14538 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing

[Docket No. N–95–3867; FR–3774–N–02]

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

for Comprehensive Improvement

Assistance Program (CIAP)

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability

for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995.

SUMMARY: This Notice informs HAs that

own or operate fewer than 250 units

and, therefore, are eligible to apply and

compete for CIAP funds, of the

availability of FY 1995 CIAP funding.

HAs with 250 or more units are entitled

to receive a formula grant under the

Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP)

and are not eligible to apply for CIAP

funds.

DATES: Application is due on or before

3:00 p.m. local time on May 16, 1995,

at the HUD Field Office with

jurisdiction over the Public Housing

Agency or Indian Housing Authority

(herein referred to as HA), Attention:

Director, Office of Public Housing, or

Administrator, Office of Native

American Programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Flood, Director,

Modernization Division, Office of

Distressed and Troubled Housing

Recovery, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

SW., Room 4134, Washington, DC

20410. Telephone (202) 708–1640. (This

is not a toll-free number).

IHAs may contact Dominic A. Nessi,

Director, Office of Native American

Programs, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

SW., B–133, Washington, DC 20410.

Telephone (202) 755–0032. (This is not

a toll-free number).

Hearing or speech impaired

individuals may call HUD’s TDD

number (202) 708–4595. (This is not a

toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On January 20, 1995, at 60 FR 4352,

the Department published an Advance

Notice of FY 1995 CIAP, setting forth all

application requirements, except the

allocation amounts and the application

deadline date. Since the requirements

set forth in the Advance Notice pertain

to this NOFA, the entire Advance Notice

is being republished as an attachment to

this NOFA.

II. Allocation Amounts

(a) Total Available. The FY 1995 HUD

Appropriations Act P.L. 103–327,

enacted September 28, 1994, made

available $3,700,000,000 of budget

authority for the Modernization Program

in the Annual Contributions Account.

Funding may change if the carry-overs,

recaptures and transfers estimated to

occur in FY 1995 are not realized. The

following chart shows the total amount

of funds available in FY 1995, which is

the appropriation, plus the carry-over

from FY 1994, less the reduction and

set-asides, as of the date of this NOFA:

FY 1995 Appropriation ... $3,700,000,000

Plus Carry-over from FY

1994 .............................. 194,092,503

Less Annual Contributions Account Reduction ................................ (79,049,983)

FY 1995 Adjusted Appropriation ......................... 3,815,042,520

Less FY 1995 Set-Asides:

Choice in Management

(Being reevaluated) * 100,000,000

Emergency and Natural

Disaster Reserve ........ 75,000,000

Section 6J Activities * .. 40,042,520

Tenant Opportunity

Program * .................. 25,000,000

Inspection and Technical Assistance * ..... 15,270,323

CGP Allocation from

CGP Carry-Over ........ 10,882,865

LBP Risk Assessment * 8,052,534

LBP Indemnification .... 971,983

Total Set-Asides ....... 275,220,225

FY 1995 Adjusted Appropriation Less SetAsides ........................... 3,539,822,295

* Set-asides to be implemented through separate

NOFAs or Requests for Proposals.

(b) Explanation of Carry-Overs. The

$194,092,503 in carry-overs from FY

1994 are:

(1) $100,000,000 from the set-aside for

Choice-in-Management;

(2) $40,042,520 from the set-aside for

implementing Section 6J activities;

(3) $32,259,237 from the national

reserve for emergencies and natural and

other disasters;

(4) $10,882,865 from the CGP

allocation, including $1,438,509 from

three HAs which did not apply for their

FY 1994 grant, $99,963 unused due to

the statutorily authorized conversion of

a public housing project to a Section 8

project, and $9,344,393 from reduced

formula funding of Mod Troubled

PHAs;

(5) $8,052,534 of unused funds from

the Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Risk

Assessment set-aside, established in FY

1992;

(6) $1,612,976 from the set-aside for

the Vacancy Reduction Program;

(7) $971,983 from the set-aside for the

indemnification of three PHAs (Albany,

New York; Cambridge, Massachusetts;

and Omaha, Nebraska) that are

participating in the LBP Abatement

Demonstration. The FY 1991

Appropriations Act extended the

availability of these funds appropriated

in FY 1990 from October 1, 1991 to

October 1, 1998;

(8) $270,323 from the set-aside for

inspection of modernization work and

technical assistance for HAs; and

(9) $65 from unassigned CIAP funds.

(c) Allocation between CGP and CIAP.

The allocation between CGP and CIAP

is explained below:

FY 1995 Adjusted Appropriation, Less Set-Asides $3,539,822,295

Less CGP Credits Withheld

for Mod Troubled Agencies .................................. 16,862,619

Amount Available for CGP

and CIAP ........................ 3,522,959,676

CGP Allocation .................. 3,153,244,533

CIAP Allocation ................. 369,715,143

*Does not include $10,882,865 in CGP funds

carried over from FY 1994 which will be added to

the CGP allocation.

(1) The $3,522,959,676 balance is

allocated between CIAP and CGP

agencies based on the relative shares of

backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and

accrual needs (weighted at 50%), as

determined by the field inspections

conducted for the HUD-funded ABT

study of modernization needs. This

allocation results in CIAP agencies

receiving 10.49% or $369, 715, 143 and

CGP agencies receiving 89.51% or

$3,153,244,533 (plus the $10,822,865

carryover for a total of $3,164,067,398)

of the funds available.

(i) Backlog needs are needed repairs

and replacements of existing physical

systems, items that must be added to

meet the HUD modernization and

energy conservation standards and State

or local/tribal codes, and items that are

necessary for the long-term vaibility of

a specific housing development.

(ii) Accrual needs are needs that arise

over time and include needed repairs

and replacements of existing physical

systems and items that must be added

to meet the HUD modernization and

energy conservation standards and State

or local/tribal codes.

(2) The $369,715,143 available to

CIAP agencies is allocated between

Public Housing at 91.8505% or

$339,585,355, and Indian Housing at

8.1495% or $30,129,788. This allocation

also is based on the relative shares of

backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and

accrual needs (weighted at 50%).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14539

(d) Subassignment of Funds to Field

Offices of Public Housing (OPH).

Headquarters has determined the

distribution of Public Housing CIAP

funds for each Field OPH, based on the

relative shares of backlog and accrual

needs for CIAP PHAs, adjusted as

necessary.

(1) The Field OPH Director shall have

authority to make Joint Review

selections and CIAP funding decisions.

(2) If additional funds for Public

Housing CIAP become available,

Headquarters will allocate the funds to

one or more Field OPHs based on their

relative shares of modernization need,

approvable applications, and PHA

capability to carry out the

modernization.

(3) If a Field OPH does not receive

sufficient fundable applications to use

its allocation, Headquarters will

reallocate the remaining funds to one or

more Field OPHs based on approvable

applications and PHA capability to

carry out the modernization.

Of the $339,585,355 available for

Public Housing, 1% or $3,395,854 has

been set aside to carry out goals related

to pending civil rights litigation (e.g.,

Young v. Cisneros), which is subject to

judicial oversight. The following table

shows the distribution to CIAP funds for

PHAs, excluding IHAs, assigned by

Headquarters to each Field OPH as

percentages of the $336,189,501 balance

available for Public Housing:

Office of Public Housing (OPH)

Percent

of Public

Housing

Funds

New England Region:

Massachusetts State Office ...... 2.6187

Connecticut State Office ........... .9266

New Hampshire State Office .... 1.5066

Rhode Island State Office ......... .7365

New York/New Jersey Region:

Buffalo Area Office .................... 2.1551

New Jersey State Office ........... 2.7271

New York State Office .............. 1.1576

Midatlantic Region:

Maryland State Office ............... .4142

West Virginia State Office ......... 1.4359

Pennsylvania State Office ......... 1.1444

Pittsburgh Area Office ............... 1.2048

Virginia State Office .................. .5756

District of Columbia Office ........ .1686

Southeast Region:

Georgia State Office ................. 5.3561

Alabama State Office ................ 4.7698

South Carolina State Office ...... .9216

North Carolina State Office ....... 3.0244

Mississippi State Office ............. 1.7112

Jacksonville Area Office ........... 2.9639

Knoxville Area Office ................ .9171

Kentucky State Office ............... 4.7691

Tennessee State Office ............ 1.8640

Midwest Region:

Illinois State Office .................... 3.5943

Cincinnati Area Office ............... .4374

Office of Public Housing (OPH)

Percent

of Public

Housing

Funds

Cleveland Area Office ............... .5098

Ohio State Office ...................... 1.1247

Michigan State Office ................ 2.0393

Grand Rapids Area Office ........ 3.0354

Indiana State Office .................. 1.2262

Wisconsin State Office .............. 2.8249

Minnesota State Office ............. 2.9713

Southwest Region:

New Mexico State Office .......... 1.3454

Texas State Office .................... 5.4523

Houston Area Office ................. 1.1773

Arkansas State Office ............... 3.0053

Louisiana State Office ............... 3.9795

Oklahoma State Office .............. 1.9327

San Antonio Area Office ........... 2.6835

Great Plains Region:

Iowa State Office ...................... 1.4211

Kansas/Missouri State Office .... 3.8535

Nebraska State Office ............... 1.2155

St. Louis Area Office ................. 2.2640

Rocky Mountain Region:

Colorado State Office ............... 3.5448

Pacific/Hawaii Region:

Los Angeles Area Office ........... 1.2057

Arizona State Office .................. 1.2634

Sacramento Area Office ........... .2747

California State Office ............... 1.5927

Northwest/Alaska Region:

Oregon State Office .................. 1.2688

Washington State Office ........... 1.6876

Total ....................................... 100.0000

(e) Subassignment of Funds to Offices

of Native American Programs (ONAPs).

Headquarters has determined the

distribution of Indian Housing CIAP

funds for each ONAP, based on the

relative shares of backlog and accrual

needs for CIAP IHAs, adjusted as

necessary. The fund assignment will

cover Indian Housing and any Public

Housing owned and operated by IHAs.

(1) The ONAP Administrator shall

have authority to make Joint Review

selections and CIAP funding decisions.

(2) If additional funds for Indian

Housing CIAP become available,

Headquarters will allocate the funds to

one or more ONAPs based on their

relative shares of modernization need,

approvable applications, and IHA

capability to carry out the

modernization.

(3) If an ONAP does not receive

sufficient fundable applications to use

its allocation, Headquarters will

reallocate the remaining funds to one or

more ONAPs based on approvable

applications and IHA capability to carry

out the modernization.

The following table shows the

distribution of CIAP funds for IHAs,

assigned by Headquarters to each

ONAPs as percentages of the total

$30,129,788 available for Indian

Housing:

Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)

Percent

of Indian

Housing

Funds

Eastern/Woodlands ...................... 14.8444

Southern Plains ............................ 12.3324

Northern Plains ............................. 13.3174

Southwest ..................................... 29.9263

Northwest ...................................... 24.4868

Alaska ........................................... 5.0927

Total .......................................... 100.0000

III. Application Deadline Date

The CIAP Application must be

physically received by the local HUD

Field Office by 3 p.m. local time on May

16, 1995. Faxed copies will not be

considered official applications. The

application deadline for this NOFA is

firm as to date and hour. In the interest

of fairness to all competing applicants,

the Department will not consider any

application that is received after the

application deadline. All applicants

should take this into account and

submit application materials as early as

possible to avoid any risk brought about

by unanticipated delays or deliveryrelated problems. This application

deadline does not apply to applications

for emergency funding, which may be

submitted at any time when funds are

available.

IV. Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program number is 14.852.

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Joseph Shuldiner,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

Attachment

Note: This is a republication of the advance

notice published on January 20, 1995 at 60

FR 4352.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public

and Indian Housing

[Docket No. N–95–3867; FR 3774–N–01]

Advance Notice of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

Funding for Comprehensive Improvement

Assistance Program (CIAP)

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Advance Notice of FY 1995

Funding for CIAP.

SUMMARY: This Notice provides advance

information to Public Housing Agencies and

Indian Housing Authorities (herein referred

to as HAs) that own or operate fewer than

250 public housing units and, therefore, are

eligible to apply and compete for CIAP funds,

of the requirements for applying for FY 1995
14540 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

CIAP funding. Therefore, the CIAP eligible

HA may start now to plan and develop its FY

1995 CIAP application. HAs with 250 or

more public housing units are entitled to

receive a formula grant under the

Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) and are

not eligible to apply for CIAP funds.

DATES: This Advance Notice does not

establish an application deadline date. A

Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) will be

published at a later date and will establish

an application deadline date, as well as set

forth the amount of funds available for the

CIAP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Flood, Director, Modernization

Division, Office of Distressed and Troubled

Housing Recovery, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

SW., Room 4134, Washington, DC 20410.

Telephone (202) 708–1640. (This is not a toll

free number).

IHAs may contact Dominic A. Nessi,

Director, Office of Native American

Programs, Department of Housing and Urban

Development 451 Seventh Street, SW., B–

133, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202)

755–0032. (This is not a toll free number).

Hearing or speech impaired individuals

may call HUD’s TDD number (202) 708–4595.

(This is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Substantive Description

(a) Authority. Sec. 14, United States

Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 14371); Sec.

7(d) Department of Housing and Urban

Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). An

interim rule revising the CIAP regulation, 24

CFR Part 968, Subparts A and B, for PHAs

and 24 CFR Part 905, Subpart I, for IHAs, and

streamlining the program was published on

March 15, 1993. A final rule will be

published shortly.

(b) Program Highlights.

(1) Departmental Priority. Improving

Public and Indian Housing is one of the

Department’s major priorities. Accordingly, a

review has been made of the entire Public

and Indian Housing Program. Specifically,

the Department is very concerned about

several aspects of the Modernization

Program, as follows:

(i) Design. When identifying physical

improvement needs to meet the

modernization standards, HAs are

encouraged to consider design which

supports the integration of public housing

into the broader community. Although high

priority needs, such as those related to health

and safety, vacant/substandard units,

structural or system integrity, and

compliance with statutory, regulatory or

court-ordered deadlines, will receive funding

priority, HAs should plan their

modernization in a way which promotes

good design, but maintains the modest nature

of public housing. The HA should pay

particular attention to design, which is

sensitive to traditional cultural values, and

be receptive to creative, but cost-effective

approaches suggested by architects,

residents, HA staff, and other local entities.

Such approaches may complement the

planning for basic rehabilitation needs. It

should be noted that there will be no increase

in operating subsidy due to improved design

promoting the blend of public housing into

the surrounding neighborhood or to

additional amenities improving the quality of

life.

(ii) Expediting the Program. HAs are

reminded that they are expected to obligate

all funds within two years and to expend all

funds within three years of program approval

(Annual Contributions Contract (ACC)

Amendment execution) unless a longer

project implementation schedule is approved

by the Field Office. If the HA does not

obligate approved funds in a timely manner,

the Department will recapture the funds

unless there are clear, valid reasons for not

meeting the obligation deadline; i.e., delays

which are outside of the HA’s control.

(iii) Resident Involvement and Economic

Uplift. HAs are required to explore and

implement through all feasible means the

involvement of residents, including dulyelected resident councils, in every aspect of

the CIAP, from planning through

implementation. HAs shall use the

provisions of Section 3 of the Housing and

Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended

(Section 3) to the maximum feasible extent.

HAs are encouraged to seek ways to employ

Section 3 residents in all aspects of the

CIAP’s operation and to develop means to

promote contracting opportunities for

businesses in Section 3 areas. Refer to 24 CFR

85.36(e) regarding the provision of such

opportunities.

(iv) Elimination of Vacant Units. Although

the Department has a vacancy reduction

effort specifically aimed at reducing

vacancies, HAs are encouraged to apply for

CIAP funds to address vacant units where the

work does not involve routine maintenance,

but will result in reoccupancy.

(2) Relationship to Technical Review

Factors. The Departmental goal of improving

Public and Indian Housing is reflected in the

technical review factors, set forth in section

IV(c)(5) of this Notice, on which the Field

Office scores each HA’s CIAP Application.

Based on the HA’s total score, the Field

Office then ranks each HA to determine

selection for Joint Review. The technical

review factors include the following

Departmental initiatives to improve Public

and Indian Housing:

(i) Restoration of vacant units to

occupancy;

(ii) Resident capacity-building, including

opportunities for resident management;

(iii) Economic development, through job

training and employment opportunities for

residents and contracting opportunities for

Section 3 businesses;

(iv) Drug elimination initiatives; and

(v) Partnership with local government.

II. Allocation Amounts

The Department will publish separately a

NOFA in the Federal Register, explaining the

FY 1995 appropriation, minus any FY 1995

set-asides and reductions, plus any carryover from FY 1994. The NOFA also will

explain the allocation between the CGP and

the CIAP, and within the CIAP, the allocation

between Public Housing and Indian Housing

and the allocation to each Field Office/Office

of Native Americans Program (ONAP). The

Field Office Public Housing Director or the

ONAP Administrator shall have authority to

make Joint Review selections and CIAP

funding decisions.

III. Application Preparation and Submission

by HA

(a) Planning. In preparing its CIAP

Application, the HA is encouraged to assess

all its physical and management

improvement needs. Physical improvement

needs should be reviewed against the

modernization standards, as set forth in HUD

Handbook 7485.2, as revised, and any costeffective energy conservation measures,

identified in updated energy audits. The

modernization standards include

development specific work to ensure the

long-term viability of the developments, such

as amenities and design changes to promote

the integration of low-income housing into

the broader community. (See section I(b)(1)(i)

of this Notice). In addition, the HA is

strongly encouraged to contact the Field

Office to discuss its modernization needs and

obtain information. The term ‘‘Field Office’’

includes the ONAP.

(b) Resident Involvement/Local Official

Consultation Requirements.

(1) Residents/Homebuyers. The CIAP

regulations at §§ 968.220 or 905.624 require

the HA to establish a Partnership Process for

rental developments which ensures full

resident participation in the planning,

implementation and monitoring of the

modernization program, as follows:

(i) Before submission of the CIAP

Application, consultation with residents,

resident organization, and resident

management corporation (herein referred to

as residents) of the development(s) being

proposed for modernization and request for

resident recommendations;

(ii) Reasonable opportunity for residents,

including duly-elected resident councils, to

present their views on the proposed

modernization and alternatives to it, and full

and serious consideration of resident

recommendations;

(iii) Written response to residents,

including duly-elected resident councils,

indicating acceptance or rejection of resident

recommendations, consistent with HUD

requirements and the HA’s own

determination of efficiency, economy and

need, with a copy to the Field Office at Joint

Review;

(iv) After HUD funding decisions,

notification to residents of the approval or

disapproval and, where requested, provision

to residents of a copy of the HUD-approved

CIAP budget; and

(v) During implementation, periodic

notification to residents of work status and

progress and maximum feasible employment

of residents in the modernization effort.

(2) Local Officials. Before submission of

the CIAP Application, consultation with

appropriate local officials regarding how the

proposed modernization may be coordinated

with any local plans for neighborhood

revitalization, economic development, drug

elimination and expenditure of local funds,

such as Community Development Block

Grant funds.

(c) Contents of CIAP Application. Within

the established time frame, the HA shall
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14541

submit the CIAP Application to the Field

Office, with a copy to appropriate local/tribal

officials. The HA may obtain the necessary

forms from the Field Office. The CIAP

Application is comprised of the following

documents:

(1) Form HUD–52822, CIAP Application, in

an original and two copies, which includes:

(i) A general description of HA

development(s), in priority order, (including

the current physical condition, for each

development for which the HA is requesting

funds, or for all developments in the HA’s

inventory) and physical and management

improvement needs to meet the Secretary’s

standards in § 968.115 or § 905.603;

description of work items required to correct

identified deficiencies; and the estimated

cost. For example:

Development 1–1: 50 units of low-rent; 25

years old; physical needs are: new roofs; LBP

testing; storm windows and doors; and

electrical upgrading at estimated cost of

$150,000.

Development 1–2: 40 units of low-rent; 20

years old; physical needs are: physical

accessibility of 2 units; kitchen floors;

shower/bathtub surrounds; fencing; and

exterior lighting at estimated cost of $90,000.

Development 1–3: 35 units of Turnkey III:

15 years old; physical needs are: physical

accessibility of 3 units; and roof insulation at

estimated cost of $50,000.

Development 1–4: 20 units of low-rent; 5

years old; no physical needs; no funding

requested.

Note: Refer to Section IV(d)(3) of this

Notice regarding the consequences of not

including all developments in the CIAP

Application; even where there are no known

current needs.

(ii) Where funding is being requested for

management improvements, an identification

of the deficiency, a description of the work

required for correction, and estimated cost.

Examples of management improvements

include, but are not limited to the following

areas:

(A) the management, financial, and

accounting control systems of the HA;

(B) the adequacy and qualifications of

personnel employed by the HA in the

management and operation of its

developments by category of employment;

and

(C) the adequacy and efficacy of resident

programs and services, resident and

development security, resident selection and

eviction, occupancy and vacant unit

turnaround, rent collection, routine and

preventive maintenance, equal opportunity,

and other HA policies and procedures.

(iii) a certification that the HA has met the

requirements for consultation with local

officials and residents/homebuyers and that

all developments included in the application

have long-term physical and social viability,

including prospects for full occupancy. If the

HA cannot make this certification with

respect to long-term viability, the HA shall

attach a narrative, explaining its viability

concerns.

(2) A narrative statement, in an original

and two copies, addressing each of the

technical review factors in section IV(c)(5)

and, where applicable, the bonus points in

section IV(c)(6).

(3) Form HUD–50071, Certification for

Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative

Agreements, in an original only, required of

HAs established under State law, applying

for grants exceeding $100,000.

(4) SF–LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities, in an original only, required of

HAs established under State law, only where

any funds, other than federally appropriated

funds, will be or have been used to influence

Federal workers, Members of Congress and

their staff regarding specific grants or

contracts.

(5) Form HUD–2880, Applicant/Recipient

Update/Disclosure Report, in an original

only, required of HAs established under State

law.

(6) At the option of the HA, photographs

or video cassettes showing the physical

condition of the developments.

IV. Application Processing by Field Office.

(a) Completeness Review (Corrections to

Deficient Applications). To be eligible for

processing, the CIAP Application must be

physically received by the Field Office

within the time period specified in the NOFA

to be published at a future date, and must be

complete, including the signed certification.

Immediately after the application deadline,

the Field Office shall perform a completeness

review to determine whether an application

is complete, responsive to the NOFA and

acceptable for technical processing.

(1) If either Form HUD–52822, CIAP

Application, or the narrative statement on the

technical review factors is missing, the HA’s

application will be considered substantially

incomplete and, therefore, ineligible for

further processing. The Field Office shall

immediately notify the HA in writing.

(2) If Form HUD–50071, Certification for

Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative

Agreements, or SF–LLL, Disclosure of

Lobbying Activities, are required, but

missing, or Form HUD–2880, Applicant/

Recipient Update/Disclosure Form, is

missing, or there is a technical mistake, such

as no signature on a submitted form or the

HA failed to address all of the technical

review factors, the Field Office shall

immediately notify the HA in writing that the

HA has 14 calendar days from the date of

HUD’s notification to submit or correct the

deficiency. This is not additional time to

substantially revise the application.

Deficiencies which may be corrected at this

time are inadvertently omitted documents or

clarifications of previously submitted

material and other changes which are not of

such a nature as to improve the competitive

position of the application.

(3) If the HA fails to submit or correct the

items within the required time period, the

HA’s application will be ineligible for further

processing. The Field Office shall notify the

HA in writing immediately after this occurs.

(b) Eligibility Review. After the HA’s CIAP

Application is determined to be complete

and accepted for review, the Field Office

eligibility review shall determine if the

application is eligible for processing or

processing on a reduced scope.

(1) Eligibility for Processing. To be eligible

for processing:

(i) HA Eligibility. HA has fewer than 250

Public and Indian housing units.

(ii) Development Eligibility. The

development is either a public housing

development, including a conveyed Lanham

Act or Public Works Administration

development, or a Section 23 Leased Housing

Bond-Financed project (BFP).

(iii) Date of Full Availability (DOFA)/Major

Reconstruction of Obsolete Projects (MROP)

Funding. Each eligible development for

which work is proposed has reached DOFA

at the time of CIAP Application submission.

In addition, where funded under MROP after

FY 1988, the development/building has

reached DOFA or where funded during FYs

1986–1988, all MROP funds for the

development/building have been expended.

(2) Eligibility for Processing on Reduced

Scope. Where the following conditions exist,

the HA will be reviewed on a reduced scope:

(i) Section 504 Compliance. Where the

Section 504 needs assessment identified a

need for accessible units, the HA was

required to make structural changes to meet

that need by July 11, 1992. (‘‘Section 504’’

refers to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973.) Where the HA has not completed

all required structural changes or obtained a

time extension from HUD to July 11, 1995,

the HA is eligible for processing only for

Emergency Modernization or physical work

needed to meet Section 504 requirements.

Refer to PIH Notice 94–56 (HA), dated

August 15, 1994.

(ii) Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Testing

Compliance. Where the HA has not complied

with the statutory requirement to complete

LBP testing on all pre-1978 family units, the

HA is eligible for processing only for

Emergency Modernization or work needed to

complete LBP testing.

(iii) FHEO Compliance. Where the HA has

not complied with Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity (FHEO) requirements as

evidenced by an action, finding or

determination as described below, unless the

HA is implementing a voluntary compliance

agreement or settlement agreement designed

to correct the area(s) of noncompliance, the

HA is eligible for processing only for

Emergency Modernization or physical work

needed to remedy civil rights deficiencies.

(A) A pending proceeding against the HA

based upon a Charge of Discrimination

issued under the Fair Housing Act. A Charge

of Discrimination is a charge under Section

810(g)(2) of the Fair Housing Act, issued by

the Department’s General Counsel or legally

authorized designee;

(B) A pending civil rights suit against the

HA, referred by the Department’s General

Counsel and instituted by the Department of

Justice;

(C) Outstanding HUD findings of HA

noncompliance with civil rights statutes and

executive orders under § 968.110(a) or

§ 905.115, or implementing regulations, as a

result of formal administrative proceedings,

unless the HA is implementing a HUDapproved resident selection and assignment

plan or compliance agreement designed to

correct the area(s) of noncompliance;

(D) A deferral of the processing of

applications from the HA imposed by HUD

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

the Attorney General’s Guidelines (28 CFR

50.3) and the HUD Title VI regulations (24
14542 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

CFR 1.8) and procedures (HUD Handbook

8040.1), or under Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and HUD

implementing regulations (24 CFR 8.57); or

(E) An adjudication of a violation under

any of the authorities under § 968.110(a) or

§ 905.115 in a civil action filed against the

HA by a private individual, unless the HA is

implementing a HUD-approved resident

selection and assignment plan or compliance

agreement designed to correct the area(s) of

noncompliance.

(c) Selection Criteria and Ranking Factors.

After all CIAP Applications are reviewed for

eligibility, the Field Office shall categorize

the eligible HAs and their developments into

two processing groups, as defined in

subparagraph (1) of this paragraph: Group 1

for Emergency Modernization; and Group 2

for Other Modernization. HA developments

may be included in both groups and the same

development may be in each group.

However, the HA is only required to submit

one CIAP Application.

(1) Grouping Modernization Types.

(i) Group 1, Emergency Modernization.

Developments having physical conditions of

an emergency nature, posing an immediate

threat to the health or safety of residents or

related to fire safety, and which must be

corrected within one year of CIAP funding

approval. Funding is limited to physical

work items and may not be used for

management improvements. Emergency

Modernization includes all LBP testing and

abatement of units housing children under

six years old with elevated blood lead levels

(EBLs) and all LBP testing and abatement of

HA-owned day care facilities used by

children under six years old with EBLs.

Group 1 developments are not subject to the

technical review rating and ranking in

subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this

paragraph or the long-term viability and

reasonable cost determination in section V(e).

(ii) Group 2, Other Modernization.

Developments not having physical

conditions of an emergency nature and

located in HAs which have demonstrated a

capability of carrying out the proposed

modernization activities. Other

Modernization includes: one or more

physical work items, where the Field Office

determines that the physical improvements

are necessary and sufficient to extend the

useful life of the development; and/or one or

more development specific or HA-wide

management work items (including planning

costs); and/or LBP testing, professional risk

assessment, interim containment, and

abatement. Therefore, eligibility of work

under Other Modernization ranges from a

single work item to the complete

rehabilitation of a development. Refer to

section I(b)(1)(i) of this Notice regarding

modest amenities and improved design.

Group 2 developments are subject to the

technical review rating and ranking in

subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this

paragraph and the long-term viability and

reasonable cost determination in section V(e).

(2) Assessment of HA’s Management

Capability. As part of its technical review of

the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall

evaluate the HA’s management capability.

Particular attention shall be given to the

adequacy of the HA’s maintenance in

determining the HA’s management

capability. This assessment shall be based on

the compliance aspects of on-site monitoring,

such as audits, reviews or surveys which are

currently available within the Field Office,

and on the performance review under the

Public Housing Management Assessment

Program (PHMAP) for PHAs or the

Administrative Capability Assessment for

IHAs, and other information sources, as

follows:

(i) Public Housing. A PHA has management

capability if it is (A) not designated as

Troubled under 24 CFR Part 901, PHMAP, or

(B) designated as Troubled, but has a

reasonable prospect of acquiring management

capability which may include through CIAPfunded management improvements. A

Troubled PHA is eligible for Emergency

Modernization only, unless it is making

reasonable progress toward meeting the

performance targets established in its

memorandum of agreement or equivalent

under § 901.140 or has obtained alternative

oversight of its management functions.

(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has

management capability if it is (A) not

designated as High Risk under § 905.135 or

(B) designated as High Risk, but has a

reasonable prospect of acquiring management

capability which may include through CIAPfunded management improvements. A High

Risk IHA is eligible for Emergency

Modernization only, unless it is making

reasonable progress toward meeting the goals

established in its management improvement

plan under § 905.135.

(3) Assessment of HA’s Modernization

Capability. As part of its technical review of

the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall

evaluate the HA’s modernization capability,

including the progress of previously

approved modernization and the status of

any outstanding findings from CIAP

monitoring visits, as follows:

(i) Public Housing. A PHA has

modernization capability if it is (A) not

designated as Modernization Troubled under

24 CFR Part 901, PHMAP, or (B) designated

as Modernization Troubled, but has a

reasonable prospect of acquiring

modernization capability which may include

through CIAP-funded management

improvements and administrative support,

such as hiring staff or contracting for

assistance. A Modernization Troubled PHA is

eligible for Emergency Modernization only,

unless it is making reasonable progress

toward meeting the performance targets

established in its memorandum of agreement

or equivalent under § 901.140 or has obtained

alternative oversight of its modernization

functions. Where a PHA does not have a

funded modernization program in progress,

the Field Office shall determine whether the

PHA has a reasonable prospect of acquiring

modernization capability through hiring staff

or contracting for assistance.

(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has

modernization capability if it is capable of

effectively carrying out the proposed

modernization improvements. Where an IHA

does not have a funded modernization

program in progress, the ONAP shall

determine whether the IHA has a reasonable

prospect of acquiring modernization

capability through hiring staff or contracting

for assistance.

(4) Technical Processing. After the Field

Office has categorized the eligible HAs and

their developments into Group 1 and Group

2, the Field Office shall rate each Group 2 HA

on each of the technical review factors in

subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. With the

exception of the technical review factor of

‘‘extent and urgency of need’’, a Group 2 HA

is rated on its overall HA application and not

on each development. For the technical

review factor of ‘‘extent and urgency of

need,’’ each development for which funding

is requested in the CIAP Application by a

Group 2 HA is scored; the development with

the highest priority needs is scored the

highest number of points, which is then used

for the overall HA score on that factor. High

priority needs are non-emergency needs, but

related to: health or safety; vacant,

substandard units; structural or system

integrity; or compliance with statutory,

regulatory or court-ordered deadlines.

(5) Technical Review Factors. The

technical review factors for assistance are:

Technical review factors Maximum

points

Extent and urgency of need, including need to comply with

statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines ........................ 40

HA’s modernization capability ...... 15

HA’s management capability ........ 15

Extent of vacancies, where the

vacancies are not due to insufficient demand ............................ 10

Degree of resident involvement in

HA operations ........................... 5

Degree of HA activity in resident

initiatives, including tenant opportunity, economic development, and drug elimination efforts ........................................... 5

Degree of resident employment

through direct hiring or contracting or job training initiatives ...... 5

Local government support for proposed modernization ................. 5

Total Maximum Score ........... 100

(6) Bonus points.

(i) For Public Housing only, the Field

Office shall provide up to 5 bonus points for

any PHA that can demonstrate that it has

obtained funds from a non-HUD source to

improve or support the modernization

activities or the general operation of the PHA.

Non-HUD sources of funding may include:

local government, over and above what is

required under the Cooperation Agreement

for municipal services such as police and fire

protection and refuse collection; private nonprofit organizations; or other public and

private entities. To qualify for the bonus

points, the PHA shall identify the entity, the

amount of funds being obtained, and the

purpose of the funding.

(ii) For Public Housing only, the Field

Office shall provide up to 2 bonus points for

any PHA that can demonstrate that it has

awarded contracts, including subcontracts, to

minority business enterprises (MBEs) or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14543

women’s business enterprises (WBEs) within

the last three years. Such affirmative action

is required by Executive Orders 11625 and

12432 for MBEs and by Executive Order

12138 for WBEs. To qualify for the bonus

points, the PHA shall identify the contractor

or the subcontractor, the dollar value of the

contract or subcontract, and the date of

award.

(7) Rating and Ranking. After rating all

Group 2 HAs on each of the technical review

factors and providing any bonus points as set

forth in subparagraph (6) of this paragraph,

the Field Office shall rank each Group 2 HA

based on its total score, list Group 2 HAs in

descending order and identify other Group 2

HAs with lower ranking applications, but

with high priority needs. The Field Office

shall consult with Headquarters regarding

any identified FHEO noncompliance.

(d) Joint Review. The purpose of the Joint

Review is for the Field Office to discuss with

the HA the proposed modernization program,

as set forth in the CIAP Application, and

determine the size of the grant, if any, to be

awarded.

(1) The Field Office shall select HAs,

including all Group 1 HAs, for Joint Review

so that the total dollar value of all proposed

modernization recommended for funding

exceeds the assignment amount by at least

15%. This will preserve the Field Office’s

ability to adjust cost estimates and work

items as a result of Joint Review.

(2) The Field Office shall notify in writing

each HA whose application has been selected

for further processing as to whether the Joint

Review will be conducted on-site or off-site

(e.g., by telephone or in-office meeting). An

HA will not be selected for Joint Review if

there is a duplication of funding (refer to

section V(g)). The Field Office shall notify in

writing each HA not selected for Joint Review

and the reasons for non-selection.

(3) Where the HA has not included some

of its developments in the CIAP Application,

the Field Office may not, as a result of Joint

Review, consider funding any nonemergency work at excluded developments

or subsequently approve use of leftover funds

at excluded developments. Therefore, to

provide maximum flexibility, the HA may

wish to include all of its developments in the

CIAP Application, even though there are no

known current needs.

(4) The HA shall prepare for the Joint

Review by preparing a draft CIAP budget,

and reviewing the other items to be covered

during the Joint Review, such as the need for

professional services, method of

accomplishment of physical work (contract

or force account labor), HA compliance with

various Federal statutes and regulations, etc.

If conducted on-site, the Joint Review may

include an inspection of the proposed

physical work.

(e) HUD Awards. After all Joint Reviews

are completed, the Field Office shall adjust

the HAs, developments, and work items to be

funded and the amounts to be awarded, on

the basis of information obtained from Joint

Reviews, FHEO review, and environmental

reviews (refer to paragraph (h)). Such

adjustments are necessary where Joint

Review determines that actual Group 1

emergencies and Group 2 high priority needs,

HA priorities, or cost estimates vary from the

HA’s application. Such adjustments may

preclude the Field Office from funding all of

the higher ranked HA applications in order

to accommodate the funding of high priority

needs. However, where the information

obtained from Joint Reviews, FHEO review,

and environmental reviews does not

substantially alter the information used to

establish the rankings before Joint Review,

the Field Office shall make funding decisions

in accordance with its rankings. After

Congressional notifications, the Field Office

shall announce the HAs selected for CIAP

grants, subject to their submission of an

approvable CIAP budget and other required

documents.

(f) HA Submission of Additional

Documents. After field Office funding

decisions, the Field Office shall provide

written notification to the HA of funding

approval, subject to HA submission of the

following documents within the time frame

prescribed by the Field Office:

(1) Form HUD–52825, CIAP Budget/

Progress Report, which includes the

implementation schedule(s), in an original

and two copies.

(2) Form HUD–50070, Certification for a

Drug-Free Workplace, in an original only.

(3) Form HUD–52820, HA Board

Resolution Approving CIAP Budget, in an

original only.

(g) ACC Amendment. After HUD approval

of the CIAP budget, HUD and HA shall enter

into an ACC amendment in order for the HA

to obtain modernization funds. The ACC

amendment shall require low-income use of

the housing for not less than 20 years from

the date of the ACC amendment (subject to

sale of homeownership units in accordance

with the terms of the ACC). HUD has the

authority to condition an ACC amendment

(e.g., to require an HA to hire a

modernization coordinator or contract

administrator to administer its modernization

program).

(h) Environmental review. The Field Office

shall review the environmental impact of all

modernization activities under Part 50, in

accordance with the provisions of Parts 905

and 968. The Field Office may obtain the

information required to conduct the

environmental review during Joint Review.

The HA shall provide any documentation to

the Field Office that it needs to carry out its

review under NEPA. After all Joint Reviews

are conducted, the Field Office shall

complete the environmental reviews before

funding decisions are made and announced

and before HAs are invited to submit CIAP

budgets. Therefore, in requesting CIAP

budgets, the Field Office shall specify any

HA modification or elimination of activities

or expenditures that the Field Office has

determined, after review under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or related

laws, to have an unacceptable environmental

impact. Upon approval of the CIAP budget,

the Field Office shall send an approval letter

to the HA which includes notification that

HUD has complied with its responsibilities

under 24 CFR 905.120(a) or 24 CFR

968.110(c) and (d) before entering into an

ACC amendment with the HA.

(i) Declaration of Trust. Where the Field

Office determines that a Declaration of Trust

is not in place or is not current, the HA shall

execute and file for record a Declaration of

Trust as provided under the ACC to protect

the rights and interests of HUD throughout

the 20-year period during which the HA is

obliged to operate its developments in

accordance with the ACC, the Act, and HUD

regulations and requirements. HUD has

determined that its interest in Mutual Help

units is sufficiently protected without the

further requirement of a Declaration of Trust;

therefore, a Declaration of Trust is not

required for Mutual Help Units.

(j) ‘‘Fast Tracking’’ Applications.

Emergency applications do not have to be

processed within the normal processing time

allowed for other applications. Where an

immediate hazard must be addressed, HA

applications may be submitted and processed

at any time during the year when funds are

available. The Field Office shall ‘‘fast track’’

the processing of these emergency

applications so that fund reservation may

occur as soon as possible.

V. Other Program Items

(a) Turnkey III Developments.

(1) General. Eligible physical improvement

costs for existing Turnkey III developments

are limited to work items under Emergency

Modernization or Other Modernization

which are not the responsibility of the

homebuyer families and which are related to

health and safety, correction of development

deficiencies, physical accessibility, energy

audits and cost-effective energy conservation

measures, or LBP testing, interim

containment, professional risk assessment

and abatement. In addition, eligible costs

include management improvements under

the modernization type of Other

Modernization. Turnkey III units which have

been paid off, but not conveyed, are eligible

for funding, but if funded, the modernization

work must be completed before conveyance.

The cost of the physical and management

improvements shall not increase the

purchase price and amortization period for

the homebuyer families.

(2) Ineligible Costs. Nonroutine

maintenance or replacements, dwelling

additions, and items that are the

responsibility of the homebuyer families are

ineligible costs.

(3) Exception of vacant or non-homebuyeroccupied Turnkey III units.

(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of

subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an HA

may carry out Other Modernization in a

Turnkey III development, whenever a

Turnkey III unit becomes vacant or is

occupied by a non-homebuyer family. An HA

that intends to use funds under this

paragraph must identify in its CIAP

Application, the estimated number of units

proposed for Other Modernization and

subsequent sale. In addition, an HA must

certify that: the proposed modernization

under this paragraph would result in

bringing the identified units into full

compliance with the homeownership

objectives under the Turnkey III Program;

and the HA has homebuyers who both are

eligible for homeownership, in accordance

with the regulatory requirements, and have

demonstrated their intent to be placed into
14544 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

each of the Turnkey III units proposed for

Other Modernization.

(ii) Before an HA may be approved for

Other Modernization of a unit under this

paragraph, it must first deplete any Earned

Home Payments Account (EHPA) or NonRoutine Maintenance Reserve (NRMR)

pertaining to the unit, and request the

maximum operating subsidy. Any increase in

the value of a unit caused by its Other

Modernization under this paragraph shall be

reflected solely by its subsequent appraised

value, and not by an automatic increase in its

purchase price.

(b) Mutual Help Developments. Mutual

Help developments are eligible for the same

physical and management improvement costs

as are rental developments. Mutual Help

units which have been paid off, but not

conveyed, are eligible for funding, but if

funded, the modernization work must be

completed before conveyance.

(c) Professional Risk Assessment for LBP. A

set-aside may be made available for LBP

professional risk assessments under a

separate NOFA and Processing Notice. HAs

with pre-1980 family developments are

strongly encouraged to apply for these funds

to conduct LBP professional risk

assessments.

(d) In-Place Management (Interim

Containment of LBP). Where the results of

the LBP professional risk assessment

recommend that the HA undertake in-place

management measures, the HA is strongly

encouraged to apply for CIAP funds to carry

out such measures. However, if the HA is not

successful in obtaining CIAP funds for inplace management measures, the HA may

request a budget revision of previously

approved, but unobligated CIAP funds to

accomplish such measures. Where the HA

had a CIAP budget revision approved for this

purpose in FY 1994, the HA may request FY

1995 CIAP funds to complete the items

which were eliminated as a result of the

budget revision.

(e) Long-Term Viability and Reasonable

Cost.

(1) Long-Term Viability. On Form HUD–

52822, CIAP Application, the HA certifies

whether the developments proposed for

modernization have long-term viability,

including prospects for full occupancy. If,

during Joint Review, the HA or Field Office

believes that a particular development may

not have long-term viability, the Field Office

shall make a final viability determination. If

the Field Office determines that a

development does not have long-term

viability, the Field Office shall only approve

Emergency Modernization or nonemergency

funding necessary to maintain habitability

until the demolition or disposition

application is approved and residents can be

relocated. In making the final viability

determination, the Field Office shall consider

whether:

(i) Any special or unusual conditions have

been adequately explained, all work has been

justified as necessary to meet the

modernization and energy conservation

standards, including development specific

work necessary to blend the development in

with the design and architecture of the

neighborhood; and

(ii) Reasonable cost estimates have been

provided, and every effort has been made to

reduce costs; and

(iii) Rehabilitation of the existing

development is more cost-effective in the

long-term than construction or acquisition of

replacement housing; or

(iv) There are no practical alternatives for

replacement housing.

(2) Reasonable Cost. During the Joint

Review, the Field Office shall determine

reasonable cost for the proposed work, using

one of the following methods: (i) unfunded

hard cost of 90 percent or less of computed

Total Development Cost (TDC), which is

easier to apply when comprehensive-type

modernization is proposed; or (ii) the

reasonableness of the estimated cost of

individual work items, using national

indices, such as R.S. Means Index, the Dodge

Report or Marshall and Swift, adjusted to

reflect local conditions and actual

experience, which is easier to apply when

piecemeal-type modernization is proposed.

No computation of the TDC is required where

the estimated per unit unfunded hard cost is

equal to or less than the per unit TDC for the

smallest bedroom size at the development.

(f) Use of Dwelling Units for Economic SelfSufficiency Services and/or Drug Elimination

Activities. On August 24, 1990, the

Department issued HUD Notice PIH 90–39

(PHA), concerning the eligibility for funding

under the Performance Funding System of

dwelling units used to promote economic

self-sufficiency services for residents and

anti-drug programs. CIAP funds may be used

to convert units for these purposes. Also refer

to the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Guidelines (56 FR 49592, September 30,

1991).

(g) Duplication of Funding. The HA shall

not receive duplicate funding for the same

work item or activity under any circumstance

and shall establish controls to assure that an

activity, program, or project that is funded

under any other HUD program, shall not be

funded by CIAP.

VI. Application Deadline Date and Summary

of FY 1995 CIAP Processing Steps

The deadline date for submission of the FY

1995 CIAP Application will be established in

the NOFA to be published at a future date.

Dates for other processing steps will be

established by each Field Office to reflect

local workload issues.

Summary of Processing Steps

1. HA submits CIAP Application.

2. Field Office conducts completeness

review and requests corrections to deficient

applications.

3. HA submits corrections to deficient

applications within 14 calendar days of

notification from Field Office.

4. Field Office conducts eligibility review

and technical review (rating and ranking) and

makes Joint Review selections.

5. Field Office completes Joint Reviews,

environmental reviews and FHEO review.

6. Field Office makes funding decisions

and forwards Congressional notifications to

Headquarters.

7. Congressional notification is completed

and Field Office notifies HA of funding

decisions.

8. HA submits additional documents as

required in section IV(f).

9. Field Office completes fund reservations

and forwards ACC amendment to HA for

signature and return.

10. Field Office executes ACC amendment

and HA begins implementation.

VII. Other Matters

(a) Environmental Impact. A Finding of No

Significant Impact with respect to the

environment will be made in accordance

with HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 50

implementing section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(42 U.S.C. 4332) in connection with issuance

of the FY 1995 NOFA for this program. The

Finding of No Significant Impact will be

available for public inspection and copying

between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at

the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, 451

Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10276,

Washington, DC 20410.

(b) Federalism Impact. The General

Counsel, as the designated Official under

section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612,

Federalism, has determined that the policies

and procedures contained in this Notice will

not have substantial direct effects on States

or their political subdivisions, or the

relationship between the federal government

and the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the various

levels of government. As a result, the Notice

is not subject to review under the Order.

(c) Impact on the Family. The General

Counsel, as the Designated Official for

Executive Order 12606, The Family, has

determined that this Notice will likely have

a beneficial impact on family formation,

maintenance and general well-being.

Accordingly, since the impact on the family

is beneficial, no further review is considered

necessary.

(d) Accountability in the Provision of HUD

Assistance. The Department has promulgated

a final rule to implement section 102 of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD

Reform Act). The final rule is codified at 24

CFR Part 12. Section 102 contains a number

of provisions that are designed to ensure

greater accountability and integrity in the

provision of certain types of assistance

administered by the Department. On January

16, 1992, the Department published at 57 FR

1942, additional information that gave the

public (including applicants for, and

recipients of, HUD assistance) further

information on the implementation, public

access, and disclosure requirements of

section 102. The documentation, public

access, and disclosure requirements of

section 102 are applicable to assistance

awarded under the NOFA to be published as

follows:

(1) Documentation and Public Access. The

Department will ensure that documentation

and other information regarding each

application submitted pursuant to the NOFA

to be published are sufficient to indicate the

basis upon which assistance was provided or

denied. This material, including any letters

of support, will be made available for public

inspection for a five-year period beginning

not less than 30 days after the award of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14545

assistance. Material will be made available in

accordance with the Freedom of Information

Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD’s implementing

regulations at 24 CFR Part 15. In addition,

HUD will include the recipients of assistance

pursuant to the NOFA in its quarterly

Federal Register notice of all recipients of

HUD assistance awarded on a competitive

basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b), and

the notice published in the Federal Register

on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for further

information on these requirements.)

(2) HUD Responsibilities—Disclosures. The

Department will make available to the public

for five years all applicant disclosure reports

(Form HUD–2880) submitted in connection

with the NOFA to be published. Update

reports (also Form HUD–2880) will be made

available along with the applicant disclosure

reports, but in no case for a period less than

three years. All reports, both applicant

disclosures and updates, will be made

available in accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD’s

implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 15.

(See 24 CFR Part 12, Subpart C, and the

notice published in the Federal Register on

January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for further

information on these disclosure

requirements.)

(e) Prohibition Against Advance

Information on Funding Decisions.

HUD’s regulation implementing section

103 of the HUD Reform Act, codified as 24

CFR Part 4, will apply to the funding

competition to be announced under the

separately published NOFA. The

requirements of the rule continue to apply

until the announcement of the selection of

successful applicants. Also refer to a final

rule amending Part 4 published in the

Federal Register on November 19, 1993 (58

FR 61016), regarding the regulation of certain

conduct by HUD employees and by

applicants for HUD assistance during the

selection process for the award of financial

assistance by HUD.

HUD employees involved in the review of

applications and in the making of funding

decisions are limited by Part 4 from

providing advance information to any person

(other than an authorized employee of HUD)

concerning funding decisions, or from

otherwise giving any applicant an unfair

competitive advantage. Persons who apply

for assistance in this competition should

confine their inquiries to the subject areas

permitted under 24 CFR Part 4.

Applicants who have questions should

contact the HUD Office of Ethics at (202)

708–3815 (voice), (202) 708–1112 (TDD).

These are not toll-free numbers. The Office

of Ethics can provide information of a general

nature to HUD employees, as well. However,

a HUD employee who has specific program

questions, such as whether particular subject

matter can be discussed with persons outside

the Department, should contact his or her

Field Office Counsel or Headquarters

Counsel for the program to which the

question pertains.

(f) Prohibition Against Lobbying of HUD

Personnel.

Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act added

a new Section 13 of the Department of

Housing and Urban Development Act (42

U.S.C. 3531 et seq.). Section 13 contains two

provisions dealing with efforts to influence

HUD’s decisions with respect to financial

assistance. The first imposes disclosure

requirements on those who are typically

involved in these efforts—those who pay

others to influence the award of assistance or

the taking of a management action by the

Department and those who are paid to

provide the influence. The second restricts

the payment of fees to those who are paid to

influence the award of HUD assistance, if the

fees are tied to the number of housing units

received or are based on the amount of

assistance received, or if they are contingent

upon the receipt of assistance.

HUD regulations implementing Section 13

are at 24 CFR Part 86. If readers are involved

in any efforts to influence the Department in

these ways, they are urged to read the

regulation, particularly the examples

contained in Appendix A of the rule.

A final rule published in the Federal

Register on September 7, 1993, amended the

definition of ‘‘person’’ to exclude from

coverage a State or local government, or the

officer or employee of a State or local

government or housing finance agency

thereof who is engaged in the official

business of the State or local government.

Any questions regarding the rule should be

directed to the Office of Ethics, Room 2158,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451, Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20410–3000. Telephone:

(202) 708–3815 (voice); (202) 708–1112

(TDD). These are not toll-free numbers.

Forms necessary for compliance with the rule

may be obtained from the local HUD Office.

(g) Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities.

The use of funds awarded under the NOFA

to be published is subject to the disclosure

requirements and prohibitions of Section 319

of the Department of Interior and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year

1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the HUD

implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 87.

These authorities prohibit recipients of

federal contracts, grants or loans from using

appropriated funds for lobbying the

Executive or Legislative Branches of the

Federal Government in connection with a

specific contract, grant or loan. The

prohibition also covers the awarding of

contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or

loans unless the recipient has made an

acceptable certification regarding lobbying.

Under 24 CFR Part 87, applicants, recipients

and subrecipients of assistance exceeding

$100,000 must certify that no federal funds

have been or will be spent on lobbying

activities in connection with the assistance.

IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a

result of the exercise of the tribe’s sovereign

power are excluded from coverage of the

Byrd Amendment, but IHAs established

under State law are not excluded from the

statute’s coverage.

If the amount applied for is greater than

$100,000, the certification is required at the

time application for funds is made that

federally appropriated funds are not being or

have not been used in violation of the Byrd

Amendment. If the amount applied for is

greater than $100,000 and the HA has made

or has agreed to make any payment using

nonappropriated funds for lobbying activity,

as described in 24 CFR Part 87 (Byrd

Amendment), the submission also must

include the SF–LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities. The HA determines if the

submission of the SF–LLL is applicable.

(h) Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

The information collection requirements

contained in this NOFA have been approved

by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under section 3504(h) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1989 (44 U.S.C.

3501–3520) and have been assigned OMB

control number 2577–0044.

VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program number is 14.852.

Dated: January 9, 1995.

Joseph Shuldiner,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

[FR Doc. 95–6562 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P