan to citizens and groups

that request it.

(3) The citizen participation plan

must provide for at least one public

hearing on housing and community

development needs before the proposed

consolidated plan is published for

comment.

(i) The citizen participation plan must

state how and when adequate advance

notice will be given to citizens of the

hearing, with sufficient information

published about the subject of the

hearing to permit informed comment.

(Publishing small print notices in the

newspaper a few days before the hearing

does not constitute adequate notice.

Although HUD is not specifying the

length of notice required, it would

consider two weeks adequate.)

(ii) The citizen participation plan

must provide that the hearing be held at

a time and location convenient to

potential and actual beneficiaries, and

with accommodation for persons with

disabilities. The citizen participation

plan must specify how it will meet these

requirements.

(iii) The citizen participation plan

must identify how the needs of nonEnglish speaking residents will be met

in the case of a public hearing where a

significant number of non-English

speaking residents can be reasonably

expected to participate.

(4) The citizen participation plan

must provide a period, not less than 30

days, to receive comments from citizens

and units of general local government

on the consolidated plan.

(5) The citizen participation plan

shall require the State to consider any

comments or views of citizens and units

of general received in writing, or orally

at the public hearings, in preparing the

final consolidated plan. A summary of

these comments or views, and a

summary of any comments or views not

accepted and the reasons therefore, shall

be attached to the final consolidated

plan.

(c) Amendments. (1) Criteria for

amendment to consolidated plan. The

citizen participation plan must specify

the criteria the State will use for

determining what changes in the State’s

planned or actual activities constitute a

substantial amendment to the

consolidated plan. (See § 91.505.) It

must include among the criteria for a

substantial amendment changes in the

method of distribution of such funds.

(2) The citizen participation plan

must provide citizens and units of

general local government with

reasonable notice and an opportunity to

comment on substantial amendments.

The citizen participation plan must state

how reasonable notice and an

opportunity to comment will be given.

The citizen participation plan must

provide a period, not less than 30 days,

to receive comments on the substantial

amendment before the amendment is

implemented.

(3) The citizen participation plan

shall require the State to consider any

comments or views of citizens and units

of general local government received in

writing, or orally at public hearings, if

any, in preparing the substantial

amendment of the consolidated plan. A

summary of these comments or views,

and a summary of any comments or

views not accepted and the reasons

therefore, shall be attached to the

substantial amendment of the

consolidated plan.

(d) Performance Reports. (1) The

citizen participation plan must provide

citizens with reasonable notice and an

opportunity to comment on

performance reports. The citizen

participation plan must state how

reasonable notice and an opportunity to

comment will be given. The citizen

participation plan must provide a

period, not less than 15 days, to receive

comments on the performance report

that is to be submitted to HUD before its

submission.

(2) The citizen participation plan

shall require the state to consider any

comments or views of citizens received

in writing, or orally at public hearings

in preparing the performance report. A

summary of these comments or views

shall be attached to the performance

report.

(e) Citizen participation requirements

for local governments. The citizen

participation plan must describe the

citizen participation requirements for

units of general local government

receiving CDBG funds from the State in

24 CFR 570.486. The citizen
1902 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

participation plan must explain how the

requirements will be met.

(f) Availability to the public. The

citizen participation plan must provide

that the consolidated plan as adopted,

substantial amendments, and the

performance report will be available to

the public, including the availability of

materials in a form accessible to persons

with disabilities, upon request. The

citizen participation plan must state

how these documents will be available

to the public.

(g) Access to records. The citizen

participation plan must require the state

to provide citizens, public agencies, and

other interested parties with reasonable

and timely access to information and

records relating to the state’s

consolidated plan and the state’s use of

assistance under the programs covered

by this part during the preceding five

years.

(h) Complaints. The citizen

participation plan shall describe the

State’s appropriate and practicable

procedures to handle complaints from

citizens related to the consolidated plan,

amendments, and performance report.

At a minimum, the citizen participation

plan shall require that the State must

provide a timely, substantive written

response to every written citizen

complaint, within an established period

of time (within 15 working days, where

practicable, if the State is a CDBG grant

recipient).

(i) Use of citizen participation plan.

The State must follow its citizen

participation plan.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

Subpart C—Local Governments;

Contents of Consolidated Plan

§ 91.200 General.

(a) A complete consolidated plan

consists of the information required in

§§ 91.205 through 91.230, submitted in

accordance with instructions prescribed

by HUD (including tables and

narratives), or in such other format as

jointly agreed upon by HUD and the

jurisdiction.

(b) The jurisdiction shall describe the

lead agency or entity responsible for

overseeing the development of the plan

and the significant aspects of the

process by which the consolidated plan

was developed, the identity of the

agencies, groups, organizations, and

others who participated in the process,

and a description of the jurisdiction’s

consultations with social service

agencies and other entities. It also shall

include a summary of the citizen

participation process, public comments,

and efforts made to broaden public

participation in the development of the

consolidated plan.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.205 Housing and homeless needs

assessment.

(a) General. The consolidated plan

must describe the jurisdiction’s

estimated housing needs projected for

the ensuing five-year period. Housing

data included in this portion of the plan

shall be based on U.S. Census data, as

provided by HUD, as updated by any

properly conducted local study, or any

other reliable source that the

jurisdiction clearly identifies and

should reflect the consultation with

social service agencies and other entities

conducted in accordance with § 91.100

and the citizen participation process

conducted in accordance with § 91.105.

For a jurisdiction seeking funding on

behalf of an eligible metropolitan

statistical area under the HOPWA

program, the needs described for

housing and supportive services must

address the needs of persons with HIV/

AIDS and their families throughout the

eligible metropolitan statistical area.

(b) Categories of persons affected. (1)

The plan shall estimate the number and

type of families in need of housing

assistance for extremely low-income,

low-income, moderate-income, and

middle-income families, for renters and

owners, for elderly persons, for single

persons, for large families, for persons

with HIV/AIDS and their families, and

for persons with disabilities. The

description of housing needs shall

include a discussion of the cost burden

and severe cost burden, overcrowding

(especially for large families), and

substandard housing conditions being

experienced by extremely low-income,

low-income, moderate-income, and

middle-income renters and owners

compared to the jurisdiction as a whole.

(2) For any of the income categories

enumerated in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, to the extent that any racial or

ethnic group has disproportionately

greater need in comparison to the needs

of that category as a whole, assessment

of that specific need shall be included.

For this purpose, disproportionately

greater need exists when the percentage

of persons in a category of need who are

members of a particular racial or ethnic

group is at least 10 percentage points

higher than the percentage of persons in

the category as a whole.

(c) Homeless needs. The plan must

describe the nature and extent of

homelessness (including rural

homelessness), addressing separately

the need for facilities and services for

homeless individuals and homeless

families with children, both sheltered

and unsheltered, and homeless

subpopulations, in accordance with a

table prescribed by HUD. This

description must include the

characteristics and needs of low-income

individuals and families with children

(especially extremely low-income) who

are currently housed but threatened

with homelessness. The plan also must

contain a narrative description of the

nature and extent of homelessness by

racial and ethnic group, to the extent

information is available.

(d) Other special needs. (1) The

jurisdiction shall estimate, to the extent

practicable, the number of persons who

are not homeless but require supportive

housing, including the elderly, frail

elderly, persons with disabilities

(mental, physical, developmental),

persons with alcohol or other drug

addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and

their families, public housing residents,

and any other categories the jurisdiction

may specify, and describe their

supportive housing needs.

(2) With respect to a jurisdiction

seeking funding on behalf of an eligible

metropolitan statistical area under the

HOPWA program, the plan must

identify the size and characteristics of

the population with HIV/AIDS and their

families within the eligible metropolitan

statistical area it will serve.

(e) Lead-based paint hazards. The

plan must estimate the number of

housing units within the jurisdiction

that are occupied by low-income

families or moderate-income families

that contain lead-based paint hazards, as

defined in this part.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.210 Housing market analysis.

(a) General characteristics. Based on

information available to the jurisdiction,

the plan must describe the significant

characteristics of the jurisdiction’s

housing market, including the supply,

demand, and condition and cost of

housing and the housing stock available

to serve persons with disabilities and to

serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their

families. The jurisdiction must identify

and describe any areas within the

jurisdiction with concentrations of

racial/ethnic minorities and/or lowincome families, stating how it defines

the terms ‘‘area of low-income

concentration’’ and ‘‘area of minority

concentration’’ for this purpose. The

locations and degree of these

concentrations must be identified, either

in a narrative or on one or more maps.

(b) Public and assisted housing. (1)

The plan must describe the number of

public housing units in the jurisdiction,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1903

the physical condition of such units, the

restoration and revitalization needs,

results from the Section 504 needs

assessment (i.e., assessment of needs of

tenants and applicants on waiting list

for accessible units, as required by 24

CFR 8.25), and the public housing

agency’s strategy for improving the

management and operation of such

public housing and for improving the

living environment of low- and

moderate-income families residing in

public housing. The consolidated plan

must identify the public housing

developments in the jurisdictions that

are participating in an approved HUD

Comprehensive Grant program.

Activities covered by the consolidated

plan that are being coordinated or

jointly funded with the public housing

Comprehensive Grant program must be

identified by project and referenced to

the approved Comprehensive Grant

program. Examples of supportive

activities for Comprehensive Grant

program activities are efforts to

revitalize neighborhoods surrounding

public housing projects (either current

or proposed); cooperation in provision

of resident programs and services;

coordination of local drug elimination

or anti-crime strategies; upgrading of

police, fire, schools, and other services;

and economic development projects in

or near public housing projects to tie in

with self-sufficiency efforts for

residents.

(2) The jurisdiction shall include a

description of the number and targeting

(income level and type of family served)

of units currently assisted by local,

state, or federally funded programs, and

an assessment of whether any such

units are expected to be lost from the

assisted housing inventory for any

reason.

(c) Homeless facilities. The plan must

include a brief inventory of facilities

and services that meet the emergency

shelter, transitional housing, permanent

supportive housing, and permanent

housing needs of homeless persons

within the jurisdiction.

(d) Special need facilities and

services. The plan must describe, to the

extent information is available, the

facilities and services that assist persons

who are not homeless but who require

supportive housing, and programs for

ensuring that persons returning from

mental and physical health institutions

receive appropriate supportive housing.

(e) Barriers to affordable housing. The

plan must explain whether the cost of

housing or the incentives to develop,

maintain, or improve affordable housing

in the jurisdiction are affected by public

policies, particularly by policies of the

jurisdiction, including tax policies

affecting land and other property, land

use controls, zoning ordinances,

building codes, fees and charges, growth

limits, and policies that affect the return

on residential investment.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.215 Strategic plan.

(a) General. For the categories

described in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and

(e) of this section, the consolidated plan

must do the following:

(1) Indicate the general priorities for

allocating investment geographically

within the jurisdiction (or within the

EMSA for the HOPWA program) and

among priority needs, as identified in

the priority needs table prescribed by

HUD;

(2) Describe the basis for assigning the

priority (including the relative priority,

where required) given to each category

of priority needs;

(3) Identify any obstacles to meeting

underserved needs;

(4) Summarize the priorities and

specific objectives, describing how

funds that are reasonably expected to be

made available will be used to address

identified needs; and

(5) For each specific objective,

identify proposed accomplishments the

jurisdictions hopes to achieve in

quantitative terms over a specified time

period (i.e., one, two, three or more

years), or in other measurable terms as

identified and defined by the

jurisdiction.

(b) Affordable housing. With respect

to affordable housing, the consolidated

plan must include the priority housing

needs table prescribed by HUD and

must do the following:

(1) The description of the basis for

assigning relative priority to each

category of priority need shall state how

the analysis of the housing market and

the severity of housing problems and

needs of extremely low-income, lowincome, and moderate-income renters

and owners identified in accordance

with § 91.205 provided the basis for

assigning the relative priority given to

each priority need category in the

priority housing needs table prescribed

by HUD. Family and income types may

be grouped together for discussion

where the analysis would apply to more

than one of them;

(2) The statement of specific

objectives must indicate how the

characteristics of the housing market

will influence the use of funds made

available for rental assistance,

production of new units, rehabilitation

of old units, or acquisition of existing

units; and

(3) The description of proposed

accomplishments shall specify the

number of extremely low-income, lowincome, and moderate-income families

to whom the jurisdiction will provide

affordable housing as defined in 24 CFR

92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR

92.254 for homeownership over a

specific time period.

(c) Homelessness. With respect to

homelessness, the consolidated plan

must include the priority homeless

needs table prescribed by HUD and

must describe the jurisdiction’s strategy

for the following:

(1) Helping low-income families avoid

becoming homeless;

(2) Reaching out to homeless persons

and assessing their individual needs;

(3) Addressing the emergency shelter

and transitional housing needs of

homeless persons; and

(4) Helping homeless persons make

the transition to permanent housing and

independent living.

(d) Other special needs. With respect

to supportive needs of the nonhomeless, the consolidated plan must

describe the priority housing and

supportive service needs of persons who

are not homeless but require supportive

housing (i.e., elderly, frail elderly,

persons with disabilities (mental,

physical, developmental), persons with

alcohol or other drug addiction, persons

with HIV/AIDS and their families, and

public housing residents).

(e) Nonhousing community

development plan. (1) If the jurisdiction

seeks assistance under the Community

Development Block Grant program, the

consolidated plan must describe the

jurisdiction’s priority non-housing

community development needs eligible

for assistance under HUD’s community

development programs by CDBG

eligibility category, reflecting the needs

of families for each type of activity, as

appropriate, in terms of dollar amounts

estimated to meet the priority need for

the type of activity, in accordance with

a table prescribed by HUD. This

community development component of

the plan must state the jurisdiction’s

specific long-term and short-term

community development objectives

(including economic development

activities that create jobs), which must

be developed in accordance with the

statutory goals described in § 91.1 and

the primary objective of the CDBG

program to develop viable urban

communities by providing decent

housing and a suitable living

environment and expanding economic

opportunities, principally for lowincome and moderate-income persons.

(2) A jurisdiction that elects to carry

out a neighborhood revitalization
1904 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

strategy that includes the economic

empowerment of low-income residents

with respect to one or more of their

areas may submit this strategy as part of

its community development plan. If

HUD approves such a strategy, the

jurisdiction can obtain greater flexibility

in the use of the CDBG funds in the

revitalization area(s). The additional

flexibility that the jurisdiction would be

entitled to for this purpose will be

described in 24 CFR part 570, subpart C,

at a future date. The criteria for approval

of the strategy will not be established by

regulation, but jurisdictions will be

notified of these criteria.

(f) Barriers to affordable housing. The

consolidated plan must describe the

jurisdiction’s strategy to remove or

ameliorate negative effects of public

policies that serve as barriers to

affordable housing, as identified in

accordance with § 91.210(d), except

that, if a State requires a unit of general

local government to submit a regulatory

barrier assessment that is substantially

equivalent to the information required

under this paragraph (f), as determined

by HUD, the unit of general local

government may submit its assessment

submitted to the State to HUD and shall

be considered to have complied with

this requirement.

(g) Lead-based paint hazards. The

consolidated plan must outline the

actions proposed or being taken to

evaluate and reduce lead-based paint

hazards, and describe how the leadbased paint hazard reduction will be

integrated into housing policies and

programs.

(h) Anti-poverty strategy. The

consolidated plan must describe the

jurisdiction’s goals, programs, and

policies for reducing the number of

poverty level families and how the

jurisdiction’s goals, programs, and

policies for producing and preserving

affordable housing, set forth in the

housing component of the consolidated

plan, will be coordinated with other

programs and services for which the

jurisdiction is responsible and the

extent to which they will reduce (or

assist in reducing) the number of

poverty level families, taking into

consideration factors over which the

jurisdiction has control.

(i) Institutional structure. (1) The

consolidated plan must explain the

institutional structure, including private

industry, nonprofit organizations, and

public institutions, through which the

jurisdiction will carry out its housing

and community development plan,

assessing the strengths and gaps in that

delivery system.

(2) The jurisdiction shall describe the

organizational relationship between the

jurisdiction and the public housing

agency, including the appointing

authority for the commissioners or

board of the housing agency;

relationships regarding hiring,

contracting and procurement; provision

of services funded by the jurisdiction;

and review by the jurisdiction of

proposed development sites, of the

comprehensive plan of the public

housing agency, and of any proposed

demolition or disposition of public

housing developments.

(3) The plan must describe what the

jurisdiction will do to overcome gaps in

the institutional structure for carrying

out its strategy for addressing its priority

needs. If the public housing agency is

designated as ‘‘troubled’’ by HUD, or

otherwise is performing poorly, the

jurisdiction shall describe any actions it

is taking to assist the public housing

agency in addressing these problems.

(j) Coordination. The consolidated

plan must describe the jurisdiction’s

activities to enhance coordination

between public and assisted housing

providers and private and governmental

health, mental health, and service

agencies. With respect to the public

entities involved, the plan must

describe the means of cooperation and

coordination among the State and any

units of general local government in the

metropolitan area in the implementation

of its consolidated plan.

(k) Public housing resident initiatives.

The consolidated plan must describe the

jurisdiction’s activities to encourage

public housing residents to become

more involved in management and

participate in homeownership.

§ 91.220 Action plan.

The action plan must include the

following:

(a) Form application. Standard Form

424;

(b) Resources. (1) Federal resources.

The consolidated plan must describe the

Federal resources expected to be

available to address the priority needs

and specific objectives identified in the

strategic plan, in accordance with

§ 91.215. These resources include grant

funds and program income.

(2) Other resources. The consolidated

plan must indicate resources from

private and non-Federal public sources

that are reasonably expected to be made

available to address the needs identified

in the plan. The plan must explain how

Federal funds will leverage those

additional resources, including a

description of how matching

requirements of the HUD programs will

be satisfied. Where the jurisdiction

deems it appropriate, it may indicate

publicly owned land or property located

within the jurisdiction that may be used

to carry out the purposes stated in

§ 91.1;

(c) Activities to be undertaken. A

description of the activities the

jurisdiction will undertake during the

next year to address priority needs in

terms of local objectives that were

identified in § 91.215. This description

of activities shall estimate the number

and type of families that will benefit

from the proposed activities, the

specific local objectives and priority

needs (identified in accordance with

§ 91.215) that will be addressed by the

activities using formula grant funds and

program income the jurisdiction expects

to receive during the program year,

proposed accomplishments, and a target

date for completion of the activity. This

information is to be presented in the

form of a table prescribed by HUD;

(d) Geographic distribution. A

description of the geographic areas of

the jurisdiction (including areas of

minority concentration) in which it will

direct assistance during the ensuing

program year, giving the rationale for

the priorities for allocating investment

geographically;

(e) Homeless and other special needs

activities. Activities it plans to

undertake during the next year to

address emergency shelter and

transitional housing needs of homeless

individuals and families (including

subpopulations), to prevent low-income

individuals and families with children

(especially those with incomes below 30

percent of median) from becoming

homeless, to help homeless persons

make the transition to permanent

housing and independent living, and to

address the special needs of persons

who are not homeless identified in

accordance with § 91.215(d);

(f) Other actions. (1) General. Actions

it plans to take during the next year to

address obstacles to meeting

underserved needs, foster and maintain

affordable housing, remove barriers to

affordable housing, evaluate and reduce

lead-based paint hazards, reduce the

number of poverty level families,

develop institutional structure, and

enhance coordination between public

and private housing and social service

agencies and foster public housing

improvements and resident initiatives

(see § 91.215 (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j),

and (k)).

(2) Public housing. Appropriate

reference to the annual revisions of the

action plan prepared for the

Comprehensive Grant program. If the

public housing agency is designated as

‘‘troubled’’ by HUD, or otherwise is

performing poorly, the jurisdiction’s

plan, if any, to assist the public housing
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1905

agency in addressing these problems;

and

(g) Program-specific requirements.—

(1) CDBG. (i) A jurisdiction must

describe activities planned with respect

to all CDBG funds expected to be

available during the program year

(including program income that will

have been received before the start of

the next program year), except that an

amount generally not to exceed ten

percent of such total available CDBG

funds may be excluded from the funds

for which eligible activities are

described if it has been identified for the

contingency of cost overruns.

(ii) CDBG funds expected to be

available during the program year

includes the following:

(A) Any program income that will

have been received before the start of

the next program year and that has not

yet been programmed;

(B) Surplus from urban renewal

settlements;

(C) Grant funds returned to the line of

credit for which the planned use has not

been included in a prior statement or

plan; and

(D) Income from float-funded

activities. The full amount of income

expected to be generated by a floatfunded activity must be shown, whether

or not some or all of the income is

expected to be received in a future

program year. To assure that citizens

understand the risks inherent in

undertaking float-funded activities, the

recipient must specify the total amount

of program income expected to be

received and the month(s) and year(s)

that it expects the float-funded activity

to generate such program income.

(iii) An ‘‘urgent needs’’ activity (one

that is expected to qualify under

§ 570.208(c) of this title) may be

included only if the jurisdiction

identifies the activity in the action plan

and certifies that the activity is designed

to meet other community development

needs having a particular urgency

because existing conditions pose a

serious and immediate threat to the

health or welfare of the community and

other financial resources are not

available.

(iv) This information about activities

shall be in sufficient detail, including

location, to allow citizens to determine

the degree to which they are affected.

(2) HOME. (i) For HOME funds, a

participating jurisdiction shall describe

other forms of investment that are not

described in § 92.205(b) of this title.

(ii) If the participating jurisdiction

intends to use HOME funds for

homebuyers, it must state the guidelines

for resale or recapture, as required in

§ 92.254 of this subtitle.

§ 91.225 Certifications.

(a) General. The following

certifications, satisfactory to HUD, must

be included in the annual submission to

HUD. (See definition of ‘‘certification’’

in § 91.5.)

(1) Affirmatively furthering fair

housing. Each jurisdiction is required to

submit a certification that it will

affirmatively further fair housing, which

means that it will conduct an analysis

to identify impediments to fair housing

choice within the jurisdiction, take

appropriate actions to overcome the

effects of any impediments identified

through that analysis, and maintain

records reflecting the analysis and

actions in this regard.

(2) Anti-displacement and relocation

plan. Each jurisdiction is required to

submit a certification that it has in effect

and is following a residential

antidisplacement and relocation

assistance plan in connection with any

activity assisted with funding under the

CDBG or HOME programs.

(3) Drug-free workplace. The

jurisdiction must submit a certification

with regard to drug-free workplace

required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F.

(4) Anti-lobbying. The jurisdiction

must submit a certification with regard

to compliance with restrictions on

lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87,

together with disclosure forms, if

required by that part.

(5) Authority of jurisdiction. The

jurisdiction must submit a certification

that the consolidated plan is authorized

under State and local law (as applicable)

and that the jurisdiction possesses the

legal authority to carry out the programs

for which it is seeking funding, in

accordance with applicable HUD

regulations.

(6) Consistency with plan. The

jurisdiction must submit a certification

that the housing activities to be

undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG,

and HOPWA funds are consistent with

the strategic plan. Where the HOPWA

funds are to be received by a city that

is the most populous unit of general

local government in an EMSA, it must

obtain and keep on file certifications of

consistency from the authorized public

officials for each other locality in the

EMSA in which housing assistance is

provided.

(7) Acquisition and relocation. The

jurisdiction must submit a certification

that it will comply with the acquisition

and relocation requirements of the

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of

1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and

implementing regulations at 49 CFR part

24.

(8) Section 3. The jurisdiction must

submit a certification that it will comply

with section 3 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.

1701u), and implementing regulations at

24 CFR part 135.

(b) Community Development Block

Grant program. For jurisdictions that

seek funding under CDBG, the following

certifications are required:

(1) Citizen participation. Each

jurisdiction must certify that it is in full

compliance and following a detailed

citizen participation plan that satisfies

the requirements of § 91.105.

(2) Community development plan. A

certification that this consolidated

housing and community development

plan identifies community development

and housing needs and specifies both

short-term and long-term community

development objectives that have been

developed in accordance with the

primary objective of the statute

authorizing the CDBG program, as

described in 24 CFR 570.2, and

requirements of this part and 24 CFR

part 570.

(3) Following a plan. A certification

that the jurisdiction is following a

current consolidated plan (or

Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy) that has been approved by

HUD.

(4) Use of funds. A certification that

the jurisdiction has complied with the

following criteria:

(i) With respect to activities expected

to be assisted with CDBG funds, the

Action Plan has been developed so as to

give the maximum feasible priority to

activities that will benefit low- and

moderate-income families or aid in the

prevention or elimination of slums or

blight. The plan may also include

CDBG-assisted activities that are

certified to be designed to meet other

community development needs having

particular urgency because existing

conditions pose a serious and

immediate threat to the health or

welfare of the community where other

financial resources are not available to

meet such needs;

(ii) The aggregate use of CDBG funds,

including section 108 guaranteed loans,

during a period specified by the

jurisdiction, consisting of one, two, or

three specific consecutive program

years, shall principally benefit low- and

moderate-income families in a manner

that ensures that at least 70 percent of

the amount is expended for activities

that benefit such persons during the

designated period (see 24 CFR 570.3 for

definition of ‘‘CDBG funds’’); and

(iii) The jurisdiction will not attempt

to recover any capital costs of public

improvements assisted with CDBG
1906 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

funds, including Section 108 loan

guaranteed funds, by assessing any

amount against properties owned and

occupied by persons of low- and

moderate-income, including any fee

charged or assessment made as a

condition of obtaining access to such

public improvements. However, if

CDBG funds are used to pay the

proportion of a fee or assessment

attributable to the capital costs of public

improvements (assisted in part with

CDBG funds) financed from other

revenue sources, an assessment or

charge may be made against the

property with respect to the public

improvements financed by a source

other than CDBG funds. In addition,

with respect to properties owned and

occupied by moderate-income (but not

low-income) families, an assessment or

charge may be made against the

property with respect to the public

improvements financed by a source

other than CDBG funds if the

jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG

funds to cover the assessment.

(5) Excessive force. A certification that

the jurisdiction has adopted and is

enforcing:

(i) A policy prohibiting the use of

excessive force by law enforcement

agencies within its jurisdiction against

any individuals engaged in non-violent

civil rights demonstrations; and

(ii) A policy of enforcing applicable

State and local laws against physically

barring entrance to or exit from, a

facility or location that is the subject of

such non-violent civil rights

demonstrations within its jurisdiction.

(6) Compliance with antidiscrimination laws. The jurisdiction

must submit a certification that the

grant will be conducted and

administered in conformity with title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42

U.S.C. 3601–3619), and implementing

regulations.

(7) Compliance with lead-based paint

procedures. The jurisdiction must

submit a certification that its

notification, inspection, testing, and

abatement procedures concerning leadbased paint will comply with the

requirements of 24 CFR 570.608.

(8) Compliance with laws. A

certification that the jurisdiction will

comply with applicable laws.

(c) Emergency Shelter Grant program.

For jurisdictions that seek funding

under the Emergency Shelter Grant

program, the following certifications are

required:

(1) In the case of assistance involving

major rehabilitation or conversion, the

applicant will maintain any building for

which assistance is used under the ESG

program as a shelter for homeless

individuals and families for not less

than a 10-year period;

(2) In the case of assistance involving

rehabilitation less than that covered

under paragraph (d)(1) of this section,

the applicant will maintain any building

for which assistance is used under the

ESG program as a shelter for homeless

individuals and families for not less

than a three-year period;

(3) In the case of assistance involving

essential services (including but not

limited to employment, health, drug

abuse, or education) or maintenance,

operation, insurance, utilities and

furnishings, the applicant will provide

services or shelter to homeless

individuals and families for the period

during which the ESG assistance is

provided, without regard to a particular

site or structure as long as the same

general population is served;

(4) Any renovation carried out with

ESG assistance shall be sufficient to

ensure that the building involved is safe

and sanitary;

(5) It will assist homeless individuals

in obtaining appropriate supportive

services, including permanent housing,

medical and mental health treatment,

counseling, supervision, and other

services essential for achieving

independent living, and other Federal,

State, local, and private assistance

available for such individuals;

(6) It will obtain matching amounts

required under § 576.71 of this title;

(7) It will develop and implement

procedures to ensure the confidentiality

of records pertaining to any individual

provided family violence prevention or

treatment services under any project

assisted under the ESG program,

including protection against the release

of the address or location of any family

violence shelter project except with the

written authorization of the person

responsible for the operation of that

shelter;

(8) To the maximum extent

practicable, it will involve, through

employment, volunteer services, or

otherwise, homeless individuals and

families in constructing, renovating,

maintaining, and operating facilities

assisted under this program, in

providing services assisted under the

program, and in providing services for

occupants of facilities assisted under the

program; and

(9) It is following a current HUDapproved consolidated plan (or CHAS).

(d) HOME program. Each

participating jurisdiction must provide

the following certifications:

(1) If it plans to use HOME funds for

tenant-based rental assistance, a

certification that rental-based assistance

is an essential element of its

consolidated plan;

(2) A certification that it is using and

will use HOME funds for eligible

activities and costs, as described in

§§ 92.205 through 92.209 of this subtitle

and that it is not using and will not use

HOME funds for prohibited activities, as

described in § 92.214 of this subtitle;

and

(3) A certification that before

committing funds to a project, the

participating jurisdiction will evaluate

the project in accordance with

guidelines that it adopts for this purpose

and will not invest any more HOME

funds in combination with other federal

assistance than is necessary to provide

affordable housing.

(e) Housing Opportunities for Persons

With AIDS. For jurisdictions that seek

funding under the Housing

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

program, a certification is required by

the jurisdiction that:

(1) Activities funded under the

program will meet urgent needs that are

not being met by available public and

private sources; and

(2) Any building or structure assisted

under that program shall be operated for

the purpose specified in the plan:

(i) For a period of not less than 10

years in the case of assistance involving

new construction, substantial

rehabilitation, or acquisition of a

facility; or

(ii) For a period of not less than three

years in the case of assistance involving

non-substantial rehabilitation or repair

of a building or structure.

§ 91.230 Monitoring.

The plan must describe the standards

and procedures that the jurisdiction will

use to monitor activities carried out in

furtherance of the plan and will use to

ensure long-term compliance with

requirements of the programs involved,

including minority business outreach

and the comprehensive planning

requirements.

§ 91.235 Special case; abbreviated

consolidated plan.

(a) Who may submit an abbreviated

plan? A jurisdiction that is not a CDBG

entitlement community under 24 CFR

part 570, subpart D, and is not expected

to be a participating jurisdiction in the

HOME program under 24 CFR part 92,

may submit an abbreviated consolidated

plan that is appropriate to the types and

amounts of assistance sought from HUD

instead of a full consolidated plan.

(b) When is an abbreviated plan

necessary? (1) Jurisdiction. When a

jurisdiction that is permitted to use an

abbreviated plan applies to HUD for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1907

funds under a program that requires an

approved consolidated plan (see

§ 91.2(b)), it must obtain approval of an

abbreviated plan (or full consolidated

plan) and submit a certification that the

housing activities are consistent with

the plan.

(2) Other applicants. When an eligible

applicant other than a jurisdiction (e.g.,

a public housing agency or nonprofit

organization) seeks to apply for funding

under a program requiring certification

of consistency with an approved

consolidated plan, the jurisdiction—if it

is permitted to use an abbreviated

plan—may prepare an abbreviated plan

appropriate to the project. See § 91.510.

(3) Limitation. For the HOME

program, an abbreviated consolidated

plan is only permitted with respect to

reallocations to other than participating

jurisdictions (see 24 CFR part 92,

subpart J). For the CDBG program, an

abbreviated plan may be submitted for

the HUD-administered Small Cities

program, except an abbreviated plan

may not be submitted for the HUDadministered Small Cities program in

the State of Hawaii.

(c) What is an abbreviated plan? (1)

Assessment of needs, resources,

planned activities. An abbreviated plan

must contain sufficient information

about needs, resources, and planned

activities to address the needs to cover

the type and amount of assistance

anticipated to be funded by HUD.

(2) Nonhousing community

development plan. If the jurisdiction

seeks assistance under the Community

Development Block Grant program, it

must describe the jurisdiction’s priority

non-housing community development

needs eligible for assistance under

HUD’s community development

programs by CDBG eligibility category,

reflecting the needs of families for each

type of activity, as appropriate, in terms

of dollar amounts estimated to meet the

priority need for the type of activity, in

accordance with a table prescribed by

HUD. This community development

component of the plan must state the

jurisdiction’s specific long-term and

short-term community development

objectives (including economic

development activities that create jobs),

which must be developed in accordance

with the statutory goals described in

§ 91.1 and the primary objective of the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5301(c), of the

development of viable urban

communities by providing decent

housing and a suitable living

environment and expanding economic

opportunities, principally for lowincome and moderate-income persons.

(3) Separate application for funding.

In addition to submission of the

abbreviated consolidated plan, an

application must be submitted for

funding is sought under a competitive

program. The applicable program

requirements are found in the

regulations for the program and in the

Notice of Funding Availability

published for the applicable fiscal year.

For the CDBG Small Cities program, the

applicable regulations are found at 24

CFR part 570, subpart F.

(d) What consultation is applicable?

The jurisdiction must make reasonable

efforts to consult with appropriate

public and private social service

agencies regarding the needs to be

served with the funding sought from

HUD. The jurisdiction must attempt

some consultation with the State.

(Section 91.100 does not apply.)

(e) What citizen participation process

is applicable? If the jurisdiction is

seeking CDBG funds under the CDBG

Small Cities program, before submitting

the abbreviated consolidated plan and

application to HUD for funding, the

jurisdiction must comply with the

citizen participation requirements of 24

CFR 570.431. If it is not seeking such

funding, the jurisdiction must conduct a

citizen participation process as

provided in section 107 of the CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing

Act (42 U.S.C. 12707). (Section 91.105

does not apply.)

§ 91.236 Special case; District of

Columbia.

For consolidated planning purposes,

the District of Columbia must follow the

requirements applicable to local

jurisdictions (§§ 91.100, 91.105, and

91.200 through 91.230). In addition, it

must submit the component of the State

requirements dealing with the use of

Low Income Housing Tax Credits

(§ 91.315(j)).

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

Subpart D—State Governments;

Contents of Consolidated Plan

§ 91.300 General.

(a) A complete consolidated plan

consists of the information required in

§§ 91.305 through 91.330, submitted in

accordance with instructions prescribed

by HUD (including tables and

narratives), or in such other format as

jointly agreed upon by HUD and the

State.

(b) The State shall describe the lead

agency or entity responsible for

overseeing the development of the plan

and the significant aspects of the

process by which the consolidated plan

was developed, the identity of the

agencies, groups, organizations, and

others who participated in the process,

and a description of the State’s

consultations with social service

agencies and other entities. It also shall

include a summary of the citizen

participation process, public comments,

and efforts made to broaden public

participation in the development of the

consolidated plan.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.305 Housing and homeless needs

assessment.

(a) General. The consolidated plan

must describe the State’s estimated

housing needs projected for the ensuing

five-year period. Housing data included

in this portion of the plan shall be based

on U.S. Census data, as provided by

HUD, as updated by any properly

conducted local study, or any other

reliable source that the State clearly

identifies and should reflect the

consultation with social service

agencies and other entities conducted in

accordance with § 91.110 and the

citizen participation process conducted

in accordance with § 91.115. For a State

seeking funding under the HOPWA

program, the needs described for

housing and supportive services must

address the needs of persons with HIV/

AIDS and their families in areas outside

of eligible metropolitan statistical areas.

(b) Categories of persons affected. (1)

The consolidated plan shall estimate the

number and type of families in need of

housing assistance for extremely lowincome, low-income, moderate-income,

and middle-income families, for renters

and owners, for elderly persons, for

single persons, for large families, for

persons with HIV/AIDS and their

families, and for persons with

disabilities. The description of housing

needs shall include a discussion of the

cost burden and severe cost burden,

overcrowding (especially for large

families), and substandard housing

conditions being experienced by

extremely low-income, low-income,

moderate-income, and middle-income

renters and owners compared to the

State as a whole.

(2) For any of the income categories

enumerated in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, to the extent that any racial or

ethnic group has disproportionately

greater need in comparison to the needs

of that category as a whole, assessment

of that specific need shall be included.

For this purpose, disproportionately

greater need exists when the percentage

of persons in a category of need who are

members of a particular racial or ethnic

group is at least 10 percentage points
1908 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

higher than the percentage of persons in

the category as a whole.

(c) Homeless needs. The plan must

describe the nature and extent of

homelessness (including rural

homelessness) within the State,

addressing separately the need for

facilities and services for homeless

individuals and homeless families with

children, both sheltered and

unsheltered, and homeless

subpopulations, in accordance with a

table prescribed by HUD. This

description must include the

characteristics and needs of low-income

individuals and families with children

(especially extremely low-income) who

are currently housed but threatened

with homelessness. The plan also must

contain a narrative description of the

nature and extent of homelessness by

racial and ethnic group, to the extent

information is available.

(d) Other special needs. (1) The State

shall estimate, to the extent practicable,

the number of persons who are not

homeless but require supportive

housing, including the elderly, frail

elderly, persons with disabilities

(mental, physical, developmental),

persons with alcohol or other drug

addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and

their families, and any other categories

the State may specify, and describe their

supportive housing needs.

(2) With respect to a State seeking

assistance under the HOPWA program,

the plan must identify the size and

characteristics of the population with

HIV/AIDS and their families within the

area it will serve.

(e) Lead-based paint hazards. The

plan must estimate the number of

housing units within the State that are

occupied by low-income families or

moderate-income families that contain

lead-based paint hazards, as defined in

this part.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.310 Housing market analysis.

(a) General characteristics. Based on

data available to the State, the plan must

describe the significant characteristics

of the State’s housing markets

(including such aspects as the supply,

demand, and condition and cost of

housing).

(b) Homeless facilities. The plan must

include a brief inventory of facilities

and services that meet the needs for

emergency shelter and transitional

housing needs of homeless persons

within the State.

(c) Special need facilities and

services. The plan must describe, to the

extent information is available, the

facilities and services that assist persons

who are not homeless but who require

supportive housing, and programs for

ensuring that persons returning from

mental and physical health institutions

receive appropriate supportive housing.

(d) Barriers to affordable housing. The

plan must explain whether the cost of

housing or the incentives to develop,

maintain, or improve affordable housing

in the State are affected by its policies,

including tax policies affecting land and

other property, land use controls,

zoning ordinances, building codes, fees

and charges, growth limits, and policies

that affect the return on residential

investment.

§ 91.315 Strategic plan.

(a) General. For the categories

described in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and

(e) of this section, the consolidated plan

must do the following:

(1) Indicate the general priorities for

allocating investment geographically

within the State and among priority

needs;

(2) Describe the basis for assigning the

priority (including the relative priority,

where required) given to each category

of priority needs;

(3) Identify any obstacles to meeting

underserved needs;

(4) Summarize the priorities and

specific objectives, describing how the

proposed distribution of funds will

address identified needs;

(5) For each specific objective,

identify the proposed accomplishments

the State hopes to achieve in

quantitative terms over a specific time

period (i.e., one, two, three or more

years), or in other measurable terms as

identified and defined by the State.

(b) Affordable housing. With respect

to affordable housing, the consolidated

plan must do the following:

(1) The description of the basis for

assigning relative priority to each

category of priority need shall state how

the analysis of the housing market and

the severity of housing problems and

needs of extremely low-income, lowincome, and moderate-income renters

and owners identified in accordance

with § 91.305 provided the basis for

assigning the relative priority given to

each priority need category in the

priority housing needs table prescribed

by HUD. Family and income types may

be grouped together for discussion

where the analysis would apply to more

than one of them;

(2) The statement of specific

objectives must indicate how the

characteristics of the housing market

will influence the use of funds made

available for rental assistance,

production of new units, rehabilitation

of old units, or acquisition of existing

units; and

(3) The description of proposed

accomplishments shall specify the

number of extremely low-income, lowincome, and moderate-income families

to whom the jurisdiction will provide

affordable housing as defined in

§ 92.252 of this subtitle for rental

housing and § 92.254 of this subtitle for

homeownership over a specific time

period.

(c) Homelessness. With respect to

homelessness, the consolidated plan

must include the priority homeless

needs table prescribed by HUD and

must describe the State’s strategy for the

following:

(1) Helping low-income families avoid

becoming homeless;

(2) Reaching out to homeless persons

and assessing their individual needs;

(3) Addressing the emergency shelter

and transitional housing needs of

homeless persons; and

(4) Helping homeless persons make

the transition to permanent housing and

independent living.

(d) Other special needs. With respect

to supportive needs of the nonhomeless, the consolidated plan must

describe the priority housing and

supportive service needs of persons who

are not homeless but require supportive

housing (i.e., elderly, frail elderly,

persons with disabilities (mental,

physical, developmental), persons with

alcohol or other drug addiction, persons

with HIV/AIDS and their families, and

public housing residents).

(e) Nonhousing community

development plan. If the State seeks

assistance under the Community

Development Block Grant program, the

consolidated plan must describe the

State’s priority nonhousing community

development needs that affect more

than one unit of general local

government and involve activities

typically funded by the State under the

CDBG program. These priority needs

must be described by CDBG eligibility

category, reflecting the needs of persons

or families for each type of activity. This

community development component of

the plan must state the State’s specific

long-term and short-term community

development objectives (including

economic development activities that

create jobs), which must be developed

in accordance with the statutory goals

described in § 91.1 and the primary

objective of the CDBG program to

develop viable urban communities by

providing decent housing and a suitable

living environment and expanding

economic opportunities, principally for

low-income and moderate-income

persons.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1909

(f) Barriers to affordable housing. The

consolidated plan must describe the

State’s strategy to remove or ameliorate

negative effects of its policies that serve

as barriers to affordable housing, as

identified in accordance with § 91.310.

(g) Lead-based paint hazards. The

consolidated plan must outline the

actions proposed or being taken to

evaluate and reduce lead-based paint

hazards, and describe how the leadbased paint hazard reduction will be

integrated into housing policies and

programs.

(h) Anti-poverty strategy. The

consolidated plan must describe the

State’s goals, programs, and policies for

reducing the number of poverty level

families and how the State’s goals,

programs, and policies for producing

and preserving affordable housing, set

forth in the housing component of the

consolidated plan, will be coordinated

with other programs and services for

which the State is responsible and the

extent to which they will reduce (or

assist in reducing) the number of

poverty level families, taking into

consideration factors over which the

State has control.

(i) Institutional structure. The

consolidated plan must explain the

institutional structure, including private

industry, nonprofit organizations, and

public institutions, through which the

State will carry out its housing and

community development plan, assessing

the strengths and gaps in that delivery

system. The plan must describe what

the State will do to overcome gaps in

the institutional structure for carrying

out its strategy for addressing its priority

needs.

(j) Coordination. The consolidated

plan must describe the State’s activities

to enhance coordination between public

and assisted housing providers and

private and governmental health, mental

health, and service agencies. With

respect to the public entities involved,

the plan must describe the means of

cooperation and coordination among the

State and any units of general local

government in the implementation of its

consolidated plan.

(k) Low-income housing tax credit

use. The consolidated plan must

describe the strategy to coordinate the

Low-income Housing Tax Credit with

the development of housing that is

affordable to low-income and moderateincome families.

(l) Public housing resident initiatives.

For a State that has a State housing

agency administering public housing

funds, the consolidated plan must

describe the State’s activities to

encourage public housing residents to

become more involved in management

and participate in homeownership.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.320 Action plan.

The action plan must include the

following:

(a) Form application. Standard Form

424;

(b) Resources. (1) Federal resources.

The consolidated plan must describe the

Federal resources expected to be

available to address the priority needs

and specific objectives identified in the

strategic plan, in accordance with

§ 91.315. These resources include grant

funds and program income.

(2) Other resources. The consolidated

plan must indicate resources from

private and non-Federal public sources

that are reasonably expected to be made

available to address the needs identified

in the plan. The plan must explain how

Federal funds will leverage those

additional resources, including a

description of how matching

requirements of the HUD programs will

be satisfied. Where the State deems it

appropriate, it may indicate publicly

owned land or property located within

the State that may be used to carry out

the purposes stated in § 91.1;

(c) Activities. A description of the

State’s method for distributing funds to

local governments and nonprofit

organizations to carry out activities, or

the activities to be undertaken by the

State, using funds that are expected to

be received under formula allocations

(and related program income) and other

HUD assistance during the program year

and how the proposed distribution of

funds will address the priority needs

and specific objectives described in the

consolidated plan;

(d) Geographic distribution. A

description of the geographic areas of

the State (including areas of minority

concentration) in which it will direct

assistance during the ensuing program

year, giving the rationale for the

priorities for allocating investment

geographically;

(e) Homeless and other special needs

activities. Activities it plans to

undertake during the next year to

address emergency shelter and

transitional housing needs of homeless

individuals and families (including

subpopulations), to prevent low-income

individuals and families with children

(especially those with incomes below 30

percent of median) from becoming

homeless, to help homeless persons

make the transition to permanent

housing and independent living, and to

address the special needs of persons

who are not homeless identified in

accordance with § 91.315(d);

(f) Other actions. Actions it plans to

take during the next year to address

obstacles to meeting underserved needs,

foster and maintain affordable housing

(including the coordination of LowIncome Housing Tax Credits with the

development of affordable housing),

remove barriers to affordable housing,

evaluate and reduce lead-based paint

hazards, reduce the number of poverty

level families, develop institutional

structure, and enhance coordination

between public and private housing and

social service agencies and foster public

housing resident initiatives. (See

§ 91.315 (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k),

and (l).)

(g) Program-specific requirements. In

addition, the plan must include the

following specific information:

(1) CDBG. (i) An ‘‘urgent needs’’

activity (one that is expected to qualify

under § 570.208(c) of this title) may be

included only if the State identifies the

activity in the action plan and certifies

that the activity is designed to meet

other community development needs

having a particular urgency because

existing conditions pose a serious and

immediate threat to the health or

welfare of the community and other

financial resources are not available.

(ii) The method of distribution shall

contain a description of all criteria used

to select applications from local

governments for funding, including the

relative importance of the criteria—if

the relative importance has been

developed. The action plan must

include a description of how all CDBG

resources will be allocated among all

funding categories and the threshold

factors and grant size limits that are to

be applied. If the State intends to aid

nonentitlement units of general local

government in applying for guaranteed

loan funds under 24 CFR part 570,

subpart M, it must describe available

guarantee amounts and how

applications will be selected for

assistance. (The statement of the method

of distribution must provide sufficient

information so that units of general local

government will be able to understand

and comment on it and be able to

prepare responsive applications.)

(2) HOME. (i) The State shall describe

other forms of investment that are not

described in § 92.205(b) of this subtitle.

(ii) If the State intends to use HOME

funds for homebuyers, it must state the

guidelines for resale or recapture, as

required in § 92.254 of this subtitle.

(3) ESG. The State shall state the

process for awarding grants to State

recipients and a description of how the

State intends to make its allocation
1910 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

available to units of local government

and nonprofit organizations.

(4) HOPWA. The State shall state the

method of selecting project sponsors.

§ 91.325 Certifications.

(a) General—(1) Affirmatively

furthering fair housing. Each State is

required to submit a certification that it

will affirmatively further fair housing,

which means that it will conduct an

analysis to identify impediments to fair

housing choice within the State, take

appropriate actions to overcome the

effects of any impediments identified

through that analysis, and maintain

records reflecting the analysis and

actions in this regard. (See

§ 570.487(b)(2)(ii) of this title.)

(2) Anti-displacement and relocation

plan. The State is required to submit a

certification that it has in effect and is

following a residential antidisplacement

and relocation assistance plan in

connection with any activity assisted

with funding under the CDBG or HOME

programs.

(3) Drug-free workplace. The State

must submit a certification with regard

to drug-free workplace required by 24

CFR part 24, subpart F.

(4) Anti-lobbying. The State must

submit a certification with regard to

compliance with restrictions on

lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87,

together with disclosure forms, if

required by that part.

(5) Authority of State. The State must

submit a certification that the

consolidated plan is authorized under

State law and that the State possesses

the legal authority to carry out the

programs for which it is seeking

funding, in accordance with applicable

HUD regulations.

(6) Consistency with plan. The State

must submit a certification that the

housing activities to be undertaken with

CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds

are consistent with the strategic plan.

(7) Acquisition and relocation. The

State must submit a certification that it

will comply with the acquisition and

relocation requirements of the Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as

amended, and implementing regulations

at 49 CFR part 24.

(8) Section 3. The State must submit

a certification that it will comply with

section 3 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.

1701u), and implementing regulations at

24 CFR part 135.

(b) Community Development Block

Grant program. For States that seek

funding under CDBG, the following

certifications are required:

(1) Citizen participation. A

certification that the State is following

a detailed citizen participation plan that

satisfies the requirements of § 91.115,

and that each unit of general local

government that is receiving assistance

from the State is following a detailed

citizen participation plan that satisfies

the requirements of § 570.486 of this

title.

(2) Consultation with local

governments. A certification that:

(i) It has consulted with affected units

of local government in the

nonentitlement area of the State in

determining the method of distribution

of funding;

(ii) It engages or will engage in

planning for community development

activities;

(iii) It provides or will provide

technical assistance to units of general

local government in connection with

community development programs;

(iv) It will not refuse to distribute

funds to any unit of general local

government on the basis of the

particular eligible activity selected by

the unit of general local government to

meet its community development needs,

except that a State is not prevented from

establishing priorities in distributing

funding on the basis of the activities

selected; and

(v) Each unit of general local

government to be distributed funds will

be required to identify its community

development and housing needs,

including the needs of the low-income

and moderate-income families, and the

activities to be undertaken to meet these

needs.

(3) Community development plan. A

certification that this consolidated plan

identifies community development and

housing needs and specifies both shortterm and long-term community

development objectives that have been

developed in accordance with the

primary objective of the statute

authorizing the CDBG program, as

described in 24 CFR 570.2, and

requirements of this part and 24 CFR

part 570.

(4) Use of funds. A certification that

the State has complied with the

following criteria:

(i) With respect to activities expected

to be assisted with CDBG funds, the

action plan has been developed so as to

give the maximum feasible priority to

activities that will benefit low- and

moderate-income families or aid in the

prevention or elimination of slums or

blight. The plan may also include

CDBG-assisted activities that are

certified to be designed to meet other

community development needs having

particular urgency because existing

conditions pose a serious and

immediate threat to the health or

welfare of the community where other

financial resources are not available to

meet such needs;

(ii) The aggregate use of CDBG funds,

including section 108 guaranteed loans,

during a period specified by the State,

consisting of one, two, or three specific

consecutive program years, shall

principally benefit low- and moderateincome families in a manner that

ensures that at least 70 percent of the

amount is expended for activities that

benefit such persons during the

designated period (see 24 CFR 570.481

for definition of ‘‘CDBG funds’’); and

(iii) The State will not attempt to

recover any capital costs of public

improvements assisted with CDBG

funds, including Section 108 loan

guaranteed funds, by assessing any

amount against properties owned and

occupied by persons of low- and

moderate-income, including any fee

charged or assessment made as a

condition of obtaining access to such

public improvements. However, if

CDBG funds are used to pay the

proportion of a fee or assessment

attributable to the capital costs of public

improvements (assisted in part with

CDBG funds) financed from other

revenue sources, an assessment or

charge may be made against the

property with respect to the public

improvements financed by a source

other than with CDBG funds. In

addition, with respect to properties

owned and occupied by moderateincome (but not low-income) families,

an assessment or charge may be made

against the property with respect to the

public improvements financed by a

source other than CDBG funds if the

State certifies that it lacks CDBG funds

to cover the assessment.

(5) Compliance with antidiscrimination laws. A certification that

the grant will be conducted and

administered in conformity with title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

U.S.C. 2000d) and the Fair Housing Act

(42 U.S.C. 3601–3619) and

implementing regulations.

(6) Excessive force. A certification that

the State will require units of general

local government that receive CDBG

funds to certify that they have adopted

and are enforcing:

(i) A policy prohibiting the use of

excessive force by law enforcement

agencies within its jurisdiction against

any individuals engaged in non-violent

civil rights demonstrations; and

(ii) A policy of enforcing applicable

State and local laws against physically

barring entrance to or exit from a facility

or location that is the subject of such
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1911

non-violent civil rights demonstrations

within its jurisdiction.

(7) Compliance with laws. A

certification that the State will comply

with applicable laws.

(c) Emergency Shelter Grant program.

For States that seek funding under the

Emergency Shelter Grant program, a

certification is required by the State that

it will ensure that its State recipients

comply with the following criteria:

(1) In the case of assistance involving

major rehabilitation or conversion, it

will maintain any building for which

assistance is used under the ESG

program as a shelter for homeless

individuals and families for not less

than a 10-year period;

(2) In the case of assistance involving

rehabilitation less than that covered

under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, it

will maintain any building for which

assistance is used under the ESG

program as a shelter for homeless

individuals and families for not less

than a three-year period;

(3) In the case of assistance involving

essential services (including but not

limited to employment, health, drug

abuse, or education) or maintenance,

operation, insurance, utilities and

furnishings, it will provide services or

shelter to homeless individuals and

families for the period during which the

ESG assistance is provided, without

regard to a particular site or structure as

long as the same general population is

served;

(4) Any renovation carried out with

ESG assistance shall be sufficient to

ensure that the building involved is safe

and sanitary;

(5) It will assist homeless individuals

in obtaining appropriate supportive

services, including permanent housing,

medical and mental health treatment,

counseling, supervision, and other

services essential for achieving

independent living, and other Federal,

State, local, and private assistance

available for such individuals;

(6) It will obtain matching amounts

required under § 576.71 of this title;

(7) It will develop and implement

procedures to ensure the confidentiality

of records pertaining to any individual

provided family violence prevention or

treatment services under any project

assisted under the ESG program,

including protection against the release

of the address or location of any family

violence shelter project except with the

written authorization of the person

responsible for the operation of that

shelter;

(8) To the maximum extent

practicable, it will involve, through

employment, volunteer services, or

otherwise, homeless individuals and

families in constructing, renovating,

maintaining, and operating facilities

assisted under this program, in

providing services assisted under the

program, and in providing services for

occupants of facilities assisted under the

program; and

(9) It is following a current HUDapproved consolidated plan.

(d) HOME program. Each State must

provide the following certifications:

(1) If it plans to use program funds for

tenant-based rental assistance, a

certification that rental-based assistance

is an essential element of its

consolidated plan;

(2) A certification that it is using and

will use HOME funds for eligible

activities and costs, as described in

§§ 92.205 through 92.209 of this subtitle

and that it is not using and will not use

HOME funds for prohibited activities, as

described in § 92.214 of this subtitle;

and

(3) A certification that before

committing funds to a project, the State

or its recipients will evaluate the project

in accordance with guidelines that it

adopts for this purpose and will not

invest any more HOME funds in

combination with other federal

assistance than is necessary to provide

affordable housing.

(e) Housing Opportunities for Persons

With AIDS. For States that seek funding

under the Housing Opportunities for

Persons With AIDS program, a

certification is required by the State

that:

(1) Activities funded under the

program will meet urgent needs that are

not being met by available public and

private sources; and

(2) Any building or structure

purchased, leased, rehabilitated,

renovated, or converted with assistance

under that program shall be operated for

not less than 10 years specified in the

plan, or for a period of not less than

three years in cases involving nonsubstantial rehabilitation or repair of a

building or structure.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.330 Monitoring.

The consolidated plan must describe

the standards and procedures that the

State will use to monitor activities

carried out in furtherance of the plan

and will use to ensure long-term

compliance with requirements of the

programs involved, including the

comprehensive planning requirements.

Subpart E—Consortia; Contents of

Consolidated Plan

§ 91.400 Applicability.

This subpart applies to HOME

program consortia, as defined in § 91.5

(see 24 CFR part 92). Units of local

government that participate in a

consortium must participate in

submission of a consolidated plan for

the consortium, prepared in accordance

with this subpart. CDBG entitlement

communities that are members of a

consortium must provide additional

information for the consolidated plan,

as described in this subpart.

§ 91.401 Citizen participation plan.

The consortium must have a citizen

participation plan that complies with

the requirements of § 91.105. If the

consortium contains one or more CDBG

entitlement communities, the

consortium’s citizen participation plan

must provide for citizen participation

within each CDBG entitlement

community, either by the consortium or

by the CDBG entitlement community, in

a manner sufficient for the CDBG

entitlement community to certify that it

is following a citizen participation plan.

§ 91.402 Consolidated program year.

(a) Same program year for consortia

members. All units of general local

government that are members of a

consortium must be on the same

program year for CDBG, HOME, ESG,

and HOPWA. The program year shall

run for a twelve month period and begin

on the first calendar day of a month.

(b) Transition period. (1) A

consortium in existence on March 6,

1995, with all members having aligned

program years must comply with

paragraph (a) of this section. A

consortium in existence on March 6,

1995, in which all members do not have

aligned program years will be allowed a

transition period during the balance of

its current consortium agreement to

bring the program year for all members

into alignment.

(2) During any such transition period,

the lead agency (if it is a CDBG

entitlement community) must submit, as

its consolidated plan, a plan that

complies with this subpart for the

consortium, plus its nonhousing

Community Development Plan (in

accordance with § 91.215). All other

CDBG entitlement communities in the

consortium may submit their respective

nonhousing Community Development

Plans (§ 91.215(e)), an Action Plan

(§ 91.220) and the certifications

(§ 91.425(a) and (b)) in accordance with

their individual program years.
1912 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.405 Housing and homeless needs

assessment.

Housing and homeless needs must be

described in the consolidated plan in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 91.205 for the entire consortium. In

addition to describing these needs for

the entire consortium, the consolidated

plan may also describe these needs for

individual communities that are

members of the consortium.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.410 Housing market analysis.

Housing market analysis must be

described in the consolidated plan in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 91.210 for the entire consortium. In

addition to describing market

conditions for the entire consortium, the

consolidated plan may also describe

these conditions for individual

communities that are members of the

consortium.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.415 Strategic plan.

Strategies and priority needs must be

described in the consolidated plan in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 91.215 for the entire consortium. The

consortium is not required to submit a

nonhousing Community Development

Plan; however, if the consortium

includes CDBG entitlement

communities, the consolidated plan

must include the nonhousing

Community Development Plans of the

CDBG entitlement community members

of the consortium. The consortium must

set forth its priorities for allocating

housing (including CDBG and ESG,

where applicable) resources

geographically within the consortium,

describing how the consolidated plan

will address the needs identified (in

accordance with § 91.405), describing

the reasons for the consortium’s

allocation priorities, and identifying any

obstacles there are to addressing

underserved needs.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.420 Action plan.

(a) Form application. The action plan

for the consortium must include a

Standard Form 424 for the consortium

for the HOME program. Each

entitlement jurisdiction also must

submit a Standard Form 424 for its

funding under the CDBG program and,

if applicable, the ESG and HOPWA

programs.

(b) Description of resources and

activities. The action plan must describe

the resources to be used and activities

to be undertaken to pursue its strategic

plan. The consolidated plan must

provide this description for all resources

and activities within the entire

consortium as a whole, as well as a

description for each individual

community that is a member of the

consortium.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.425 Certifications.

(a) Consortium certifications—(1)

General—(i) Affirmatively furthering fair

housing. Each consortium must certify

that it will affirmatively further fair

housing, which means that it will

conduct an analysis to identify

impediments to fair housing choice

within the area, take appropriate actions

to overcome the effects of any

impediments identified through that

analysis, and maintain records reflecting

the analysis and actions in this regard.

(ii) Anti-displacement and relocation

plan. Each consortium must certify that

it has in effect and is following a

residential antidisplacement and

relocation assistance plan in connection

with any activity assisted with funding

under the HOME or CDBG program.

(iii) Drug-free workplace. The

consortium must submit a certification

with regard to drug-free workplace

required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F.

(iv) Anti-lobbying. The consortium

must submit a certification with regard

to compliance with restrictions on

lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87,

together with disclosure forms, if

required by that part.

(v) Authority of consortium. The

consortium must submit a certification

that the consolidated plan is authorized

under State and local law (as applicable)

and that the consortium possesses the

legal authority to carry out the programs

for which it is seeking funding, in

accordance with applicable HUD

regulations.

(vi) Consistency with plan. The

consortium must certify that the

housing activities to be undertaken with

CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds

are consistent with the strategic plan.

(vii) Acquisition and relocation. The

consortium must certify that it will

comply with the acquisition and

relocation requirements of the Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and

implementing regulations at 49 CFR part

24.

(viii) Section 3. The consortium must

certify that it will comply with section

3 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.

1701u), and implementing regulations at

24 CFR part 135.

(2) HOME program. The consortium

must provide the following

certifications:

(i) If it plans to use HOME funds for

tenant-based rental assistance, a

certification that rental-based assistance

is an essential element of its

consolidated plan;

(ii) That it is using and will use

HOME funds for eligible activities and

costs, as described in §§ 92.205 through

92.209 of this subtitle and that it is not

using and will not use HOME funds for

prohibited activities, as described in

§ 92.214 of this subtitle; and

(iii) That before committing funds to

a project, the consortium will evaluate

the project in accordance with

guidelines that it adopts for this purpose

and will not invest any more HOME

funds in combination with other federal

assistance than is necessary to provide

affordable housing.

(b) CDBG entitlement community

certifications. A CDBG entitlement

community that is a member of a

consortium must submit the

certifications required by § 91.225 (a)

and (b), and, if applicable, of § 91.225

(c) and (d).

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.430 Monitoring.

The consolidated plan must describe

the standards and procedures that the

consortium will use to monitor

activities carried out in furtherance of

the plan and will use to ensure longterm compliance with requirements of

the programs involved, including

minority business outreach and the

comprehensive planning requirements.

Subpart F—Other General

Requirements

§ 91.500 HUD approval action.

(a) General. HUD will review the plan

upon receipt. The plan will be deemed

approved 45 days after HUD receives

the plan, unless before that date HUD

has notified the jurisdiction that the

plan is disapproved.

(b) Standard of review. HUD may

disapprove a plan or a portion of a plan

if it is inconsistent with the purposes of

the Cranston-Gonzalez National

Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

12703), or it is substantially incomplete.

The following are examples of

consolidated plans that are substantially

incomplete:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1913

(1) A plan that was developed without

the required citizen participation or the

required consultation;

(2) A plan that fails to satisfy all the

required elements in this part; and

(3) A plan for which a certification is

rejected by HUD as inaccurate, after

HUD has inspected the evidence and

provided due notice and opportunity to

the jurisdiction for comment.

(c) Written notice of disapproval.

Within 15 days after HUD notifies a

jurisdiction that it is disapproving its

plan, it must inform the jurisdiction in

writing of the reasons for disapproval

and actions that the jurisdiction could

take to meet the criteria for approval.

Disapproval of a plan with respect to

one program does not affect assistance

distributed on the basis of a formula

under other programs.

(d) Revisions and resubmission. The

jurisdiction may revise or resubmit a

plan within 45 days after the first

notification of disapproval. HUD must

respond to approve or disapprove the

plan within 30 days of receiving the

revisions or resubmission.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.505 Amendments to the consolidated

plan.

(a) Amendments to the plan. The

jurisdiction shall amend its approved

plan whenever it makes one of the

following decisions:

(1) To make a change in its allocation

priorities or a change in the method of

distribution of funds;

(2) To carry out an activity, using

funds from any program covered by the

consolidated plan (including program

income), not previously described in the

action plan; or

(3) To change the purpose, scope,

location, or beneficiaries of an activity.

(b) Criteria for substantial

amendment. The jurisdiction shall

identify in its citizen participation plan

the criteria it will use for determining

what constitutes a substantial

amendment. It is these substantial

amendments that are subject to a citizen

participation process, in accordance

with the jurisdiction’s citizen

participation plan. (See §§ 91.105 and

91.115.)

(c) Submission to HUD. (1) Upon

completion, the jurisdiction must make

the amendment public and must notify

HUD that an amendment has been

made. The jurisdiction may submit a

copy of each amendment to HUD as it

occurs, or at the end of the program

year. Letters transmitting copies of

amendments must be signed by the

official representative of the jurisdiction

authorized to take such action.

(2) See subpart B of this part for the

public notice procedures applicable to

substantial amendments. For any

amendment affecting the HOPWA

program that would involve acquisition,

rehabilitation, conversion, lease, repair

or construction of properties to provide

housing, an environmental review of the

revised proposed use of funds must be

completed by HUD in accordance with

24 CFR 574.510.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.510 Consistency determinations.

(a) Applicability. For competitive

programs, a certification of consistency

of the application with the approved

consolidated plan for the jurisdiction

may be required, whether the applicant

is the jurisdiction or another applicant.

(b) Certifying authority. (1) The

certification must be obtained from the

unit of general local government if the

project will be located in a unit of

general local government that: is

required to have a consolidated plan, is

authorized to use an abbreviated

consolidated plan but elects to prepare

and has submitted a full consolidated

plan, or is authorized to use an

abbreviated consolidated plan and is

applying for the same program as the

applicant pursuant to the same Notice of

Funding Availability (and therefore has

or will have an abbreviated consolidated

plan for the fiscal year for that program).

(2) If the project will not be located in

a unit of general local government, the

certification may be obtained from the

State or, if the project will be located in

a unit of general local government

authorized to use an abbreviated

consolidated plan, from the unit of

general local government if it is willing

to prepare such a plan.

(3) Where the recipient of a HOPWA

grant is a city that is the most populous

unit of general local government in an

EMSA, it also must obtain and keep on

file certifications of consistency from

such public officials for each other

locality in the EMSA in which housing

assistance is provided.

(c) Meaning. A jurisdiction’s

certification that an application is

consistent with its consolidated plan

means the jurisdiction’s plan shows

need, the proposed activities are

consistent with the jurisdiction’s

strategic plan, and the location of the

proposed activities is consistent with

the geographic areas specified in the

plan. The jurisdiction shall provide the

reasons for the denial when it fails to

provide a certification of consistency.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.515 Funding determinations by HUD.

(a) Formula funding. The action plan

submitted by the jurisdiction will be

considered as the application for the

CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA

formula grant programs. The

Department will make its funding award

determination after reviewing the plan

submission in accordance with § 91.500.

(b) Other funding. For other funding,

the jurisdiction must still respond to

Notices of Funding Availability for the

individual programs in order to receive

funding.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.520 Performance reports.

(a) General. Each jurisdiction that has

an approved consolidated plan shall

annually review and report, in a form

prescribed by HUD, on the progress it

has made in carrying out its strategic

plan and its action plan. The

performance report must include a

description of the resources made

available, the investment of available

resources, the geographic distribution

and location of investments, the families

and persons assisted (including the

racial and ethnic status of persons

assisted), actions taken to affirmatively

further fair housing, and other actions

indicated in the strategic plan and the

action plan. This performance report

shall be submitted to HUD within 90

days after the close of the jurisdiction’s

program year.

(b) Affordable housing. The report

shall include an evaluation of the

jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its

specific objective of providing

affordable housing, including the

number and types of families served.

This element of the report must include

the number of extremely low-income,

low-income, moderate-income, and

middle-income persons served.

(c) CDBG. For CDBG recipients, the

report shall include a description of the

use of CDBG funds during the program

year and an assessment by the

jurisdiction of the relationship of that

use to the priorities and specific

objectives identified in the plan, giving

special attention to the highest priority

activities that were identified. This

element of the report must specify the

nature of and reasons for any changes in

its program objectives and indications of

how the jurisdiction would change its

programs as a result of its experiences.

This element of the report also must

include the number of extremely lowincome, low-income, and moderateincome persons served by each activity

where information on income by family

size is required to determine the

eligibility of the activity.
1914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

(d) HOME. For HOME participating

jurisdictions, the report shall include

the results of on-site inspections of

affordable rental housing assisted under

the program to determine compliance

with housing codes and other applicable

regulations, an assessment of the

jurisdiction’s affirmative marketing

actions and outreach to minority-owned

and women-owned businesses, and data

on the amount and use of program

income for projects, including the

number of projects and owner and

tenant characteristics.

(e) HOPWA. For jurisdictions

receiving funding under the Housing

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

program, the report must include the

number of individuals assisted and the

types of assistance provided.

(f) Evaluation by HUD. HUD shall

review the performance report and

determine whether it is satisfactory. If a

satisfactory report is not submitted in a

timely manner, HUD may suspend

funding until a satisfactory report is

submitted, or may withdraw and

reallocate funding if HUD determines,

after notice and opportunity for a

hearing, that the jurisdiction will not

submit a satisfactory report.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 91.525 Performance review by HUD.

(a) General. HUD shall review the

performance of each jurisdiction

covered by this part at least annually,

including site visits by employees—

insofar as practicable, assessing the

following:

(1) Management of funds made

available under programs administered

by HUD;

(2) Compliance with the consolidated

plan;

(3) Accuracy of performance reports;

(4) Extent to which the jurisdiction

made progress towards the statutory

goals identified in § 91.1; and

(5) Efforts to ensure that housing

assisted under programs administered

by HUD is in compliance with

contractual agreements and the

requirements of law.

(b) Report by HUD. HUD shall report

on the performance review in writing,

stating the length of time the

jurisdiction has to review and comment

on the report, which will be at least 30

days. HUD may revise the report after

considering the jurisdiction’s views, and

shall make the report, the jurisdiction’s

comments, and any revisions available

to the public within 30 days after

receipt of the jurisdiction’s comments.

PART 92—HOME INVESTMENT

PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

2. The authority citation for part 92

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701–

12839.

3. In § 92.2, the definition of ‘‘housing

strategy’’ is removed and a definition of

‘‘consolidated plan’’ is added in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 92.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Consolidated plan. The plan prepared

in accordance with part 91 of this

subtitle, which describes needs,

resources, priorities and proposed

activities to be undertaken with respect

to HUD programs, including the HOME

program. An approved consolidated

plan means a consolidated plan that has

been approved by HUD in accordance

with part 91 of this subtitle.

* * * * *

4. Section 92.52 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 92.52 Formula allocations.

Not later than 20 days after funds

become available to HUD, HUD will

allocate HOME funds and then will

promptly notify all jurisdictions

receiving a formula allocation the

amount of each jurisdiction’s formula

allocation.

5. In § 92.103, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 92.103 Notification of intent to

participate.

(a) A jurisdiction must notify HUD in

writing, not later than 30 days after

receiving notice of its formula allocation

amount under § 92.52, of its intention to

become a participating jurisdiction.

* * * * *

6. Section 92.104 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 92.104 Submission of consolidated plan.

A jurisdiction that has not submitted

a consolidated plan to HUD or has

submitted an abbreviated consolidated

plan (as provided for in § 91.235 of this

subtitle) must submit to HUD, not later

than 90 days after providing notification

under § 92.103, a consolidated plan in

accordance with part 91 of this subtitle.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control numbers 2501–0013).

7. Section 92.105 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 92.105 Designation as a participating

jurisdiction.

When a jurisdiction has complied

with the requirements of §§ 92.102

through 92.104 and HUD has approved

the jurisdiction’s consolidated plan in

accordance with part 91 of this subtitle,

HUD will designate the jurisdiction as a

participating jurisdiction.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control numbers 2501–0013

and 2506–0117).

8. Section 92.150 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 92.150 Submission requirements.

In order to receive its HOME

allocation, a participating jurisdiction

must submit a consolidated plan in

accordance with 24 CFR part 91. That

part includes requirements for the

content of the consolidated plan, for the

process of developing the consolidated

plan, including citizen participation

provisions, for the submission date, for

HUD approval, and for the amendment

process.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 92.151 [Removed]

9. Section 92.151 is removed.

§ 92.152 [Removed]

10. Section 92.152 is removed.

§ 92.200 [Amended]

11. In § 92.200, the term ‘‘housing

strategy’’ is removed from each place

where it appears, and the term

‘‘consolidated plan’’ is added in each

place.

§ 92.201 [Amended]

12. In § 92.201, the term ‘‘housing

strategy’’ is removed from paragraphs (a)

and (b)(1) from each place where it

appears, and the term ‘‘consolidated

plan’’ is added in each place.

§ 92.204 [Amended]

13. Section 92.204 is amended by

removing from paragraph (c) the phrase,

‘‘subpart D (Program Description),’’.

§ 92.207 [Amended]

14. Section 92.207 is amended by

removing from paragraph (f) the term

‘‘housing strategy’’ in each place where

it occurs and adding in its place the

term ‘‘consolidated plan’’.

15. In § 92.211, paragraph (a)(1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 92.211 Tenant-based rental assistance.

(a) * * *

(1) The participating jurisdiction

makes the certification about inclusion

of this type of assistance in its

consolidated plan in accordance with

§§ 91.225(d)(1), 91.325(d)(1), or

91.425(b)(1)) of this subtitle; and

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1915

§ 92.220 [Amended]

16. Section 92.220 is amended by

removing the last sentence from

paragraph (a)(6)(ii).

§ 92.222 [Amended]

17. Section 92.222 is amended by

removing from paragraphs (a)(3) and

(a)(4) the word ‘‘published’’ in each

place where it appears, and adding in its

place the word ‘‘made’’.

§ 92.300 [Amended]

18. Section 92.300 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b) the term

‘‘housing strategy’’ where it occurs and

adding it its place the term

‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 92.302 [Amended]

19. Section 92.302 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b)(2) the term

‘‘housing strategy’’ where it occurs and

adding it its place the term

‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 92.350 [Amended]

20. Section 92.350 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b) the term

‘‘housing strategy’’ where it occurs and

adding it its place the term

‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 92.450 [Amended]

21. Section 92.450 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b) the term

‘‘housing strategy’’ where it occurs and

adding it its place the term

‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 92.451 [Amended]

22. Section 92.451 is amended by

removing from paragraph (a)(1)(iii), the

phrase ‘‘housing strategy in accordance

with § 92.104’’ and by adding in its

place, the phrase ‘‘consolidated plan, in

accordance with part 91 of this

subtitle’’; and by removing from

paragraph (a)(2) the phrase ‘‘§ 91.70 of

this title’’ and by adding in its place, the

phrase ‘‘part 91 of this subtitle’’.

§ 92.453 [Amended]

23. Section 92.453 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b)(2)(ii) the

phrase ‘‘housing strategy’’ each place

where it occurs, and by adding the

phrase ‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 92.508 [Amended]

24. Section 92.508 is amended by

removing from paragraph (c)(1) the

word ‘‘three’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘four’’.

25. In § 92.509, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 92.509 Performance reports.

(a) * * *

(b) Annual performance report. For

annual performance report

requirements, see part 91 of this

subtitle.

* * * * *

PART 570—COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS

26. The authority citation for part 570

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5300–

5320.

27. In § 570.3, the definition of

‘‘Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy (CHAS or housing strategy)’’ is

removed, and the definition of

‘‘consolidated plan’’ is added in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 570.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Consolidated plan. The plan prepared

in accordance with 24 CFR part 91,

which describes needs, resources,

priorities and proposed activities to be

undertaken with respect to HUD

programs, including the CDBG program.

An approved consolidated plan means a

consolidated plan that has been

approved by HUD in accordance with

24 CFR part 91.

* * * * *

§ 570.205 [Amended]

28. In § 570.205, paragraph (a)(3)(i) is

amended by removing the term

‘‘Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy’’, and adding in its place the

term ‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 570.301 [Removed]

29. Section 570.301 is removed.

30. Section 570.302 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 570.302 Submission requirements.

In order to receive its annual CDBG

entitlement grant, a grantee must submit

a consolidated plan in accordance with

24 CFR part 91. That part includes

requirements for the content of the

consolidated plan, for the process of

developing the consolidated plan,

including citizen participation

provisions, for the submission date, for

HUD approval, and for the amendment

process.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

31. Section 570.303 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 570.303 Certifications.

The jurisdiction must make the

certifications that are set forth in 24 CFR

part 91 as part of the consolidated plan.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

32. In § 570.304, paragraphs (a) and

(c)(1) are revised to read as follows:

§ 570.304 Making of grants.

(a) Approval of grant. HUD will

approve a grant if the jurisdiction’s

submissions have been made and

approved in accordance with 24 CFR

part 91.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) The consolidated plan is not

received by the first working day in

September or is not approved under 24

CFR part 91, subpart F, in which case

the grantee will forfeit the entire

entitlement amount; or

* * * * *

§ 570.305 [Removed]

33. Section 570.305 is removed.

§ 570.306 [Removed]

34. Section 570.306 is removed.

§ 570.308 [Amended]

35. In § 570.308, paragraph (d) is

amended by removing the phrase, ‘‘this

subpart’’, and adding in its place the

phrase, ‘‘24 CFR part 91’’.

§ 570.420 [Amended]

36. In § 570.420, paragraph (d) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘CHAS’’ and adding in its place the

phrase ‘‘consolidated plan’’; and by

removing the phrase ‘‘Comprehensive

Housing Affordability Strategy’’ and

adding in its place the phrase

‘‘consolidated plan’’.

37. In § 570.423, paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c)(1) are revised to read as follows:

§ 570.423 Application for the HUDadministered New York Small Cities Grants.

(a) Proposed application. The

applicant shall prepare and publish a

proposed application and comply with

citizen participation requirements as

described in § 570.431, and in 24 CFR

part 91—if the application contains

housing activities and the applicant is

required to prepare and submit an

abbreviated consolidated plan.

(b) Final application. The applicant

shall submit to HUD a final application

containing its community development

objectives and activities. This final

application shall be submitted, in a form

prescribed by HUD, to the appropriate

HUD office. The application also must

contain a priority nonhousing

community development plan, in

accordance with 24 CFR 91.235.

(c) Certifications. (1) Certifications

shall be submitted in a form prescribed

by HUD. If the application contains any

housing activities, the applicant shall

certify that the proposed housing

activities are consistent with its

abbreviated consolidated plan, as

described at 24 CFR part 91.

* * * * *
1916 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

38. Section 570.429 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing from paragraph (b) the

word ‘‘through’’ and by adding, in its

place, the word ‘‘and’’; and

b. By revising paragraphs (f) and (g) to

read as follows:

§ 570.429 Hawaii general and grant

requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Required submissions. In order to

receive its formula grant under this

subpart, the applicant must submit a

consolidated plan in accordance with 24

CFR part 91. That part includes

requirements for the content of the

consolidated plan, for the process of

developing the plan, including citizen

participation provisions, for the

submission date, for HUD approval, and

for the amendment process.

(g) Application approval. HUD will

follow the requirements of 24 CFR

91.500.

* * * * *

§ 570.430 [Amended]

39. Section 570.430 is amended by

removing paragraph (f).

§ 570.431 [Amended]

40. Section 570.431 is amended by

removing paragraph (f).

41. In § 570.485, paragraphs (b), (c),

and (e) are removed; paragraph (d) is

redesignated as paragraph (b); and

paragraph (a) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 570.485 State submissions and state

citizen participation requirements.

(a) Required submissions. In order to

receive its annual CDBG grant under

this subpart, a State must submit a

consolidated plan in accordance with 24

CFR part 91. That part includes

requirements for the content of the

consolidated plan, for the process of

developing the plan, including citizen

participation provisions, for the

submission date, for HUD approval, and

for the amendment process.

* * * * *

42. Section 570.487 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 570.487 Other applicable laws and

related program requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Affirmatively furthering fair

housing. The Act requires the state to

certify to the satisfaction of HUD that it

will affirmatively further fair housing.

The act also requires each unit of

general local government to certify that

it will affirmatively further fair housing.

The certification that the State will

affirmatively further fair housing shall

specifically require the State to assume

the responsibility of fair housing

planning by:

(1) Conducting an analysis to identify

impediments to fair housing choice

within the State;

(2) Taking appropriate actions to

overcome the effects of any

impediments identified through that

analysis;

(3) Maintaining records reflecting the

analysis and actions in this regard; and

(4) Assuring that units of local

government funded by the State comply

with their certifications to affirmatively

further fair housing.

* * * * *

43. Section 570.491 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 570.491 Performance and evaluation

report.

The annual performance and

evaluation report shall be submitted in

accordance with 24 CFR part 91.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

44. In § 570.502, paragraph (a)(16) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 570.502 Applicability of uniform

administrative requirements.

(a) * * *

(16) Section 85.42, ‘‘Retention and

access requirements for records,’’ except

that the period shall be four years;

* * * * *

45. In § 570.506, paragraphs (e) and

(g)(1) are revised to read as follows:

§ 570.506 Records to be maintained.

* * * * *

(e) Records that demonstrate

compliance with the citizen

participation requirements prescribed in

24 CFR part 91, subpart B, for

entitlement recipients, or in 24 CFR part

91, subpart C, for HUD-administered

small cities recipients.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) Documentation of the analysis of

impediments and the actions the

recipient has carried out with its

housing and community development

and other resources to remedy or

ameliorate any impediments to fair

housing choice in the recipient’s

community.

* * * * *

46. In § 570.507, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 570.507 Reports.

(a) Performance and evaluation

report—(1) Entitlement grant recipients

and HUD-administered small cities

recipients in Hawaii. The annual

performance and evaluation report shall

be submitted in accordance with 24 CFR

part 91.

(2) HUD-administered small cities

recipients in New York. (i) Content.

Each performance and evaluation report

must contain completed copies of all

forms and narratives prescribed by

HUD, including a summary of the

citizen comments received on the

report.

(ii) Timing. The performance and

evaluation report on each grant shall be

submitted:

(A) No later than October 31 for all

grants executed before April 1 of the

same calendar year. The first report

should cover the period from the

execution of the grant until September

30. Reports on grants made after March

31 of a calendar year will be due

October 31 of the following calendar

year, and the reports will cover the

period of time from the execution of the

grant until September 30 of the calendar

year following grant execution. After the

initial submission, the performance and

evaluation report will be submitted

annually on October 31 until

completion of the activities funded

under the grant;

(B) Hawaii grantees will submit their

small cities performance and evaluation

report for each pre-FY 1995 grant no

later than 90 days after the completion

of their most recent program year. After

the initial submission, the performance

and evaluation report will be submitted

annually until completion of the

activities funded under the grant; and

(C) No later than 90 days after the

criteria for grant closeout, as described

in § 570.509(a), have been met.

(iii) Citizen comments on the report.

Each recipient shall make copies of the

performance and evaluation report

available to its citizens in sufficient time

to permit the citizens to comment on the

report before its submission to HUD.

Each recipient may determine the

specific manner and times the report

will be made available to citizens

consistent with the preceding sentence.

* * * * *

§ 570.509 [Amended]

47. Section 570.509 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b)(1) the

word, ‘‘§ 570.507’’ and adding in its

place the words, ‘‘24 CFR part 91’’; and

by removing from paragraph (d) the

phrases, ‘‘comprehensive housing

affordability strategy’’, ‘‘Comprehensive

Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)’’,

and ‘‘fiscal year’’, and adding, in their

place, the phrases, ‘‘consolidated plan’’,

‘‘Consolidated Plan’’, and ‘‘program

year’’, respectively.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1917

§ 570.601 [Amended]

48. In § 570.601, paragraph (b) is

amended by adding the following

sentence to the end of the paragraph, to

read as follows:

§ 570.601 Public Law 88–352 and Public

Law 90–284; affirmatively furthering fair

housing; Executive Order 11063.

* * * * *

(b) * * * For each community

receiving a grant under subpart D of this

part, the certification that the grantee

will affirmatively further fair housing

shall specifically require the grantee to

assume the responsibility of fair housing

planning by conducting an analysis to

identify impediments to fair housing

choice within its jurisdiction, taking

appropriate actions to overcome the

effects of any impediments identified

through that analysis, and maintaining

records reflecting the analysis and

actions in this regard.

* * * * *

§ 570.605 [Amended]

49. Section 570.605 is amended by

removing the phrase, ‘‘final statement

pursuant to § 570.302’’, and by adding,

in its place, the phrase, ‘‘consolidated

plan, in accordance with 24 CFR part

91’’.

§ 570.606 [Amended]

50. In § 570.606, paragraph (c)(3)(iv) is

amended by removing the term

‘‘Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy’’, and adding in its place the

term ‘‘consolidated plan’’.

§ 570.704 [Amended]

51. Section 570.704 is amended as

follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1)(v), the phrase,

‘‘statements of community development

objectives and projected use of funds

prepared for its annual grant pursuant to

§ 570.301’’ is removed, and the phrase,

‘‘consolidated plan’’ is added in its

place; and the phrase, ‘‘include in these

statements’’, is removed and the phrase,

‘‘include in the consolidated plan’’, is

added in its place.

b. In paragraph (b) introductory text,

the phrase ‘‘final statement’’ is removed

and the phrase ‘‘consolidated plan’’ is

added in its place.

c. In paragraph (a)(2), the third and

fourth sentences are revised to read as

follows:

§ 570.704 Application requirements.

(a) * * *

(2) Citizen participation plan. * * *

The plan may be the citizen plan

required for the consolidated plan,

modified to include guaranteed loan

funds. The public entity is not required

to hold a separate public hearing for its

consolidated plan and for the

guaranteed loan funds to obtain citizens’

views on community development and

housing needs. * * *

* * * * *

§ 570.901 [Amended]

52. Section 570.901 is amended by

removing from paragraph (d) the phrase,

‘‘presubmission requirements at

§ 570.301, the amendment requirements

at § 570.305’’, and adding in its place

the phrase, ‘‘submission requirements of

24 CFR part 91’’.

53. In § 570.904, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 570.904 Equal Opportunity and Fair

Housing Review Criteria.

* * * * *

(c) Fair housing review criteria.

Section 570.601(b) sets forth the general

requirements for the Fair Housing Act

(42 U.S.C. 3601–3620) and the grantee’s

certification that it will affirmatively

further fair housing.

* * * * *

§ 570.910 [Amended]

54. Section 570.910 is amended by

removing from paragraph (b)(2)(iii) the

phrase, ‘‘subpart D’’, and adding in its

place the phrase, ‘‘24 CFR part 91’’.

PART 574—HOUSING

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH

AIDS

55. The authority citation for part 574

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12901–

12912.

56. Section 574.2 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 574.2 Overview.

(a) Available funds. The Department

awards funds appropriated for any fiscal

year for the program through a formula

allocation and a competitive grant

process. Ninety percent of funds

appropriated for this program are

distributed by formula entitlement. The

remaining ten percent is awarded

through the competitive process.

(b) Formula entitlements. The formula

grants are awarded upon submission

and approval of a consolidated plan,

pursuant to 24 CFR part 91, that covers

the assistance to be provided under this

part. Certain States and cities that are

the most populous unit of general local

government in eligible metropolitan

statistical areas will receive formula

allocations based on their State or

metropolitan population and

proportionate number of cases of

persons with AIDS. They will receive

funds under this part (providing they

comply with 24 CFR part 91) for eligible

activities that address the housing needs

of persons with AIDS or related diseases

and their families (see § 574.130(b)).

(c) Competitive grants. The

competitive grants are awarded based

on applications, as described in subpart

C of this part, submitted in response to

a Notice of Funds Availability

published in the Federal Register. All

States and units of general local

government and nonprofit organizations

are eligible to apply for competitive

grants to fund projects of national

significance. Only those States and units

of general local government that do not

qualify for formula allocations are

eligible to apply for competitive grants

to fund other projects.

57. In § 574.3, the definitions for

‘‘Eligible State’’ and ‘‘Qualifying city’’

are revised to read as follows:

§ 574.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Eligible State means a State that has:

(1) More than 1,500 cumulative cases

of AIDS in those areas of the State

outside of eligible metropolitan

statistical areas that are eligible to be

funded through a qualifying city; and

(2) A consolidated plan prepared,

submitted, and approved in accordance

with 24 CFR part 91 that covers the

assistance to be provided under this

part. (A State may carry out activities

anywhere in the State, including within

an EMSA.)

* * * * *

Qualifying city means a city that is the

most populous unit of general local

government in an eligible metropolitan

statistical area (EMSA) and that has a

consolidated plan prepared, submitted,

and approved in accordance with 24

CFR part 91 that covers the assistance to

be provided under this part.

* * * * *

58. In § 574.100, the existing text is

designated as paragraph (a), and a new

paragraph (b) is added, to read as

follows:

§ 574.100 Eligible applicants.

* * * * *

(b) HUD will notify eligible States and

qualifying cities of their formula

eligibility and allocation amounts and

EMSA service areas annually.

59. Section 574.120 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 574.120 Responsibility of applicant to

serve EMSA.

The EMSA’s applicant shall serve

eligible persons who live anywhere

within the EMSA, except that housing

assistance shall be provided only in

localities within the EMSA that have a
1918 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

consolidated plan prepared, submitted,

and approved in accordance with 24

CFR part 91 that covers the assistance to

be provided under this part. In

allocating grant amounts among eligible

activities, the EMSA’s applicant shall

address needs of eligible persons who

reside within the metropolitan

statistical area, including those not

within the jurisdiction of the applicant.

§ 574.160 [Removed]

60. Section 574.160 is removed.

§ 574.170 [Removed]

61. Section 574.170 is removed.

§ 574.180 [Removed]

62. Section 574.180 is removed.

63. In § 574.190, the first sentence is

revised to read as follows:

§ 574.190 Reallocation of grant amounts.

If an eligible State or qualifying city

does not submit a consolidated plan in

a timely fashion, in accordance with 24

CFR part 91, that provides for use of its

allocation of funding under this part,

the funds allocated to that jurisdiction

will be added to the funds available for

formula allocations to other

jurisdictions in the current fiscal year.

* * *

§ 574.240 [Amended]

64. In § 574.240, paragraph (c)(11) is

amended by removing the phrase,

‘‘CHAS approved by HUD (see

§ 574.160(a))’’ and by adding in its place

the phrase, ‘‘consolidated plan

approved by HUD in accordance with

24 CFR part 91’’.

65. Section 574.520 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 574.520 Performance reports.

(a) Formula grants. For a formula

grant recipient, the performance

reporting requirements are specified in

24 CFR part 91.

(b) Competitive grants. A grantee shall

submit to HUD annually a report

describing the use of the amounts

received, including the number of

individuals assisted, the types of

assistance provided, and any other

information that HUD may require.

Annual reports are required until all

grant funds are expended.

§ 574.530 [Amended]

66. In § 574.530, the word ‘‘threeyear’’ is removed and the word ‘‘fouryear’’ is added in its place.

PART 576—EMERGENCY SHELTER

GRANTS PROGRAM: STEWART B.

McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE

ACT

67. The authority citation for part 576

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11376.

68. In § 576.3, the definition of

‘‘Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy’’ is removed and a definition of

‘‘Consolidated plan’’ is added in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 576.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Consolidated plan. The plan prepared

in accordance with part 91 of this title,

which describes needs, resources,

priorities and proposed activities to be

undertaken with respect to HUD

programs, including the HOME

program. An approved consolidated

plan means a consolidated plan that has

been approved by HUD in accordance

with part 91 of this title.

* * * * *

Subpart C—[Removed and Reserved]

69. Subpart C is removed and

reserved.

70. Section 576.51 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 576.51 Application requirements.

In order to receive a grant under this

part, a State or formula city or county

must submit and obtain HUD approval

of a consolidated plan in accordance

with 24 CFR part 91 that includes

activities to be funded under this part.

24 CFR part 91 includes requirements

for the content of the plan, for the

process of developing the plan,

including citizen participation

provisions, for the submission date, for

HUD approval, and for the amendment

process. This plan serves as the

jurisdiction’s application for funding

under this program.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 2506–0117).

§ 576.53 [Amended]

71. In § 576.53, paragraphs (a), (b),

and (e) are removed; and paragraphs (c)

and (d) are redesignated as paragraphs

(a) and (b), respectively.

72. In § 576.61, the section heading

and paragraph (a) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 576.61 Reallocation of grant amounts;

formula cities and counties.

(a) Applicability. This section applies

where a formula city or county fails to

submit or obtain HUD approval of its

consolidated plan within 90 days of the

date upon which amounts under this

part first become available for allocation

in any fiscal year.

* * * * *

73. In § 576.63, the section heading,

paragraph (a), paragraph (d)

introductory text, and paragraph (d)(1)

are revised, to read as follows:

§ 576.63 Reallocation of grant amounts;

States and Territories.

(a) Applicability. This section applies

where a State or Territory fails to submit

or obtain HUD approval of its

consolidated plan by the deadline

specified in § 576.61(a), or grant

amounts cannot be reallocated to a State

under § 576.61.

* * * * *

(d) Eligibility for reallocation

amounts. In order to receive reallocation

amounts under this section, the formula

city or county, or State or Territory,

must:

(1) Submit an amendment, in

accordance with 24 CFR part 91, to its

consolidated plan for that program year

to cover activities for the reallocation

amount it wishes to receive; and

* * * * *

74. In § 576.67, paragraphs (c)(5) and

(f)(1) are revised to read as follows:

§ 576.67 Reallocation of grant amounts;

returned or unused amounts.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(5) The responsible HUD field office

will announce the availability of

returned grant amounts. The

announcement will establish deadlines

for submitting applications, and will set

out other terms and conditions relating

to grant awards, consistent with this

part. The announcement will specify the

application documents to be submitted.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) For purposes of this section,

emergency shelter grant amounts are

considered ‘‘returned’’ when they

become available for reallocation

because a jurisdiction does not execute

a grant agreement with HUD for them.

* * * * *

§ 576.85 [Removed]

75. Section 576.85 is removed.

§ 576.87 [Amended]

76. In § 576.87, the word ‘‘three-year’’

is removed and the word ‘‘four-year’’ is

added in its place.

PART 968—PUBLIC HOUSING

MODERNIZATION

77. The authority citation for part 968

continues to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 1919

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d, 1437l, 3535(d).

78. Section 968.320 is amended by:

a. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (c) introductory text;

b. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e),

and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g),

respectively;

c. Adding a new paragraph (d);

d. Amending the newly redesignated

paragraph (e) by adding two new

sentences preceding the last sentence of

the introductory text;

e. Revising the last sentence of

paragraph (e)(4)(i); and

f. Removing from paragraph (e)(6)(ii)

the phrase ‘‘Comprehensive Housing

Affordability Strategy’’ and adding in its

place the phrase ‘‘consolidated plan’’; to

read as follows:

§ 968.320 Comprehensive Plan (including

Five-Year Action Plan).

* * * * *

(c) Local government participation. A

PHA shall consult with and provide

information to appropriate local

government officials with respect to the

development of a comprehensive plan

to ensure that there is coordination

between the actions taken under the

consolidated plan (see 24 CFR part 91)

for project and neighborhood

improvements where public housing

units are located or proposed for

construction and/or modernization and

improvement and to coordinate meeting

public and human service needs of the

public and assisted housing projects and

their residents. * * *

* * * * *

(d) Participation in coordinating

entities. To the extent that coordinating

entities are set up to plan and

implement the consolidated plans

(under 24 CFR part 91), the PHA shall

participate in these entities to ensure

coordination with broader community

development strategies.

(e) * * * Where long-term physical

and social viability of the development

is dependent upon revitalization of the

surrounding neighborhood in the

provision of or coordination of public

services, or the consolidation or

coordination of drug prevention and

other human service initiatives, the

PHA shall identify these needs and

strategies. In addition, the PHA shall

identify the funds or other resources in

the consolidated plan that are to be used

to help address these needs and

strategies and the activities in the

comprehensive plan that strengthen the

consolidated plan. * * *

* * * * *

(4) * * * (i) * * * Where necessary,

HUD will review the PHA’s

documentation in support of its cost

reasonableness and taking into account

broader efforts to revitalize the

neighborhoods in which the

development are located;

* * * * *

Dated: December 22, 1994.

Henry G. Cisneros,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 94–32150 Filed 12–29–94; 3:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 4210–32–P