Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 33193 

8The Software Assurance Forum for Excellence 

in Code (SAFECode), an industry consortium, has 

released a report on third party components that 

cites a range of standards. Managing Security Risks 

Inherent in the Use of Third-party Components, 

SAFECode (May 2017), available at https://

www.safecode.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ 

SAFECode_TPC_Whitepaper.pdf. 

9National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), Notice of Open Meeting, 83 

FR. 26434 (June 7, 2018). 

10Ntia.gov/SBOM. 

11NTIA, Marking the Conclusion of NTIA’s 

SBOM Process (Feb. 9, 2022), https://

www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2022/marking-conclusionntia-s-sbom-process. 

third-party code has been identified as 

a longstanding software best practice.8

Still, SBOM generation and sharing 

across the software supply chain was 

not seen as a commonly accepted 

practice in modern software. In 2018, 

the National Telecommunication and 

Information Administration (NTIA) 

convened the first ‘‘multistakeholder 

process’’ to ‘‘promot[e] software 

component transparency.’’ 9 Over the 

subsequent three years, this stakeholder 

community developed guidance to help 

foster the idea of SBOM, including high 

level overviews, initial advice on 

implementation, and technical 

resources.10 When the NTIA-initiated 

multistakeholder process concluded, 

NTIA noted that ‘‘what was an obscure 

idea became a key part of the global 

agenda around securing software supply 

chains.’’ 11

However, CISA believes that the 

concept of SBOM and its 

implementation need further 

refinement. Work to help scale and 

operationalize SBOM implementation 

should continue to come from a broadbased community effort, rather than be 

dictated by any specific entity. To 

support such a community effort to 

advance SBOM technologies, processes, 

and practices, CISA will facilitate a 

series of listening sessions. 

II. Topics for CISA Listening Sessions 

The list below represents open topics 

in the field of SBOM and related 

cybersecurity topics on which CISA 

intends to facilitate a series of listening 

sessions. This is not an exhaustive set 

of open topics identified by the 

community at large, but represents a set 

of open topics identified as being 

priorities by the community. Solutions 

related to these topics that reflect the 

diverse needs of the software 

community will help advance forward 

progress towards greater software 

transparency and a more secure 

ecosystem. 

Topic 1: Cloud and online 

applications—Much existing discussion 

around SBOM, particularly around 

SBOM use cases, has focused on onpremise software. Cloud and Softwareas-a-Service (SaaS)-based software 

comprises a large and growing segment 

of the software ecosystem. Potential subtopics may include: How should the 

community think about SBOM in the 

context of online applications and 

modern infrastructure? How can the 

community integrate SBOM work into 

emerging cloud-native opportunities? 

Topic 2: Sharing and Exchanging 

SBOMs—Moving SBOMs and related 

metadata across the software supply 

chain will require understanding how to 

enable discovery and access. Potential 

sub-topics may include: How can 

suppliers and consumers of SBOMs 

share this data at scale? What can the 

community do to promote 

interoperability of potential solutions? 

Topic 3: Tools and Implementation— 

SBOM implementation will be driven 

by a range of accessible and constructive 

tools and enabling applications, both 

open source and commercial in nature. 

Potential sub-topics may include: How 

can the community promote the SBOM 

tooling ecosystem? What is needed to 

drive and test interoperability and 

harmonization? 

Topic 4: On-ramps and Adoption— 

Broader SBOM adoption may require 

enabling resources to promote 

awareness and lower the costs and 

complexities of adoption. Potential subtopics may include: What can the 

community do to make it easier and 

cheaper to generate and use SBOM data? 

How can the community promote this 

concept? 

III. Process for CISA-Facilitated SBOM 

Community Collaboration 

For each topic, CISA will facilitate 

interested community members in two 

open and transparent listening sessions. 

CISA will act as a facilitator and 

participants will drive the outcomes, 

including any specific issues of focus or 

next steps. CISA will not be seeking any 

group consensus advice and/or input 

from the listening sessions. If 

participants wish to schedule regular 

meetings or build communication 

channels, CISA will assist, to the extent 

possible, in facilitating effective and 

constructive collaboration. CISA will 

not request specific outputs from 

meeting participants, nor is it currently 

CISA’s intent to use information shared 

during listening sessions to directly 

address or inform any Federal policy 

decision. The participants may identify 

any further resources the global software 

and security community could use for 

each identified topic. 

Information shared during listening 

sessions may be made publicly 

available. For this reason, please do not 

include non-public or confidential 

information in your responses to 

listening session topics, such as 

sensitive personal information or 

proprietary information. 

Additional information regarding the 

listening sessions will be posted at 

https://cisa.gov/SBOM. 

This notice is issued under the 

authority of 6 U.S.C. 652(c)(10)–(11), 

659(c)(4), (9), (12). 

Eric Goldstein, 

Executive Assistant Director for 

Cybersecurity, Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Security Agency, Department 

of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11733 Filed 5–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–6331–N–03] 

Request for Information Relating to the 

Implementation of the Build America, 

Buy America Act 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). 

ACTION: Notice; request for information. 

SUMMARY: This Request for Information 

(RFI) seeks public input on the 

implementation of the Build America, 

Buy America Act (‘‘BABA’’ or ‘‘the 

Act’’) as it applies to HUD’s Federal 

Financial Assistance. In this RFI, HUD 

is seeking input on several topics 

relating to the potential information 

collection burden on recipients, 

including existing mechanisms for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

Act’s domestic content procurement 

preference (‘‘Buy America Preference,’’ 

or ‘‘BAP’’), potential costs of 

compliance for recipients and 

contractors, and the potential impact on 

projects funded by HUD Federal 

Financial Assistance. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: July 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to provide responses to this RFI. 

Copies of all comments submitted are 

available for inspection and 

downloading at www.regulations.gov. 

To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be 

submitted through one of two methods, 

specified below. All submissions must 

refer to the above docket number and 

title. 

1. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33194 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 

1See OMB Memorandum M–22–08, Identification 

of Federal Financial Assistance Infrastructure 

Programs Subject to the Build America, Buy 

America Provisions of the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act, www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/12/M-22-08.pdf. 

2See OMB Memorandum M–22–11, Initial 

Implementation Guidance on Application of Buy 

America Preference in Federal Financial Assistance 

Programs for Infrastructure, www.whitehouse.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf. 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the 

www.regulations.gov website can be 

viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

2. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW, Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments will not be accepted. 

Public Inspection of Comments. All 

properly submitted comments and 

communications submitted to HUD will 

be available for public inspection and 

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 

p.m. weekdays at the above address. 

Due to security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the submissions 

must be scheduled by calling the 

Regulations Division at (202) 708–3055 

(this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

via TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service at (800) 877– 

8339 (this is a toll-free number). Copies 

of all submissions are available for 

inspection and downloading at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Carlile, Senior Advisor, Office of 

the Secretary, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street SW, Room 10226, Washington, 

DC 20410–5000, at (202) 402–7082 (this 

is not a toll-free number. Persons with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. Questions 

about this document also be sent to 

BuildAmericaBuyAmerica@hud.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Build America, Buy America 

The Build America, Buy America Act 

(the Act) was enacted on November 15, 

2021, as part of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Public 

Law 117–58. The Act establishes a 

domestic content procurement 

preference, the BAP, for Federal 

infrastructure programs. Section 

70914(a) of the Act establishes that no 

later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment, HUD must ensure that none 

of the funds made available by the 

Department through a Federal financial 

assistance program that provides 

funding for infrastructure projects may 

be obligated unless it has taken steps to 

ensure that all of the iron, steel, 

manufactured products, and 

construction materials used in a project 

are produced in the United States. In 

Section 70912, the Act further defines a 

project to include ‘‘the construction, 

alteration, maintenance, or repair of 

infrastructure in the United States’’ and 

includes within the definition of 

infrastructure those items traditionally 

included along with buildings and real 

property. 

II. HUD’s Progress in Implementation of 

the Act 

A. Initial Report 

Since the enactment of the Act, HUD 

has worked diligently to implement the 

BAP. Consistent with the requirements 

of Section 70913 of the Act, HUD has 

produced a report that identifies and 

evaluates all of HUD’s Federal Financial 

Assistance programs with potentially 

eligible uses of funds that include 

infrastructure as defined by the Act to 

determine which programs would be in 

compliance with the BAP and which 

would be considered inconsistent with 

Section 70914 of the Act and thus 

‘‘deficient’’ as defined by Section 

70913(c) of the Act. The report was 

submitted to Congress and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

published in the Federal Register 

within 60 days after the date of 

enactment of the Act, on January 19, 

2022 (87 FR 2894). Specifically, HUD 

published the required report in a notice 

entitled ‘‘Identification of Federal 

Financial Assistance Infrastructure 

Programs Subject to the Build America, 

Buy America Provisions of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’’ 

in compliance with Section 70913. In 

the report, HUD erred on the side of 

over-inclusiveness in accordance with 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance,1 finding that none of 

HUD’s discretionary funding programs 

reviewed to date fully meet the BAP 

requirements outlined in Section 70914 

of the Act and are considered 

‘‘deficient’’ under the definition in 

Section 70913(c). Since issuing the 

report, HUD has held regular meetings 

with Departmental offices and consulted 

administrative and economic data to 

plan to implement the Act. 

B. OMB Initial Implementation 

Guidance 

On April 18, 2022, OMB issued 

guidance to heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies on the 

application of a BAP in Federal 

Financial Assistance programs for 

infrastructure.2 This guidance laid out 

the current interpretation of the Act and 

key terminology, how to apply the BAP 

to Federal Financial Assistance 

programs for infrastructure, and how 

agencies should be constructing a 

transparent waiver process. 

The guidance defined ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

to include public infrastructure projects 

such as the structures, facilities, and 

equipment for, in the United States, 

roads, highways, and bridges; public 

transportation; dams, ports, harbors, and 

other maritime facilities; intercity 

passenger and freight railroads; freight 

and intermodal facilities; airports; water 

systems, including drinking water and 

wastewater systems; electrical 

transmission facilities and systems; 

utilities; broadband infrastructure; and 

buildings and real property. However, 

infrastructure should be interpreted 

broadly, and agencies should assess 

whether a project will serve a public 

function. ‘‘Federal Financial 

Assistance’’ is funds that are 

appropriated or otherwise made 

available and used for infrastructure by 

a ‘‘non-Federal’’ entity, which includes 

States, local governments, territories, 

Tribes, Tribally Designated Housing 

Entities, and other Tribal entities, 

institutions of higher education, and 

nonprofit organizations, but does not 

include ‘‘for-profit organizations.’’ 

The guidance also clarifies the extent 

to which disaster, emergency response, 

or mitigation expenditures are exempt 

from the Act’s BAP. Pre- and postdisaster expenditures that are ‘‘made in 

anticipation of or response to an event 

or events that qualify as an ‘emergency’ 

or ‘major disaster’ within the meaning of 

the Stafford Act’’ are not included 

within the BAP. However, ‘‘[a]wards 

made to support the construction or 

improvement of infrastructure to 

mitigate the damage that may be caused 

by a non-imminent future emergency or 

disaster’’ are included within the Act’s 

BAP. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 33195 

3www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_

housing/ih/regs/govtogov_tcp. See also 81 FR 

40893. 

Under the guidance, agencies should 

consider if an existing domestic content 

requirement meets the standards in the 

Act, as the BAP applies to a Federal 

Financial Assistance program for 

infrastructure only to the extent that an 

existing preference does not apply. As a 

result, policies and provisions that 

already meet or exceed the Act’s 

standards should be preserved, while 

existing requirements that do not meet 

the Act’s standards must be brought into 

compliance with the BAP. 

The guidance also clarified that the 

BAP ‘‘only applies to articles, materials, 

and supplies that are consumed in, 

incorporated into, or affixed to an 

infrastructure project,’’ and does not 

apply if an agency has determined no 

funds in the project will be used for 

infrastructure. The BAP ‘‘does not apply 

to tools, equipment, and supplies . . . 

brought to the construction site and 

removed at or before’’ completion, nor 

does it apply to equipment and 

furnishings that are not an ‘‘integral part 

of or permanently affixed to the 

structure.’’ Furthermore, items should 

only be classified as (1) iron or steel, (2) 

a manufactured product, or (3) a 

construction material, and agencies 

should apply the iron and steel test to 

items that are predominantly iron or 

steel. 

The guidance emphasized that 

Federal agencies are responsible for 

processing and approving all waivers, 

including requests from recipients for 

their own projects and on behalf of 

subrecipients. Waivers should generally 

be targeted to specific products and 

projects where feasible. Agencies must 

submit to OMB for coordination when a 

waiver is a general applicability waiver 

but should notify OMB before posting a 

proposed waiver for comment. The 

agency is responsible for evaluating the 

proposed waiver to determine its 

consistency with the Act, and should 

attempt to maximize the use of goods, 

products, and materials produced in the 

United States to the greatest extent 

possible. Agencies must also develop 

standard criteria for determining 

whether to grant a waiver in each 

circumstance. 

The guidance also provided five 

examples of potential general 

applicability public interest waivers: (1) 

De minimis, (2) small grants, (3) minor 

components, (4) adjustment period, and 

(5) international trade obligations. These 

categories are not exclusive, and other 

public interest waivers may be 

appropriate. Before a public interest 

waiver is granted, agencies must assess 

if a significant portion of any cost 

advantage of a foreign-sourced product 

is the result of dumped or injuriously 

subsidized materials and will integrate 

any findings from the assessment into 

the waiver. 

The guidance provided a list of 

information that should be included 

within each waiver, including the 

recipient’s name and identifier, the 

funding amount, total cost of 

infrastructure expenditures, a 

certification that the Federal official or 

recipient made a good faith effort to 

solicit bids for domestic products that 

fall within the BAP, and a statement 

justifying the waiver. 

OMB also provided initial, 

nonbinding guidance on the definition 

of ‘‘all manufacturing processes’’ for 

construction materials. OMB’s guidance 

clarified the distinction between 

manufactured product and construction 

materials, stating that if two of the 

materials identified by the Act are 

combined with a third material through 

a manufacturing process, the product 

should be treated as manufactured 

products. For construction materials, 

agencies should consider ‘‘all 

manufacturing processes’’ to include at 

least the ‘‘final manufacturing process 

and the immediately preceding 

manufacturing stage for the construction 

material. OMB is seeking additional 

feedback on this guidance. 

Finally, OMB provided a sample 

award term that would ensure the use 

of American iron, steel, manufactured 

products, and construction materials for 

infrastructure projects complies with 

the Act’s BAP. This sample award term 

incorporates key definitions and 

outlines the necessary steps to ensure 

compliance with the Act. The sample 

award term includes additional 

information about the waiver process 

and could be altered to reflect agency 

specific procedures. 

C. HUD’s Public Interest Waivers of the 

Act’s BAP Until the Completion of a 

Paperwork Reduction Act Package and 

Tribal Consultation Process 

On April 29, 2022 (87 FR 26219), 

HUD proposed a general applicability 

waiver of the BAP to HUD’s Federal 

Financial Assistance awards to provide 

the Department with sufficient time to 

comply with the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). HUD 

outlined the need to impose additional 

information collection requirements on 

recipients of HUD Federal Financial 

Assistance to ensure full compliance 

with the BAP. HUD stated that 

recipients of Federal Financial 

Assistance from HUD are unfamiliar 

with the BAP and additional 

information collection requirements, as 

HUD’s programs have not previously 

been subject to a similar Buy American 

preference. As a result, HUD found that 

the proposed general applicability 

waiver of the BAP until HUD had the 

opportunity to fully review public 

comments on how to effectively reduce 

the burden on the public arising from 

information collection necessary to 

implement the Act would be in the 

public interest. 

In addition, on April 29, 2022 (87 FR 

26221), HUD proposed a general 

applicability waiver of the BAP to 

HUD’s Federal Financial Assistance 

awards for Tribes, Tribally Designated 

Housing Entities (TDHEs), and other 

Tribal Entities to provide the 

Department with sufficient time to 

comply with HUD’s Tribal consultation 

process. HUD’s Tribal Government-toGovernment Consultation Policy 3 was 

adopted in compliance with Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation with Indian 

Tribal Governments,’’ and outlines the 

internal procedures and principles HUD 

must follow when communicating and 

coordinating on HUD programs and 

activities that affect Native American 

Tribes. Given that the BAP is new to 

HUD’s Federal Financial Assistance 

directed to Tribes, TDHEs, and other 

Tribal Entities and the potential impact 

of the BAP on Tribal recipients, HUD 

found a general applicability waiver was 

in the public interest to ensure HUD has 

sufficient time to complete the Tribal 

consultation process in recognition of 

Tribe’s right to self-government and 

inform a tailored implementation for 

Tribal recipients. 

More information about HUD’s 

proposed waivers is available here: 

www.hud.gov/program_offices/general_

counsel/BABA. 

III. Request for Information 

HUD is requesting input from 

interested parties on the potential 

documentation and information 

collection necessary to estimate the 

information collection burden and assist 

HUD in the development of the PRA 

package. As discussed above and in 

HUD’s prior notices regarding the 

implementation of the Act, because the 

BAP is new to HUD’s programs and 

Federal Financial Assistance, HUD 

currently does not have sufficient data 

about the compliance and monitoring 

burden on recipients required to 

implement the BAP. As a result, input 

is necessary to create a meaningful 

estimate of the information collection 

burden in compliance with the PRA. 

1. What HUD Federal Financial 

Assistance is used to fund infrastructure 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33196 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Notices 

4www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/ 

04/M-22-11.pdf. 

as defined under the Build America, 

Buy America Act? Specifically, HUD is 

seeking input from recipients on what 

forms of HUD’s Federal Financial 

Assistance are used to fund 

infrastructure projects in those programs 

identified in HUD’s report to Congress 

and OMB on January 19, 2022 (87 FR 

2894) or in any other program through 

which HUD’s Federal Financial 

Assistance may be used to fund 

infrastructure projects. 

2. How can HUD document what 

projects serve a ‘‘public function,’’ thus 

qualifying as infrastructure under 

OMB’s guidance and falling within the 

scope of the Act? When determining if 

a program has infrastructure 

expenditures, OMB guidance indicates 

that Federal agencies should interpret 

the term ‘‘infrastructure’’ broadly and 

consider the definition provided as 

illustrative and not exhaustive. 

Agencies are advised to consider 

whether the project will serve a public 

function, including whether the project 

is publicly owned and operated, 

privately operated on behalf of the 

public, or is a place of public 

accommodation, as opposed to a project 

that is privately owned and not open to 

the public. Projects with the former 

qualities have greater indicia of 

infrastructure, while projects with the 

latter quality have fewer. How should 

HUD consider infrastructure projects 

more broadly? How can HUD determine 

if the ultimate recipient of the funding 

is a covered non-Federal entity? 

3. Are the entities utilizing Federal 

Financial Assistance to fund 

infrastructure doing so independently or 

in partnership with other entities? If 

used in partnership with other entities, 

how often are these private entities or 

other individuals that would not be 

covered by the definition of non-federal 

entities under 2 CFR 200.1? 

4. What activities are undertaken by 

recipients of HUD Federal Financial 

Assistance that fall within the Act’s 

BAP? To the extent that these 

infrastructure projects are disasterrelated, can the projects be clearly 

defined as undertaken in response to 

either (1) non-imminent future 

emergency or disaster mitigation/ 

preparedness or (2) disaster or 

emergency response/imminent threats? 

How often would projects be designed 

to address both long term and imminent 

threats? How often would projects be 

designed to address current recovery 

needs along with future long term 

mitigation needs? What portions of 

infrastructure projects involve the use of 

iron, steel, manufactured products, or 

construction materials? How do 

recipients currently differentiate 

between infrastructure spending and 

non-infrastructure spending, such as 

administrative costs? What types of 

mitigation activities are conducted 

utilizing HUD Federal Financial 

Assistance that are not related to an 

imminent threat of a future emergency 

or disaster? How, if at all, will activities 

be limited such as funding fewer 

projects? 

5. How do recipients currently 

determine sourcing for materials? Are 

there existing mechanisms to locate 

American made iron, steel, 

manufactured products, or construction 

materials? Furthermore, how do 

recipients currently track contractor 

sourcing? How often are materials 

recycled from other products such that 

the origin of such materials may be 

unknown? 

6. Are recipients currently subjected 

to Buy American requirements from 

other Federal, state, local, or Tribal 

entities? If yes, are there any existing de 

minimus thresholds exceptions in place 

and what are those exceptions? If yes, 

how have recipients ensured 

compliance with these preferences? 

What steps have Federal, state, local, or 

Tribal entities taken to ensure 

compliance? What type of contractual 

language has been utilized to ensure 

compliance? If contractual language has 

been utilized to ensure compliance with 

a Buy American requirement, when was 

it first added? Is the suggested language 

in Appendix I of OMB’s ‘‘Memorandum 

for Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies’’ 4 issued April 18, 2022, 

consistent with other Buy American 

language in award terms? Are there 

ways to improve this suggested award 

language for HUD’s Federal Financial 

Assistance programs? What is the 

burden and impact, either based in prior 

experience or as an estimate based on 

OMB’s suggested language, associated 

with inserting Buy American language 

into contracts for infrastructure 

projects? 

7. Are there any plans in the iron, 

steel, manufactured products, or 

construction materials industries to 

provide documentation regarding 

materials’ compliance with BABA? Are 

there existing forms of documentation 

that would demonstrate BABA 

compliance? How, if at all, will BABA 

compliance impact energy efficiency 

efforts pursuant to Executive Order 

14008? 

8. What are contractor’s 

administrative costs associated with 

complying with BABA? What forms of 

maintenance and guarantee costs will be 

necessary to confirm compliance? Will 

there be any construction timeline 

delays associated with BABA 

compliance? Is there a need for standard 

contractual provisions to deal with 

potential delays arising from BABA 

compliance? If there is a need for a 

product specific waiver, when would 

contractors know about the need? 

9. What, if any, are the specific 

concerns, either from recipients or 

contractors, about a potential waiver 

process? Considering agency 

requirements associated with waiver 

processing, what would be the ideal and 

realistic timeline for waiver processing 

that would minimize impact on affected 

projects? What documentation is 

currently available, either from 

contractors or recipients, to demonstrate 

the need for a waiver in line with the 

requirements in section 70914 of the 

Act? 

10. Where applicable, how will BABA 

requirements affect relocation plans, 

transfer procedures, and/or reasonable 

accommodation or modifications 

procedures for existing occupants? What 

if any changes are required for your 

agency’s Administrative Plan or 

Admissions and Continued Occupancy 

Plan? Are there any other potential 

impacts on current residents of projects 

supported by HUD Federal Financial 

Assistance? 

11. What situations would require 

expedited or general waivers? How can 

HUD develop its waiver criteria in a 

way that identifies these expedited or 

general waivers? Are there situations 

where the cost of the materials would 

always meet the standards for waivers 

established under Section 70914 of the 

Act, whether a cost, public interest, or 

nonavailability waiver? 

12. How, if at all, would the Act’s 

BAP affect contractor’s willingness to 

accept infrastructure contracts subject to 

BABA’s requirements? How would 

contractors need to build in additional 

costs when bidding for infrastructure 

contracts? 

Marcia L. Fudge, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11729 Filed 5–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1