62182 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

should never use E-Verify for 

reverification. 

Note to All Employers 

Employers are reminded that the laws 

requiring proper employment eligibility 

verification and prohibiting unfair 

immigration-related employment 

practices remain in full force. This 

Notice does not supersede or in any way 

limit applicable employment 

verification rules and policy guidance, 

including those rules setting forth 

reverification requirements. For general 

questions about the employment 

eligibility verification process, 

employers may call USCIS at 888–464– 

4218 (TTY 877–875–6028) or email 

USCIS at I-9Central@dhs.gov. Calls and 

emails are accepted in English and 

many other languages. For questions 

about avoiding discrimination during 

the employment eligibility verification 

process, employers may also call the 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Special Counsel for Immigration-Related 

Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) 

Employer Hotline at 800–255–8155 

(TTY 800–237–2515), which offers 

language interpretation in numerous 

languages, or email OSC at osccrt@

usdoj.gov. 

Note to Employees 

For general questions about the 

employment eligibility verification 

process, employees may call USCIS at 

888–897–7781 (TTY 877–875–6028) or 

email at I-9Central@dhs.gov. Calls are 

accepted in English and many other 

languages. Employees or applicants may 

also call the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Special Counsel for 

Immigration-Related Unfair 

Employment Practices (OSC) Worker 

Information Hotline at 800–255–7688 

(TTY 800–237–2515) for information 

regarding employment discrimination 

based upon citizenship, immigration 

status, or national origin, or for 

information regarding discrimination 

related to Employment Eligibility 

Verification (Form I–9) and E-Verify. 

The OSC Worker Information Hotline 

provides language interpretation in 

numerous languages. 

To comply with the law, employers 

must accept any document or 

combination of documents from the 

Lists of Acceptable Documents if the 

documentation reasonably appears to be 

genuine and to relate to the employee, 

or an acceptable List A, List B, or List 

C receipt described in the Employment 

Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) 

Instructions. Employers may not require 

extra or additional documentation 

beyond what is required for 

Employment Eligibility Verification 

(Form I–9) completion. Further, 

employers participating in E-Verify who 

receive an E-Verify case result of 

‘‘Tentative Nonconfirmation’’ (TNC) 

must promptly inform employees of the 

TNC and give such employees an 

opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC 

case result means that the information 

entered into E-Verify from Employment 

Eligibility Verification (Form I–9) differs 

from the Social Security 

Administration, DHS, or DOS records. 

Employers may not terminate, suspend, 

delay training, withhold pay, lower pay 

or take any adverse action against an 

employee based on the employee’s 

decision to contest a TNC or because the 

case is still pending with E-Verify. A 

Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result 

is received when E-Verify cannot verify 

an employee’s employment eligibility. 

An employer may terminate 

employment based on a case result of 

FNC. Work-authorized employees who 

receive an FNC may call USCIS for 

assistance at 888–897–7781 (TTY 877– 

875–6028). An employee that believes 

he or she was discriminated against by 

an employer in the E-Verify process 

based on citizenship or immigration 

status, or based on national origin, may 

contact OSC’s Worker Information 

Hotline at 800–255–7688 (TTY 800– 

237–2515).. Additional information 

about proper nondiscriminatory 

Employment Eligibility Verification 

(Form I–9) and E-Verify procedures is 

available on the OSC Web site at http:// 

www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/ and the 

USCIS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/ 

E-verify. 

Note Regarding Federal, State, and 

Local Government Agencies (Such as 

Departments of Motor Vehicles) 

While Federal government agencies 

must follow the guidelines laid out by 

the Federal government, state and local 

government agencies establish their own 

rules and guidelines when granting 

certain benefits. Each state may have 

different laws, requirements, and 

determinations about what documents 

you need to provide to prove eligibility 

for certain benefits. Whether you are 

applying for a Federal, state, or local 

government benefit, you may need to 

provide the government agency with 

documents that show you are a TPS 

beneficiary and/or show you are 

authorized to work based on TPS. 

Examples are: 

(1) Your unexpired EAD that has been 

automatically extended, or your EAD 

that has not expired; 

(2) A copy of this Federal Register 

Notice if your EAD is automatically 

extended under this Notice; 

(3) A copy of your Application for 

Temporary Protected Status Notice of 

Action (Form I–797) for this reregistration; 

(4) A copy of your past or current 

Application for Temporary Protected 

Status Notice of Action (Form I–797), if 

you received one from USCIS; and/or 

(5) If there is an automatic extension 

of work authorization, a copy of the fact 

sheet from the USCIS TPS Web site that 

provides information on the automatic 

extension. 

Check with the government agency 

regarding which document(s) the agency 

will accept. You may also provide the 

agency with a copy of this Federal 

Register Notice. 

Some benefit-granting agencies use 

the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification 

for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to 

verify the current immigration status of 

applicants for public benefits. If such an 

agency has denied your application 

based solely or in part on a SAVE 

response, the agency must offer you the 

opportunity to appeal the decision in 

accordance with the agency’s 

procedures. If the agency has received 

and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE 

verification and you do not believe the 

response is correct, you may make an 

InfoPass appointment for an in-person 

interview at a local USCIS office. 

Detailed information on how to make 

corrections, make an appointment, or 

submit a written request can be found 

at the SAVE Web site at http:// 

www.uscis.gov/save, then by choosing 

‘‘How to Correct Your Records’’ from 

the menu on the right. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24560 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5696–N–11] 

Third Allocation, Waivers, and 

Alternative Requirements for Grantees 

Receiving Community Development 

Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery 

Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice advises the public 

of a third allocation of Community 

Development Block Grant disaster 

recovery (CDBG–DR) funds 

appropriated by the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113– 

2) for the purpose of assisting recovery 

in the most impacted and distressed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62183 

areas identified in major disaster 

declarations due to Hurricane Sandy 

and other eligible events in calendar 

years 2011, 2012 and 2013. This 

allocation provides $2,504,017,000 to 

assist Hurricane Sandy recovery. 

Included in this allocation is 

$930,000,000 to implement projects 

from the HUD-sponsored Rebuild by 

Design competition, described in 

Federal Register Notices 78 FR 45551 

(July 29, 2013), and 78 FR 52560 

(August 23, 2013). The first and second 

allocations for recovery from Hurricane 

Sandy totaling $10,509,000,000 were 

published, together with program 

requirements, at 78 FR 14329 (March 5, 

2013) and 78 FR 69104 (November 18, 

2013). Additional notices at 78 FR 

23578, 78 FR 46999, 79 FR 17173, and 

79 FR 40133 have provided clarifying 

guidance, additional waivers, and 

alternative requirements. This third 

allocation brings total funding to 

recover from the impacts of Hurricane 

Sandy and other eligible events in the 

Sandy-affected region to 

$13,013,017,000. The Notice also 

establishes requirements governing the 

use of these funds. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan 

Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant 

Assistance, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, 

telephone number 202–708–3587. 

Persons with hearing or speech 

impairments may access this number 

via TTY by calling the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. Facsimile 

inquiries may be sent to Mr. Gimont at 

202–401–2044. (Except for the ‘‘800’’ 

number, these telephone numbers are 

not toll-free.) Email inquiries may be 

sent to disaster_recovery@hud.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Allocation and Related Information 

II. Use of Funds 

III. Timely Expenditure 

IV. Grant Amendment Process 

V. Authority to Grant Waivers 

VI. Rebuild by Design Allocations, Purpose, 

and Requirements 

VII. Applicable Rules, Statutes, Waivers, and 

Alternative Requirements 

VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

IX. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Appendix A: Allocation Methodology 

I. Allocation and Related Information 

The Disaster Relief Appropriations 

Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113–2, approved 

January 29, 2013) (Appropriations Act) 

made available $16 billion in 

Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) funds for necessary expenses 

related to disaster relief, long-term 

recovery, restoration of infrastructure 

and housing, and economic 

revitalization in the most impacted and 

distressed areas resulting from a major 

disaster declared pursuant to the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (Stafford Act), due 

to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible 

events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 

2013. The law provides that funds shall 

be awarded directly to a State or unit of 

general local government (hereafter 

local government) at the discretion of 

the Secretary. Unless noted otherwise, 

the term ‘‘grantee’’ refers to any 

jurisdiction receiving a direct award 

from HUD under this Notice. 

On March 1, 2013, the President 

issued a sequestration order pursuant to 

section 251A of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as 

amended (2 U.S.C. 901a), and reduced 

funding for CDBG–DR grants under the 

Appropriations Act to $15.18 billion. 

Through a Federal Register Notice 

published March 5, 2013, the 

Department allocated $5.4 billion for the 

areas most impacted by Hurricane 

Sandy (78 FR 14329). On November 18, 

2013, HUD allocated an additional $5.1 

billion to further assist in recovery from 

Hurricane Sandy (78 FR 69104). Other 

Notices have also allocated funds from 

the Appropriations Act for other major 

disasters occurring in 2011, 2012 and 

2013. 

To comply with statutory direction 

that funds be used for disaster-related 

expenses in the most impacted and 

distressed areas, HUD makes allocations 

based on the best available data that 

cover all the eligible affected areas. The 

initial allocation to Hurricane Sandy 

grantees was based on unmet housing 

and economic revitalization needs, 

while the second allocation also 

included data on unmet infrastructure 

restoration needs. This Notice provides 

the following Round 3 awards totaling 

$1.574 billion to address unmet 

recovery needs (See Appendix A for 

allocation methodology) and allocates 

$930 million toward proposals 

developed through the Rebuild by 

Design competition. The awards for all 

grantees are as follows: 

TABLE 1—HURRICANE SANDY ALLOCATIONS

Grantee First allocation Second allocation Third allocation Rebuild by design Total funding To 

date 

Connecticut .................................. $71,820,000 $66,000,000 $11,459,000 $10,000,000 $159,279,000 

New Jersey .................................. 1,829,520,000 1,463,000,000 501,909,000 380,000,000 4,174,429,000 

New York ..................................... 1,713,960,000 2,097,000,000 420,922,000 185,000,000 4,416,882,000 

New York City .............................. 1,772,820,000 1,447,000,000 639,056,000 355,000,000 4,213,876,000 

Rhode Island ................................ 3,240,000 16,000,000 671,000 N/A 19,911,000 

Maryland ...................................... 8,640,000 20,000,000 N/A N/A 28,640,000 

Total ...................................... 5,400,000,000 5,109,000,000 1,574,017,000 930,000,000 13,013,017,000 

New York City must expend all funds 

within New York City. State grantees 

may expend funds in any county that 

received a Presidential disaster 

declaration in 2011, 2012, or 2013 

subject to the limitations described in 

Table 2. 

Table 2 identifies a minimum 

percentage of the third allocation, 

inclusive of the Rebuild by Design 

allocation that must be spent in the 

HUD-identified Hurricane Sandy Most 

Impacted and Distressed counties. All 

selected RBD proposals are located in 

counties previously identified by the 

Department as the most impacted and 

distressed pursuant to the Federal 

Register Notice published on March 5, 

2013 (78 FR 14329). The opportunity for 

certain grantees to expend 20 percent of 

their allocations outside the most 

impacted and distressed counties 

identified by HUD enables those 

grantees to respond to highly localized 

distress identified via their own data for 

most impacted and distressed areas. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62184 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MOST IMPACTED AND DISTRESSED COUNTIES WITHIN WHICH FUNDS MAY BE EXPENDED

Grantee 

Counties from the following major declared 

disasters are eligible for CDBG–DR funds 

(FEMA declaration number) 

Hurricane Sandy Most Impacted and 

Distressed counties 

Minimum 

percentage that 

must be expended 

in Hurricane Sandy 

most impacted 

and distressed 

counties 

New York City ............... All Counties ....................................................... All Counties ....................................................... 100 

New York ...................... 1957, 1993, 4020, 4031, 4085, 4111, 4129 ..... Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester, and 

all Counties in New York City (Bronx, Kings, 

New York, Queens, Richmond).

80 

New Jersey ................... 1954, 4021, 4033, 4039, 4048, 4070, 4086 ..... Atlantic, Bergen, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, 

Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Union.

80 

Connecticut ................... 1958, 4023, 4046, 4087, 4106 ......................... Fairfield, New Haven ........................................ 80 

Rhode Island ................. 4027, 4089, 4107 .............................................. Washington ....................................................... 80 

This Notice builds upon the 

requirements of the Federal Register 

Notices published by the Department on 

March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14329), April 19, 

2013 (78 FR 23578), August 2, 2013 (78 

FR 46999), November 18, 2013 (78 FR 

69104), March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17173), 

and July 11, 2014 (79 FR 40133) referred 

to collectively in this Notice as the 

‘‘Prior Notices.’’ The Prior Notices are 

available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- 

03-05/pdf/2013-05170.pdf 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- 

04-19/pdf/2013-09228.pdf 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- 

08-02/pdf/2013-18643.pdf 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- 

11-18/pdf/2013-27506.pdf 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014- 

03-27/pdf/2014-06850.pdf 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014- 

07-11/pdf/2014-16316.pdf 

Executive Order 13632, published at 

77 FR 74341, established the Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, to ensure 

government- and region-wide 

coordination to help communities as 

they are making decisions about longterm rebuilding and to develop a 

comprehensive rebuilding strategy. 

Section 5(b) of Executive Order 13632 

requires that HUD, ‘‘as appropriate and 

to the extent permitted by law, align 

[the Department’s] relevant programs 

and authorities’’ with the Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Strategy (the 

Rebuilding Strategy). Accordingly, this 

Notice is informed by both the 

Rebuilding Strategy released by the Task 

Force on August 19, 2013 and Rebuild 

by Design (RBD), an initiative of the 

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force 

and HUD and part of the Rebuilding 

Strategy’s recommendation to promote 

resilience rebuilding through 

innovation. RBD addresses structural 

and environmental vulnerabilities that 

Hurricane Sandy exposed in 

communities throughout the region and 

developed fundable solutions to better 

protect residents from future disasters. 

The Rebuilding Strategy and 

information about RBD can be found, 

respectively, at: 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/

documents/huddoc?id=HSR

ebuildingStrategy.pdf 

http://www.rebuildbydesign.org 

II. Use of Funds 

The Appropriations Act requires 

funds to be used only for specific 

disaster recovery related purposes. 

Consistent with the Rebuilding Strategy, 

it is essential to build communities back 

stronger and more resilient. This 

allocation provides additional funds to 

Sandy-impacted grantees to support 

investments in resilient recovery. 

The Appropriations Act requires that 

prior to the obligation of CDBG–DR 

funds, a grantee must submit a plan 

detailing the proposed use of funds, 

including criteria for eligibility and how 

the use of these funds will address 

disaster relief, long-term recovery, 

restoration of infrastructure and 

housing, and economic revitalization in 

the most impacted and distressed areas. 

In an Action Plan for Disaster Recovery 

(Action Plan), grantees must describe 

uses and activities that: (1) Are 

authorized under title I of the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 

1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) (HCD Act) 

or allowed by a waiver or alternative 

requirement published in this Notice 

and the Prior Notices; and (2) respond 

to a disaster-related impact. HUD has 

previously approved an Action Plan for 

each grantee receiving an allocation of 

funds in this Notice. Grantees are now 

directed to submit substantial Action 

Plan Amendments in order to access 

funds provided in this Notice. RBD and 

formula allocations may be included 

together or in separate Action Plan 

Amendments. For more information on 

requirements for substantial Action Plan 

Amendments, please see Sections IV 

and VI of this Notice. 

As provided by the HCD Act, funds 

may be used as a matching requirement, 

share, or contribution for any other 

federal program when used to carry out 

an eligible CDBG–DR activity. However, 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Appropriations Act, CDBG–DR funds 

may not be used for expenses 

reimbursable by, or for which funds are 

made available by, FEMA or the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE). 

The Notice published November 18, 

2013 (78 FR 69104) imposes additional 

requirements on certain grantees. The 

grantees must update the needs 

assessment component of their Action 

Plan amendments to reflect current 

unmet needs, as applicable. The State of 

New York must either: (1) Ensure that 

a portion of its allocation is used to 

address resiliency and local cost share 

requirements for damage to both the 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

infrastructure in New York City and the 

Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey; or (2) demonstrate that such 

resiliency needs and local cost share has 

otherwise been met. The State of New 

Jersey must undertake one of these same 

actions with regard to the Port 

Authority. In order to demonstrate that 

resiliency and local cost share 

requirements have otherwise been met, 

the substantial Action Plan 

Amendments submitted by State of New 

York and the State of New Jersey must 

include evidence of consultation with 

the Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority and the Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey, as 

applicable. New York City must ensure 

that a portion of its allocation is used to 

address the recovery and resilience 

needs of the New York City Housing 

Authority (NYCHA), or demonstrate that 

such resiliency needs have otherwise 

been met. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62185 

III. Timely Expenditure of Funds 

To ensure the timely expenditure of 

funds the Appropriations Act requires 

that funds be expended within two 

years of the date HUD obligates funds to 

a grantee. Funds are obligated to a 

grantee upon HUD’s signing of a 

grantee’s CDBG–DR grant agreement. In 

its Action Plan, a grantee must 

demonstrate how funds will be fully 

expended within two years of obligation 

and HUD must obligate all funds not 

later than September 30, 2017. For any 

funds that the grantee believes will not 

be expended by the deadline and that it 

desires to retain, the grantee must 

submit a letter to HUD not less than 30 

days in advance of the deadline 

justifying why it is necessary to extend 

the deadline for a specific portion of 

funds. The letter must detail the 

compelling legal, policy, or operational 

challenges necessitating any such 

waiver, and must also identify the date 

by when the specified portion of funds 

will be expended. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

provided HUD with authority to act on 

grantee waiver requests but grantees are 

cautioned that such waivers may not be 

approved. If granted, waivers will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Funds remaining in the grantee’s line of 

credit at the time of its expenditure 

deadlines will be recaptured by HUD. 

IV. Grant Amendment Process 

To access funds allocated by this 

Notice grantees must submit a 

substantial Action Plan Amendment to 

their approved Action Plan. Submission 

to and review by HUD must follow the 

process outlined below. HUD approves 

the Amendment according to criteria 

identified in the Prior Notices and this 

Notice. 

• Before submitting a substantial 

Action Plan Amendment, a grantee must 

consult with affected citizens, 

stakeholders, local governments and 

public housing authorities to determine 

updates to its needs assessment, and as 

necessary, update its comprehensive 

risk analysis; 

• Grantee amends its citizen 

participation plan to reflect the 

requirements of this Notice, as 

described in Section VII.3; 

• Grantee publishes the proposed 

substantial amendment to its previously 

approved Action Plan for Disaster 

Recovery on the grantee’s official Web 

site for no less than 30 calendar days 

and holds at least one public hearing to 

solicit public comment; 

• Grantee responds to public 

comment and submits its substantial 

Action Plan Amendment to HUD (with 

any additional certifications required by 

this Notice) no later than 120 days after 

the effective date of this Notice; 

• HUD reviews the substantial Action 

Plan Amendment within 60 days from 

date of receipt and approves the 

Amendment according to criteria 

identified in the Prior Notices and this 

Notice; 

• HUD sends an Action Plan 

Amendment approval letter. The 

Secretary may disapprove of the Action 

Plan Amendment if it is determined that 

it does not meet the requirements of this 

Notice or relevant prior Notices. If the 

substantial Amendment is not 

approved, a letter will be sent 

identifying its deficiencies; the grantee 

must then re-submit the Amendment 

within 45 days of the notification letter; 

• Grantee ensures that the HUDapproved substantial Action Plan 

Amendment (and updated Action Plan) 

is posted on its official Web site; 

• HUD sends an amended unsigned 

grant agreement with revised grant 

conditions to the grantee; and the 

grantee signs and returns the amended 

grant agreement; 

• HUD signs the grant agreement 

amendment and revises the grantee’s 

line of credit amount (this triggers the 

two year expenditure deadline for any 

funds obligated by this amended grant 

agreement) and provides a copy of the 

executed grant agreement to the grantee; 

• If it has not already done so, grantee 

enters the activities from its published 

Action Plan Amendment into the 

Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting 

(DRGR) system and submits it to HUD 

within the system; 

• The grantee may draw down funds 

from the line of credit after the 

Responsible Entity completes applicable 

environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 

CFR part 58 (or paragraph A.20 under 

Section VI of the March 5, 2013 Notice) 

and, as applicable, receives from HUD 

or the state an approved Request for 

Release of Funds and certification; 

• Grantee amends its published 

Action Plan to include its projection of 

expenditures and outcomes within 90 

days of the Action Plan Amendment 

approval as provided for in paragraph 

VII.2.f of this Notice; and 

• Grantee updates its full 

consolidated plan to reflect disasterrelated needs no later than its Fiscal 

Year 2015 consolidated plan update if it 

has not already completed the update. 

V. Authority To Grant Waivers 

The Appropriations Act authorizes 

the Secretary to waive, or specify 

alternative requirements for, any 

provision of any statute or regulation 

that the Secretary administers in 

connection with HUD’s obligation or 

use by the recipient of these funds 

(except for requirements related to fair 

housing, nondiscrimination, labor 

standards, and the environment). 

Waivers and alternative requirements 

are based upon a determination by the 

Secretary that good cause exists and that 

the waiver or alternative requirement is 

not inconsistent with the overall 

purposes of title I of the HCD Act. 

Regulatory waiver authority is also 

provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 

570.5. 

VI. Rebuild by Design Allocations, 

Purpose, and Requirements 

Rebuild by Design (RBD) was a 

planning and design competition to 

increase resilience in the Sandy-affected 

region as part of recovery from the 

storm. The Department conducted the 

competition under the authority of § 105 

of the America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 

3719). Administered in partnership with 

philanthropic, academic, and nonprofit 

organizations, HUD solicited the best 

talents and ideas from around the world 

to seek innovative solutions for how 

communities rebuild and adapt in 

response to the damage from a disaster 

and future risks presented by natural 

hazards and climate change. More 

regarding the history of the competition 

can be found in the Federal Register at 

78 FR 45551, published July 29, 2013, 

and 78 FR 52560, published August 23, 

2013. 

The competition resulted in the 

selection of ten interdisciplinary design 

teams as finalists to participate in an indepth process. Ultimately, six proposals 

were announced as winning proposals 

in June 2014, representing an award of 

distinction for the respective design 

teams. 

1. Rebuild by Design Allocations 

Under this Notice, the Department is 

providing $930 million in funds for use 

toward the implementation of proposals 

developed through the RBD 

competition. Unless otherwise provided 

for in the Prior Notices or in this Notice, 

the allocated RBD funds are subject to 

all applicable CDBG requirements. For 

example, RBD expenditures must be 

included in each grantee’s overall 

benefit requirement. The specified uses 

and additional requirements on these 

allocations are outlined later in this 

Notice. Grantees are prohibited from 

spending the funds provided by this 

allocation for RBD on non-RBD 

purposes, including other disaster 

recovery activities. 

Allocations for RBD are identified in 

Table 3 below by proposal: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62186 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 3—REBUILD BY DESIGN ALLOCATIONS BY PROPOSAL

Grantee Proposal Location RBD CDBG–DR 

Allocation 

State of New Jersey ...... New Meadowlands ............................................. Meadowlands ...................................................... $150,000,000 

State of New Jersey ...... Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge ......................... Weehawken/Hoboken/Jersey City ...................... 230,000,000 

State of New York ......... Living with the Bay ............................................. Nassau County ................................................... 125,000,000 

State of New York ......... Living Breakwaters ............................................. Staten Island ....................................................... 60,000,000 

New York City ............... The Big U ........................................................... Manhattan/Lower East Side ............................... 335,000,000 

New York City ............... Hunts Point Lifelines ........................................... South Bronx/Hunts Point .................................... 20,000,000 

State of Connecticut ...... Resilient Bridgeport ............................................ Bridgeport ........................................................... 10,000,000 

As part of the RBD competition 

process, each design team worked 

closely with each respective grantee to 

ensure that design solutions within the 

proposals were consistent with the 

grantee’s recovery goals and priorities. 

2. Purpose of RBD Allocations and 

Required Actions 

Each selected proposal from the RBD 

competition is comprised of multiple 

phases, which collectively represent a 

larger master plan. For each selection, 

the multiple phases collectively are 

referred to in this Notice as the selected 

RBD proposal. For purposes of the RBDrelated sections of this Notice, HUD is 

referring to the first phase, portion of a 

phase, or pilot project of each selected 

proposal as an ‘‘RBD Project.’’ Each of 

these RBD Projects can be implemented 

to provide independent, meaningful risk 

reduction and assist in recovery. 

Successful implementation of RBD 

Projects will require collaboration 

within and among various levels of 

government (including, but not limited 

to, the environmental review and 

permitting process). In addition, 

implementation of RBD Projects may 

require engagement with private-sector, 

nonprofit, and philanthropic entities as 

part of an overall financing strategy. 

At a minimum, grantees must use the 

specific allocation for each selected RBD 

proposal to undertake the following 

actions: 

a. Implement each RBD Project identified 

in Section VI.3 consistent with the proposal 

selected through the RBD competition 

process, to the greatest extent practicable and 

appropriate, considering the technical, fiscal, 

environmental, legal, and other constraints or 

opportunities that may be encountered. 

CDBG–DR funds must be used to implement 

the RBD Project, including research, study, 

analysis, planning, citizen participation, 

design, and engineering activities or other 

activities (i.e., pre-development activities) 

that are necessary and reasonable to achieve 

RBD Project implementation as well as site 

work and RBD Project construction (i.e. 

development activities). The Department 

recognizes that the amount of CDBG–DR 

allocated to each proposal may not be 

sufficient to fully build-out the RBD Project. 

Accordingly, grantees must describe the 

major or primary RBD Project elements that 

they will develop further for implementation 

according to the total amount of funding 

(HUD and non-HUD funds) that can be 

reasonably anticipated as part of the RBD 

Action Plan Amendment process described 

in Section VI.4. In order to meet the 

requirements of this Notice, the RBD Project, 

when completed, must achieve independent 

utility. 

b. Undertake planning activities necessary 

at the RBD Project- and selected RBD 

proposal-level. Planning at the RBD Project 

level is necessary for the continued design 

and ultimate construction of the RBD Project 

activities. Planning at the selected RBD 

proposal level is necessary to ensure that the 

completed RBD Project will have appropriate 

continuity and connection to implementation 

of subsequent phases of the selected RBD 

proposal or other resilience plans and 

strategies. Selected RBD proposal-level 

planning must include development of an 

implementation strategy, including 

identification of potential funding sources 

and financing mechanisms, to continue the 

subsequent phase or phases of the selected 

RBD proposal. RBD Project-level planning 

should examine potential displacement of 

residents, businesses, and other entities due 

to potentially increasing costs of rent and 

property ownership in the years following 

the completion of the RBD Project (e.g., 

gentrification). Consideration should also be 

given to actions for mitigating the impacts of 

such displacement. 

c. Develop an implementation case study 

and lessons learned document, recording the 

implementation process for each RBD 

Project, to be submitted to HUD prior to grant 

close-out. The Department anticipates that 

new and creative coordination structures, 

partnerships, and decision-making processes 

may be developed during the implementation 

process and will use these case studies and 

lessons learned documents to inform future 

recovery efforts. Grantees must develop this 

document using a scope and methodology 

acceptable to the Department. HUD will work 

with grantees to develop an acceptable 

format for this document. 

The Department also encourages 

grantees to secure additional funding to 

implement other phases or portions of 

the selected RBD proposals and to 

consider increasing the scale, 

effectiveness, impact, or scope of the 

RBD Projects identified in this Notice. If 

the allocated RBD funding permits a 

grantee to implement additional phases 

or portions of the selected RBD proposal 

beyond the RBD Project identified in the 

grantee’s approved Action Plan 

Amendment, the grantee must, again, 

seek HUD approval through the 

substantial RBD Action Plan 

Amendment Process described in 

Section VI.4 below. 

3. RBD Project Descriptions 

Descriptions of the RBD Projects to be 

funded with these allocations can be 

found on the RBD Web site 

(www.rebuildbydesign.org) according to 

the names below: 

a. State of New Jersey: Meadowlands 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in the implementation of the first phase 

(‘‘Pilot 1’’) of the proposal titled ‘‘New 

Meadowlands.’’ Pilot 1 includes Little 

Ferry, Moonachie, Carlstadt, Teterboro, 

and a portion of South Hackensack. 

b. State of New Jersey: Weehawken/

Hoboken/Jersey City 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in the implementation of the first phase 

(‘‘Phase 1’’) of the proposal titled 

‘‘Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge.’’ 

c. State of New York: Nassau County 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in the implementation of the first phase 

(‘‘Slow Streams’’) of the proposal titled 

‘‘Living with the Bay.’’ Slow Streams 

runs along the Mill River and through 

Rockville Centre. 

d. State of New York: Staten Island 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in the implementation of the first phase 

(‘‘Tottenville Pilot’’) of the proposal 

titled ‘‘Living Breakwaters.’’ Tottenville 

Pilot is located along the South Shore. 

e. New York City: Manhattan/Lower 

East Side 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in the implementation of the first phase 

(‘‘Compartment 1: East River Park’’) of 

the proposal titled ‘‘BIG U.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62187 

f. New York City: South Bronx/Hunts 

Point 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in implementation of the proposal titled 

‘‘Hunts Point Lifelines.’’ The amount of 

CDBG–DR funds allocated pursuant to 

this Notice is not sufficient to fully fund 

the first phase of the proposal. 

Therefore, funding is to be used for 

continued study, analysis, planning, 

and community engagement as well as 

for design, engineering, and 

construction of a pilot project, as yet 

undefined. For purposes of this 

allocation, this pilot project will be 

considered the RBD Project for this 

selected RBD proposal. In order to allow 

the time necessary for engagement of 

community stakeholders regarding 

selection of a pilot project, the pilot 

project does not need to be identified in 

the initial Action Plan Amendment 

submitted in response to this Notice; 

however the grantee must describe the 

planning activity and certify that it will 

complete the pilot project in its initial 

Action Plan Amendment. Once the pilot 

project is identified by the City, the City 

must then submit a substantial Action 

Plan Amendment that incorporates the 

pilot project in order for project-related 

funds to be obligated. 

g. State of Connecticut: Bridgeport 

CDBG–DR funds are provided to assist 

in implementation of the finalist 

proposal titled ‘‘Resilient Bridgeport.’’ 

Although the proposal for Bridgeport 

was not selected as a winning proposal, 

funds are being allocated to reduce 

flood risk for the most vulnerable public 

housing stock in the city and to leverage 

significant match funding from the State 

of Connecticut and other local funds. 

The Department recognizes that 

additional planning is required to reassess and re-scope one or more 

elements of the proposal to identify a 

pilot project that can be implemented 

and that the forthcoming project may 

require greater deviation from the 

proposal as submitted relative to that of 

winning proposals. Funding allocated 

pursuant to this Notice is to be used for 

continued study, analysis, planning, 

and community engagement as well as 

for design, engineering, and 

construction of a pilot project, as yet 

undefined. For purposes of this 

allocation, this pilot project will be 

considered the RBD Project for this 

selected proposal. At a minimum, the 

pilot project must reduce flood risk to 

public housing in the City’s South End/ 

Black Rock Harbor area. In order to 

allow the time necessary for engagement 

of community stakeholders regarding 

selection of a pilot project, the pilot 

project does not need to be identified in 

the initial Action Plan Amendment 

submitted in response to this Notice; 

however, the grantee must describe the 

planning activity and certify that it will 

complete the pilot project in its initial 

Action Plan Amendment. Once the pilot 

project is identified, the State of 

Connecticut must then submit a 

substantial Action Plan Amendment 

that incorporates the pilot project in 

order for project-related funds to be 

obligated. 

4. RBD Action Plan Amendment Process 

The RBD Action Plan Amendment 

process, as described below, is designed 

to ensure that as specific plans for the 

RBD Project are developed, the RBD 

Project remains consistent with the 

selected RBD proposal and the RBD 

Project approved by HUD as an eligible 

CDBG activity as described in Section 

VII.4.c of this Notice. Before a grantee 

can access its RBD Allocation to carry 

out the RBD Project described in Section 

VI.2. of this Notice (or other phases of 

the selected RBD Proposal as permitted 

by this Notice), the grantee must 

complete the Grant Amendment process 

described in Section IV of this Notice as 

well as the RBD Amendment process 

described here: 

a. Following announcement of RBD 

allocations on May 30, 2014, grantee 

proceeds with additional planning, 

outreach, design, engineering, and other 

pre-development activities necessary to 

develop the RBD Project to the level of 

detail necessary for purposes of 

environmental review, permitting, and 

construction. Grantees are strongly 

encouraged to integrate project planning 

with the environmental review process. 

b. Grantees may charge to the grant 

the costs of CDBG eligible, RBD Project 

planning and pre-development activities 

incurred on or after May 30, 2014, by 

temporarily reprograming previously 

awarded CDBG–DR funds already 

identified for planning away from such 

planning activities for purposes of 

funding RBD Project planning and predevelopment activities under the 

alternative requirements described in 

Section VII.4.a. and b. of this Notice. 

c. No later than 120 days after the 

effective date of this Notice, grantee 

must submit its initial RBD Action Plan 

Amendment. The required elements of 

this Amendment are further described 

in Section VI.6.a. 

d. HUD approves the initial RBD 

Action Plan Amendment. Following 

HUD approval, grantee identifies the 

amount it wishes to obligate in 

consideration of the expenditure 

timeframes identified in Section III of 

this Notice and engages residents and 

community stakeholders in fully 

developing the RBD Project. Grantee 

also begins to take actions necessary for 

the environmental review process. 

e. For RBD Projects not requiring an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

pursuant to the requirements of 24 CFR 

part 58: Grantee submits a subsequent 

substantial Action Plan Amendment to 

reflect the final RBD Project, as 

described in Section VI.6.b. This 

Amendment must include a detailed 

description of the final RBD Project as 

permitted and approved from the 

environmental review process. This 

Amendment may be submitted prior to 

or concurrent with grantee’s submission 

of its Request for Release of Funds and 

Certifications (RROF). Following 

approval of the Action Plan Amendment 

and RROF, funds from the grantee’s line 

of credit will be made available for 

construction (proceed to Section VI.4.g). 

f. For RBD Projects requiring an EIS: 

i. Following completion of the Draft 

EIS, grantee submits a subsequent 

substantial Action Plan Amendment to 

reflect the final RBD Project, as 

described in Section VI.6.b. This 

Amendment must identify the RBD 

Project scope and design as it exists at 

that point. Grantees are not prohibited 

from proceeding with the EIS process. 

HUD approval of this Action Plan 

Amendment is contingent upon whether 

the RBD Project is as consistent with the 

conceptual proposal as practicable and 

appropriate. HUD will provide 

clarifying guidance as to the content and 

format of materials that will help ensure 

timely approval of the Action Plan 

Amendment under the criteria for 

approval of Action Plan Amendments 

containing RBD Projects described in 

this Notice. If the Action Plan is not 

approved, RBD Project-related costs will 

not be eligible following the date of 

disapproval until the RBD Project is 

brought back into alignment with the 

RBD Project as proposed in the 

previously approved Action Plan. 

ii. Grantee successfully stewards the 

RBD Project through the environmental 

review process pursuant to 24 CFR part 

58 and any permitting processes 

required to implement the RBD Project. 

iii. HUD anticipates that the final EIS 

or other project plan development may 

result in material changes to the project 

after grantee submits the subsequent 

substantial Action Plan Amendment 

described in Section VI.4.f.i. If no 

material changes have occurred since 

the previous RBD Project design and 

scope approved by HUD in the grantee’s 

Action Plan Amendment, no additional 

amendment is necessary. If the RBD 

Project has undergone a material 

change, then the grantee must submit a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62188 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

substantial Action Plan Amendment in 

order to describe the final RBD Project 

as permitted and approved from the 

environmental review process. A 

grantee may submit its RROF concurrent 

with this Action Plan Amendment, if 

applicable, and its Record of Decision 

for the project. Following approval of 

the Action Plan Amendment, if 

applicable, and RROF, funds from the 

grantee’s line of credit will be made 

available for construction. 

g. Grantee begins drawing funds for 

construction. HUD staff will continue to 

routinely monitor each grantee for 

continued consistency of RBD Projects 

with its approved Action Plan. 

5. RBD Environmental Review 

Requirements 

Grantees will conduct environmental 

reviews pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 and 

are strongly encouraged to integrate 

RBD Project planning with the 

environmental review process to the 

fullest extent possible by, for instance, 

aligning scoping and public comment 

periods required as part of 

environmental reviews with those 

required for RBD Action Plan 

Amendments. It is expected that 

grantees will undertake action that 

contributes to the environmental review 

process as soon as RBD Project planning 

commences. To expedite environmental 

review and permitting and to ensure 

that the most complex projects are 

delivered as efficiently as possible, 

grantees shall submit all RBD Projects to 

the Sandy Regional Team for Federal 

Review and Permitting as provided for 

in Section VII.1 of the Notice published 

on November 18, 2013 (78 FR 69104). 

Grantees must group together and 

evaluate as a single project all 

individual activities which are related 

either on a geographical or functional 

basis, or are logical parts of a composite 

of contemplated actions. Furthermore, 

grantees must analyze the reasonably 

foreseeable direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects of the RBD Project. 

See 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8. If the 

RBD Project is anticipated to require an 

EIS, grantees are encouraged to 

undertake the scoping process as early 

as possible consistent with 24 CFR part 

58 and 40 CFR parts 1500–1508. 

6. RBD Action Plan Requirements 

a. Initial Action Plan Amendment for 

Proposed RBD Project 

Grantees in receipt of an RBD 

allocation must submit an initial 

substantial Action Plan Amendment 

that includes the following elements: 

(i) RBD Project Description 

A general description of the proposed 

RBD Project to be designed and 

implemented (e.g., through narrative, 

maps, and conceptual project 

renderings). This description must also 

identify the CDBG national objective(s) 

that will be met by the funded RBD 

Project. The grantee must describe the 

use of all funds dedicated for planning, 

pre-development, and project 

construction costs and must breakout 

estimated amounts for such costs. The 

description must demonstrate the RBD 

Project’s feasibility and effectiveness in 

providing protection against current and 

future threats and hazards, including 

future risks associated with climate 

change. Additionally, the grantee must 

include in its description any applicable 

infrastructure requirements of the 

November 18, 2013 Notice as described 

in Section VI.7.a of this Notice. 

(ii) Implementation Partnership for RBD 

Project 

A description of the implementation 

partnership responsible for RBD Project 

completion. The description must 

identify the grantee agency responsible 

for managing the implementation of the 

RBD Project. The Action Plan 

Amendment must demonstrate that the 

implementing agency has the capacity 

to successfully implement the RBD 

Project in a timely, cost-effective, and 

compliant manner. If adequate capacity 

does not currently exist, the grantee 

must identify how it will provide this 

capacity. Adequate demonstration of 

capacity is typically reflected by, but is 

not limited to: Staffing levels; 

management structure; operational 

authority; experience; established 

controls, policies, and procedures; and 

history or ability to work collaboratively 

with other city, county, state, and 

federal agencies as required. 

The description of the 

implementation partnership must 

identify the entities that will comprise 

the partnership as well as the nature 

and role of each entity of the 

partnership (e.g., type of agreement, 

responsibilities, authorities, etc.). The 

description should include 

identification of any agreements that 

have been executed or that will need to 

be signed (such as contracts, 

subrecipient agreements, memoranda of 

understanding, etc.) for the partnership 

to effectively function and meet the 

requirements in this Notice. State 

grantees must include a description of 

the roles and responsibilities of the 

incorporated municipalities in which 

the projects are located. 

(iii) Citizen Participation Plan for RBD 

Project 

A description of the citizen 

participation plan specifically related to 

the prospective planning and 

implementation of RBD Projects. The 

competition process through which the 

proposals were developed involved 

transparent and inclusive community 

outreach and public participation 

surrounding each proposal. Grantees 

must demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the Department that they will continue 

to similarly engage community 

stakeholders through the planning, 

design, and development process 

related to each RBD Project and selected 

RBD proposal in their Action Plan. HUD 

encourages grantees to align citizen 

participation plan requirements with 

environmental review public 

participation processes to the fullest 

extent possible to gain efficiencies. For 

example, if the project requires an EIS, 

then the required public comment 

period following the publication of a 

Draft EIS should run, to the fullest 

extent possible, concurrently with the 

comment period for the substantial 

Action Plan Amendment. Grantees must 

take steps to ensure that vulnerable and 

underserved populations, including 

racial and ethnic minorities, persons 

with disabilities, and persons with 

limited English proficiency, are 

involved in the planning and decisionmaking processes throughout the RBD 

Project. 

(iv) RBD Project Timeline 

A description of the general timeline 

for RBD Project development until 

completion. Grantees should identify 

the general timeframe for activities such 

as additional study/research, planning, 

design/engineering, environmental 

review and permitting, site 

development, and construction. The 

timeline must be revised to reflect more 

accurate expectations once the final 

RBD Project design is approved by HUD. 

The timeline should reflect a critical 

path approach to RBD Project 

completion that illustrates the 

milestones to the completion of the RBD 

Project and estimates the resources 

required for accomplishment of each 

milestone. 

(v) Identification of Leveraged or 

Reasonably Anticipated Funds for RBD 

Project 

A description of funds that are 

anticipated to be generated or secured in 

leveraging the CDBG–DR allocation for 

RBD Project completion as well as any 

additional CDBG–DR funds the grantee 

anticipates dedicating to the RBD 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62189 

Project beyond the funds allocated to 

the RBD Project in this Notice. 

Accordingly, the description must 

identify any potential gap or shortfall in 

RBD Project funding (relative to what is 

being proposed) and identify the 

strategy(ies) that will be pursued to 

secure such funds. While RBD Projects 

must be implemented as consistent with 

the winning proposals as practicable 

and appropriate, it is understood that 

modifications may be necessary in 

response to the amount of funding 

ultimately secured. 

b. Subsequent Action Plan Amendment 

to Reflect Final RBD Project 

As described under Section VI.4.e. 

and f. of this Notice, the Department is 

requiring grantees to submit an Action 

Plan Amendment as a condition for the 

release of funds for RBD Project-related 

construction activities. HUD will 

provide clarifying guidance as to the 

format of materials for approval of 

Action Plan Amendments containing 

the final RBD Project descriptions 

described in this Notice. Grantees are 

advised that the Amendment 

submission must detail a final RBD 

Project that comports with the selected 

RBD proposal to the greatest extent 

practicable and appropriate and must 

update the required RBD Action Plan 

Amendment elements described in 

Section VI.6.a. 

Submissions will need to include an 

examination of the RBD Project through 

a Benefit-Cost Analysis, using 

methodologies and approaches 

acceptable to HUD. In its submission, 

the grantee must demonstrate the degree 

to which the project reduces flood risk 

and the respective geography that it will 

benefit. In its submission, the grantee 

must also certify to adequately fund the 

long-term operation and maintenance of 

the RBD Project from reasonably 

anticipated revenue, recognizing that 

operation and maintenance costs must 

be provided from sources other than 

CDBG and CDBG–DR funds. Approval 

of the Action Plan Amendment is 

contingent upon this certification. 

Grantees are also responsible for 

demonstrating that the RBD Project is 

feasible, including having an 

appropriate design that will result in the 

benefits proposed. In order to 

demonstrate that the engineering design 

for the RBD Project is feasible, a 

registered Professional Engineer (or 

other design professional) must certify 

that the design meets the appropriate 

code, or industry design and 

construction standards. HUD, when 

approving the RBD Action Plan 

Amendment, may impose special 

conditions on the grants to address high 

risk factors that HUD identifies in its 

review. 

HUD expects the grantee or a 

subrecipient, contractor, or subgrantee 

to take responsibility for operating and 

maintaining any levee, floodwall, or 

other flood control structure or system 

funded under the RBD allocation. 

Grantees must identify the entity(ies) 

that will own, operate, and maintain 

any levee or levee/breakwater system. 

Any levee or levee/breakwater system 

funded under the RBD allocation must 

be technically sound. The grantee must 

certify in its Action Plan Amendment 

that it, or the local authority assuming 

ownership of a levee, will take action to 

ensure the levee is certified and meets 

FEMA standards at 44 CFR 65.10 and is 

subsequently accredited by FEMA, 

which allows for floodmaps to be redrawn accordingly. 

7. Applicability of Prior Notice 

Requirements to RBD Projects 

a. Infrastructure requirements of Prior 

Notices 

As a result of the RBD competition 

process, RBD Projects are considered as 

having met: 

(i) The definition of infrastructure 

projects and related infrastructure 

projects under Section VI.b.1 of the 

November 18, 2013 Notice; 

(ii) The requirement for impact and 

unmet needs assessments and the 

comprehensive risk analysis under 

Section VI.c and VI.d of the November 

18, 2013 Notice; 

(iii) The process required for the 

selection and design of green 

infrastructure projects or activities 

under Section VI.f of the November 18, 

2013 Notice; and 

(iv) The additional requirements for 

major infrastructure projects (‘‘Covered 

Projects’’) under Section VI.g of the 

November 18, 2013, Notice. However, 

the Initial RBD Action Plan Amendment 

as described in Section VI.6.a of this 

Notice must still include a description 

of how the grantee plans to monitor and 

evaluate the efficacy and sustainability 

of RBD Projects, and meet the resilience 

performance standards requirement as 

outlined at Section VI.2.e of the 

November 18, 2013 Notice. Each RBD 

Project has been introduced to the 

Sandy Regional Infrastructure 

Resilience Coordination (SRIRC) Group. 

Grantees are expected to continue to 

work in consultation with SRIRC as this 

state and federal interagency group can 

help facilitate coordination of project 

scopes to best align and integrate with 

other recovery projects in the area. In 

addition, funded RBD Projects will be 

submitted to the Sandy Regional Team 

for Federal Review and Permitting for 

enhanced coordination that can 

expedite the implementation process, as 

provided for in Section VII.1 of the 

Notice published on November 18, 2013 

(78 FR 69104). 

b. Eligible Activity 

Under the waiver and alternative 

requirements imposed by this Notice, 

RBD Projects are CDBG-eligible 

activities subject to a determination by 

the Department that the RBD Project 

remains as consistent with the selected 

RBD proposal as practicable and 

appropriate, and meets all other 

requirements in this Notice. 

HUD has previously provided for the 

eligibility of large complex projects that 

are composed of multiple activities that, 

in and of themselves, would be eligible 

and contribute to long-term recovery. 

The Department has determined that the 

projects resulting from the RBD process 

are a critical component of the region’s 

long-term recovery and resilience to 

future weather events. To accomplish 

the initiative’s stated intention, each 

grantee will fund additional strategic 

planning and public outreach followed 

by an RBD Project that successfully 

implements an initial phase of the 

design. At HUD’s request, grantees have 

agreed that the RBD Projects will be 

implemented and contribute to their 

respective disaster recovery process. At 

this stage of development, it may be 

difficult for grantees to categorize RBD 

Projects into discrete categories of CDBG 

eligibility. HUD has determined that the 

activities that comprise the RBD Project, 

including the implementation case 

study and lessons learned document, 

are necessarily eligible CDBG activities 

under this Notice. Therefore, to 

streamline implementation of RBD 

Projects, HUD is providing an 

alternative requirement, as described in 

Section VII.4.c of this Notice, to create 

an eligible activity referred to as 

‘Rebuild by Design,’ to include all predevelopment and construction activities 

carried out in accordance with 

identified RBD Projects referenced in 

this Notice. As a criterion for approval 

of an Action Plan Amendment 

containing an RBD Project, HUD must 

determine that the description of the 

RBD Project, as included in a grantee 

Action Plan, is consistent with the 

eligible activity described in this Notice. 

Grantees must consider any portion of 

their RBD allocations expended on 

planning and general administrative 

costs as planning and general 

administrative expenditures for 

purposes of calculating compliance with 

the 20 percent cap on planning and 

general administration costs and 5 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62190 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

percent cap on general administration 

costs of their total CDBG–DR grant (i.e., 

the sum total of all CDBG–DR funds 

received under the Appropriations Act) 

as outlined in the March 5, 2013 Notice. 

c. National Objective Classification 

In the initial RBD Action Plan 

Amendment submitted in response to 

this Notice, as described in Section 

VI.6.a of this Notice, grantees must 

identify the CDBG national objective(s) 

associated with each RBD Project. Each 

RBD Project must meet the national 

objective requirements applicable to 

other CDBG–DR activities. Grantees may 

attribute a single national objective that 

covers the complete RBD Project 

activity; however grantees may also 

choose to categorize the project into 

multiple activities in order to 

distinguish and classify expenditures as 

benefiting low- and moderate-income 

populations, as a means of meeting the 

overall benefit requirement. Grantees 

must establish appropriate methods by 

which an RBD Project may be 

attributable to multiple national 

objectives through consultation with the 

Department. In addition, through the 

research and analysis conducted as part 

of the competition, RBD Projects have 

demonstrated an acceptable connection 

to recovery from the direct and indirect 

impacts of Hurricane Sandy. 

d. Procurement of Consultants 

Supporting Project Design 

Grantees should ensure that 

individuals with a strong working 

knowledge of both the RBD Project to be 

implemented and the overall proposal 

are among the consultants hired to 

advance the project. Given the unique 

knowledge and understanding that each 

RBD design team possesses regarding 

their respective proposal, grantees 

should consider how it may procure 

design team members noncompetitively. 

The RBD design teams and their 

members represent a collection of some 

of the best planning, design, and 

engineering talent in the world as they 

were selected by the President’s 

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force 

out of a universe of 148 teams from 

more than 15 different countries. The 

teams also bring interdisciplinary 

expertise such as economists, 

sociologists, hydrologists, and climate 

scientists. 

If a grantee has adopted or is required 

to use 24 CFR part 85, the grantee is 

reminded of the provisions of 24 CFR 

85.36, which set forth the conditions 

under which a grantee may engage in a 

non-competitive, single source 

procurement (§ 85.36(d)(4)). Grantees 

operating under part 85 are granted the 

authorization referenced under § 85.36 

(d)(4)(i)(C) only regarding procurement 

of the design teams (or members of the 

design teams) that participated in the 

development of selected RBD proposals 

through the HUD-sponsored RBD 

competition. The grantee will be 

responsible for ensuring compliance 

with requirements that all costs be 

necessary and reasonable. (In many 

cases, this will entail the grantee 

undertaking a cost analysis prior to 

hiring consultants.) Grantees that have 

not adopted part 85 should review state 

or local requirements associated with 

single source procurement to ensure 

continued consistency with § 85.36 and 

are advised to follow all applicable 

procurement requirements as well as 

those identified by HUD regulations and 

Notices. 

VII. Applicable Rules, Statutes, 

Waivers, and Alternative Requirements 

This section of the Notice describes 

requirements imposed by the 

Appropriations Act, as well as 

applicable waivers and alternative 

requirements. For each waiver and 

alternative requirement described in 

this Notice, the Secretary has 

determined that good cause exists and 

the action is not inconsistent with the 

overall purpose of the HCD Act. The 

following requirements apply only to 

the CDBG–DR funds appropriated in the 

Appropriations Act. 

Grantees may request additional 

waivers and alternative requirements to 

address specific needs related to their 

recovery activities. Except where noted, 

waivers and alternative requirements 

described below apply to all grantees 

under this Notice. Under the 

requirements of the Appropriations Act, 

waivers are effective five days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

1. Incorporation of General 

Requirements, Waivers, Alternative 

Requirements, and Statutory 

Requirements Previously Described 

Grantees are advised that general 

requirements, waivers and alternative 

requirements provided for and 

subsequently clarified or modified in 

the Prior Notices, apply to all funds 

under this Notice, except as modified 

herein. These waivers and alternative 

requirements provide additional 

flexibility in program design and 

implementation to support resilient 

recovery following Hurricane Sandy, 

while also ensuring that statutory 

requirements unique to the 

Appropriations Act are met. Waivers or 

alternative requirements previously 

issued pursuant to specific grantee 

requests remain in effect under their 

terms. 

2. Action Plan for Disaster Recovery 

Waiver and Alternative Requirements 

a. Infrastructure Programs and 

Projects. The infrastructure 

requirements described in in Section 

VI.2 of the Notice published on 

November 18, 2013 (78 FR 69106) apply 

to infrastructure programs and projects 

funded through the allocation provided 

by this Notice except as otherwise noted 

for RBD Projects in Section VI of this 

Notice. In evaluating infrastructure 

programs and projects included in a 

substantial Action Plan Amendment 

submitted in response to this Notice, 

HUD will assess the adequacy of a 

grantee’s response to each of the 

elements outlined in Section VI.2 of the 

November 18, 2013 Notice or as 

qualified in this Notice regarding RBD 

Projects as a basis for the approval of the 

amendment. However, grantees need 

not resubmit responses to elements 

approved by HUD unless warranted by 

changing conditions or if projectspecific analysis is required. 

b. Identification/Description of 

Covered Projects. For any Covered 

Project held to the requirements of the 

Notice published on November 18, 

2013, Section VI.2.g.1 of that Notice 

(‘‘Action Plan for Disaster Recovery 

waiver and alternative requirement— 

Infrastructure Programs and Projects, 

Additional Requirements for Major 

Infrastructure Projects, Identification/

Description’’), as amended by the March 

27, 2014 Notice, is modified to require: 

A description of the Covered Project, 

including: total project cost estimate 

(illustrating both the CDBG–DR award 

as well as other federal resources for the 

project, such as funding provided by the 

Department of Transportation or 

FEMA), CDBG eligibility (i.e., a citation 

to the HCD Act, applicable Federal 

Register notice, or a CDBG regulation), 

how it will meet a national objective, 

and the project’s connection to 

Hurricane Sandy or other disasters cited 

in this Notice. The Department 

recognizes that grantees often finance 

large scale infrastructure projects by 

leveraging several sources of funds that 

may shift over time. Therefore, the 

Department may elect to approve 

projects based on estimates of total 

project cost and of other funding 

sources as well as the CDBG–DR 

contribution amount. Grantees are 

expected to provide the best estimates 

available and the expected timeline for 

determining the exact costs. Grantees 

must submit an Action Plan 

Amendment to reflect any material 

adjustments to the cost estimate. As 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62191 

described in Section VII.3 of this Notice, 

where an adjustment of the CDBG–DR 

contribution to a Covered Project 

triggers the substantial amendment 

criteria described in the March 5, 2013 

Notice (78 FR 14329) at Section 

VI.A.3.a., grantees must submit a 

Substantial Action Plan Amendment 

subject to the requirements of the 

Notice, which requires no less than 7 

calendar days to solicit public comment. 

The Covered Project itself is subject to 

the 30-day comment period and public 

hearing required by the November 18, 

2013 Notice. However, HUD will 

consider resubmissions of Covered 

Projects submitted to HUD prior to the 

effective date of this Notice and revised 

in accordance with these amended 

requirements, subject to all nonsubstantial Action Plan Amendment 

requirements. 

c. Certification of proficient controls, 

processes and procedures. The 

Appropriations Act requires the 

Secretary to certify, in advance of 

signing a grant agreement, that the 

grantee has in place proficient financial 

controls and procurement processes and 

has established adequate procedures to 

prevent any duplication of benefits as 

defined by Section 312 of the Stafford 

Act, ensure timely expenditure of funds, 

maintain comprehensive Web sites 

regarding all disaster recovery activities 

assisted with these funds, detect and 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of 

funds. Grantees submitted 

documentation for the Secretary’s 

certification pursuant to paragraph 

VI.E.42.q of the March 5, 2013 Notice 

and updated them in accordance with 

78 FR 691014 (November 18, 2013). In 

any Action Plan Amendment submitted 

after the effective date of this Notice, 

grantees are required to identify any 

material changes in its processes or 

procedures that could potentially 

impact the Secretary’s or the grantee’s 

prior certification. Grantees are advised 

that HUD may revisit any prior 

certification based on a review of an 

Action Plan Amendment submitted for 

this allocation of funds, as well as 

monitoring reports, audits by HUD’s 

Office of the Inspector General, citizen 

complaints or other sources of 

information. As a result of HUD’s 

review, the grantee may be required to 

submit additional documentation or 

take appropriate actions to sustain the 

certification. 

d. Amending the Action Plan. Except 

as otherwise provided for in this Notice, 

Section VI.A.1.k at 78 FR 14337 of the 

March 5, 2013 Notice is amended, as 

necessary, to require each grantee to 

submit a substantial Action Plan 

Amendment to HUD within 120 days of 

the effective date of this Notice. All 

Action Plan Amendments submitted 

after the effective date of this Notice 

must be prepared in accordance with 

the Prior Notices, as modified by this 

Notice. In addition, they must budget 

all, or a portion, of the funds allocated 

under this Notice. Grantees are 

reminded that an Action Plan may be 

amended one or more times until it 

describes uses for 100 percent of the 

grantee’s CDBG–DR award. The last date 

that grantees may submit an Action Plan 

Amendment is June 1, 2017 given that 

HUD must obligate all CDBG–DR funds 

not later than September 30, 2017. The 

requirement to expend funds within two 

years of the date of obligation will be 

enforced relative to the activities funded 

under each obligation, as applicable. 

e. HUD Review/Approval. Consistent 

with the requirements of section 105(c) 

of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 

Affordable Housing Act, HUD will reject 

or approve each grantee’s substantial 

Action Plan Amendment within 60 days 

from the date of receipt. This timeframe 

allows HUD’s federal partners to view 

the Amendment and provide feedback. 

The Secretary may disapprove an 

Amendment if it is determined that it 

does not meet the requirements of the 

Prior Notices, as amended by this 

Notice. 

f. Projection of expenditures and 

outcomes. Section VI.A.1.l. at 78 FR 

14337 of the March 5, 2013 Notice is 

amended, as necessary, to require each 

grantee to amend its Action Plan to 

update its projection of expenditures 

and outcomes within 90 days of its 

Action Plan Amendment approval. The 

projections must be based on each 

quarter’s expected performance— 

beginning the quarter funds are 

available to the grantee and continuing 

each quarter until all funds are 

expended. Projections should include 

the entire amount allocated by this 

Notice. Amending the Action Plan to 

accommodate these changes is not 

considered a substantial amendment. 

Guidance on preparing the projections 

is available on HUD’s Web site at: 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/

HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_

planning/communitydevelopment/

programs/drsi/afwa. 

3. Citizen Participation Waiver and 

Alternative Requirement 

78 FR 69104 (November 18, 2013) 

modified paragraph 3 at 78 FR 14338 of 

the March 5, 2013 Notice to require 

grantees to publish substantial Action 

Plan Amendments for comment for 30 

days prior to submission to HUD. 

Covered Projects are subject to the 30- 

day comment period and public hearing 

required by the November 18, 2013 

Notice. However, as described in 

paragraph VII.2.b. of this Notice, this 

paragraph modifies paragraph 4 at 78 FR 

69109 of the November 18, 2013 Notice 

by imposing a 7-day public comment 

period only when a grantee proposes 

adjustments of CDBG–DR contributions 

to a Covered Project that would trigger 

a substantial amendment by exceeding 

the $1 million threshold. Action Plan 

amendments must include full project 

descriptions for Covered Projects. 

Grantees are reminded of both the 

citizen participation requirements of 

that Notice and that HUD will monitor 

grantee compliance with those 

requirements and the alternative 

requirements of this Notice. Grantees 

are strongly encouraged to align citizen 

participation plan requirements with 

environmental review public 

participation processes to the fullest 

extent possible to gain efficiencies. 

Grantees are encouraged to conduct 

outreach to community groups, 

including those that serve minority 

populations, persons with limited 

English proficiency, and persons with 

disabilities, to encourage public 

attendance at the hearings and the 

submission of written comments 

concerning the Action Plan 

Amendment. 

The grantee must continue to make 

the Action Plan, any amendments, and 

all performance reports available to the 

public on its Web site and on request. 

The grantee must also make these 

documents available in a form 

accessible to persons with disabilities 

and persons of limited English 

proficiency, in accordance with the 

requirements of the March 5, 2013 

Notice. Grantees are also encouraged to 

conduct outreach to local nonprofit and 

civic organizations to disseminate draft 

substantial Action Plan Amendments 

for public comment. Until the grant is 

closed the grantee must provide 

citizens, affected local governments, and 

other interested parties with reasonable 

and timely access to information and 

records relating to the Action Plan and 

to the grantee’s use of grant funds. This 

objective should be achieved through 

effective use of the grantee’s 

comprehensive Web site mandated by 

the Appropriations Act. 

4. Waivers and Alternative 

Requirements for Rebuild by Design 

Allocations 

a. Interim funding for RBD planning 

and RBD Project-related predevelopment costs. Without providing a 

waiver and alternative requirement, 

HUD would be required to make the 

RBD eligible activity determination 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62192 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

described in Section VI.7.b prior to a 

grantee’s use of funds made available by 

the RBD Allocation for RBD Project predevelopment costs. However, this 

eligibility determination will not be 

made until the grantee has completed 

the RBD Action Plan Amendment 

Process as described in Section VI.4. To 

ensure timely progress and prevent gaps 

in continuity regarding design 

development and community 

engagement for implementation of RBD 

Projects, HUD is providing this waiver 

and alternative requirement to permit 

grantees to temporarily reprogram 

CDBG–DR funds previously identified 

for planning in an Action Plan 

governing earlier CDBG–DR allocations 

under the Appropriations Act. This 

alternative requirement will allow 

grantees to move funds temporarily 

from planning activities for purposes of 

funding RBD Project planning and predevelopment costs. In order to 

undertake this action, grantees must 

submit a non-substantial Action Plan 

Amendment to identify any amounts 

reprogrammed, with the exception of 

general planning activities that are 

eligible under 24 CFR 570.205 

(including planning activities under 

570.205 undertaken by states pursuant 

to the waiver for planning-only 

activities in the March 5, 2013 Notice), 

which would not require an 

amendment. Under the terms of this 

alternative requirement, when funds 

become available under the grantee’s 

line of credit for the RBD Project, the 

grantee must set aside funds from the 

RBD allocation in the amount 

reprogrammed for the RBD Project 

under this alternative requirement for 

the original planning purpose for which 

these funds were designated. Use of 

existing CDBG–DR funding for RBD 

Project planning and pre-development 

activities is allowed for such 

expenditures incurred following the 

announcement of RBD allocations by 

the Secretary on May 30, 2014. 

b. Citizen participation waiver and 

alternative requirement—Interim 

funding for RBD Project planning and 

pre-development costs. Modifications to 

a grantee’s Action Plan to reflect the 

temporary reprogramming of funds for 

RBD Project planning and predevelopment costs, as outlined in 

subparagraph a above, are not subject to 

the substantial amendment criteria 

described in the March 5, 2013 Notice 

(78 FR 14329); however, these 

modifications are subject to all nonsubstantial Action Plan Amendment 

requirements. 

c. Rebuild by Design as an eligible 

CDBG activity. As described in Section 

VI.7.b of this Notice, the Department is 

waiving 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) only to the 

extent necessary to create a new eligible 

activity, the ‘Rebuild by Design’ eligible 

activity, that includes: 

• RBD Pre-development and 

Construction Costs: This waiver and 

alternative requirement permits grantees 

receiving an RBD allocation to designate 

all necessary pre-development and 

construction costs carried out in 

accordance with the selected RBD 

proposal described in a HUD-approved 

Action Plan as an eligible activity; and 

• RBD Implementation case study 

and lessons learned document: This 

waiver and alternative requirement 

allows grantees to classify costs 

expended on the preparation of the case 

study and lessons learned document 

required in Section VI of this Notice as 

eligible CDBG activity costs (not 

planning costs) of the ‘Rebuild by 

Design’ eligible activity. 

5. Reimbursement of Disaster Recovery 

Expenses 

In addition to pre-award requirements 

described in the March 5, 2013 Notice, 

grantees are subject to HUD’s guidance 

issued July 30, 2013—‘‘Guidance for 

Charging Pre-Award Costs of 

Homeowners, Businesses, and Other 

Qualifying Entities to CDBG Disaster 

Recovery Grants’’ (CPD Notice 2013– 

05), as may be amended. The CPD 

Notice is available on the CPD Disaster 

Recovery Web site at: http:// 

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ 

huddoc?id=cdbg_preaward_notice.pdf. 

6. Duplication of Benefits 

Grantees are reminded that the March 

5, 2013 Notice, at 78 FR 14344, imposes 

a requirement that grantees, in 

administering grant funds, adhere to the 

guidance in the Federal Register Notice 

published November 16, 2011 (76 FR 

71060), ‘‘Guidance on Duplication of 

Benefit Requirements and Provision of 

CDBG–DR Assistance’’. This 

requirement continues to apply to funds 

made available under this Notice. The 

Duplication of Benefits Notice is 

available on the CPD Disaster Recovery 

Web site at: http://portal.hud.gov/

hudportal/HUD?src=/programoffices/

administration/hudclips/notices/cpd 

7. Eligibility of Needs Assessment and 

Comprehensive Risk Analysis Costs 

Grantees may use CDBG–DR funds to 

update their impact and unmet needs 

assessments as well as their 

comprehensive risk analyses for 

infrastructure projects as required by 

November 18, 2013 Notice, consistent 

with the overall 20 percent limitation on 

the use of funds for planning, 

management, and administrative costs. 

VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance number for the disaster 

recovery grants under this Notice is as 

follows: 14.269. 

IX. Finding of No Significant Impact 

A Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) with respect to the 

environment has been made in 

accordance with HUD regulations at 24 

CFR part 50, which implement section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for 

public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 

p.m. weekdays in the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 

10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Due to security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the docket file 

must be scheduled by calling the 

Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 

(this is not a toll-free number). Hearing 

or speech-impaired individuals may 

access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

Dated: October 9, 2014. 

Clifford Taffet, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary. 

Appendix A—Allocation Methodology 

May 2014 CDBG–DR Allocation 

Methodology 

This allocation is calculated based on 

relative share of needs HUD has estimated 

are required to rebuild to a higher standard 

consistent with CDBG program requirements 

and the goals set forth in the Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Strategy. HUD’s analysis 

shows that when calculating both unmet 

repair costs and resiliency needs, there is 

adequate funding allocated to address the 

critical housing and small business repair 

needs of each grantee, but grantees will 

continue to need to make careful choices 

about prioritizing the limited resources for 

those most impacted and distressed, most 

particularly in consideration of infrastructure 

and non-critical resiliency investments. In 

addition to ensuring adequate amounts of 

funds have been allocated for addressing 

critical housing and business needs, HUD has 

allocated funds estimated to support 

development of at least one phase of Sandy 

Rebuild by Design (RBD) award winning 

projects and one final project. This allocation 

methodology applies only to the formula 

allocation and not to the RBD allocation. 

HUD calculates the cost to rebuild the most 

impacted and distressed homes, businesses, 

and infrastructure back to pre-disaster 

conditions. From this base calculation, HUD 

calculates both the amount not covered by 

insurance and other federal sources to 

rebuild back to pre-disaster conditions as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62193 

1For Hurricane Sandy, a most impacted disaster 

is any state that received a FEMA Individual 

Assistance declaration. For other disasters a Most 

Impacted disaster is a disaster where the severe 

housing and business unmet needs (excluding 

resiliency) exceed $25 million from counties with 

greater than $10 million in unmet housing and 

business severe needs (excluding resiliency and 

area construction cost adjustment). 

well as a ‘‘resiliency’’ amount which is 

calculated at 30 percent of the total basic cost 

to rebuild back the most distressed homes, 

businesses, and infrastructure to pre-disaster 

conditions. The estimated cost to repair 

unmet needs are combined with the 

resiliency needs to calculate the total severe 

unmet needs estimated to achieve long-term 

recovery. This calculation of housing, 

business, and infrastructure needs is used to 

determine the relative share of funding for 

this Sandy state allocation versus other 

eligible disasters of 2011, 2012, and 2013. 

Consistent with HUD’s intent to prioritize 

critical housing and business needs with this 

final allocation, the formula sub-allocation 

among Sandy states is made proportional to 

the calculated severe unmet needs for 

estimated remaining housing and business 

needs (excluding infrastructure). 

Statutory Language for the Allocation 

Public Law 113–2 (January 29, 2013) 

provides the following language on how the 

Secretary shall allocate the funds: ‘‘For an 

additional amount for ‘‘Community 

Development Fund’’, $16,000,000,000, to 

remain available until September 30, 2017, 

for necessary expenses related to disaster 

relief, long-term recovery, restoration of 

infrastructure and housing, and economic 

revitalization in the most impacted and 

distressed areas resulting from a major 

disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) due 

to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events 

in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, for 

activities authorized under title I of the 

Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.): Provided, That 

funds shall be awarded directly to the State 

or unit of general local government as a 

grantee at the discretion of the Secretary of 

Housing and Urban Development: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall allocate to 

grantees not less than 33 percent of the funds 

provided under this heading within 60 days 

after the enactment of this division based on 

the best available data:’’ 

Available Data 

The ‘‘best available’’ data HUD staff have 

identified as being available to calculate 

unmet needs at this time for all disasters in 

2011, 2012, and 2013 meeting HUD’s Most 

Impacted and Distressed threshold comes 

from the following data sources: 

• FEMA Individual Assistance program 

data on housing unit damage; 

• SBA for management of its disaster 

assistance loan program for housing repair 

and replacement; 

• SBA for management of its disaster 

assistance loan program for business real 

estate repair and replacement as well as 

content loss; and 

• FEMA Public Assistance, Department of 

Transportation Federal Transit 

Administration and Federal Highway 

Administration, Corps of Engineers, and US 

Department of Agriculture Emergency 

Watershed Restoration data on infrastructure 

These funds are only allocated toward 

disasters in 2011, 2012, and 2013 determined 

by HUD to be most impacted and distressed 

disasters.1

Calculating Unmet Housing Needs 

The core data on housing damage for both 

the unmet housing needs calculation and the 

concentrated damage are based on home 

inspection data for FEMA’s Individual 

Assistance program (extracted January 2014). 

For unmet housing needs, the FEMA data are 

supplemented by Small Business 

Administration data from its Disaster Loan 

Program (extracted January 2014). HUD 

calculates ‘‘unmet housing needs’’ as the 

number of housing units with unmet needs 

times the estimated cost to repair those units 

less repair funds already provided by FEMA, 

where: 

• Each of the FEMA inspected owner units 

are categorized by HUD into one of five 

categories: 

Æ Minor-Low: Less than $3,000 of FEMA 

inspected real property damage. 

Æ Minor-High: $3,000 to $7,999 of FEMA 

inspected real property damage. 

Æ Major-Low: $8,000 to $14,999 of FEMA 

inspected real property damage (if basement 

flooding only, damage categorization is 

capped at major-low). 

Æ Major-High: $15,000 to $28,800 of FEMA 

inspected real property damage and/or 4 to 

6 feet of flooding on the first floor. 

Æ Severe: Greater than $28,800 of FEMA 

inspected real property damage or 

determined destroyed and/or 6 or more feet 

of flooding on the first floor. 

To meet the statutory requirement of ‘‘most 

impacted and distressed’’ in this legislative 

language, homes are determined to have a 

high level of damage if they have damage of 

‘‘major-low’’ or higher. That is, they have a 

real property FEMA inspected damage of 

$8,000 or flooding over 4 foot. Furthermore, 

a homeowner is determined to have unmet 

needs if they have received a FEMA grant to 

make home repairs. For homeowners with a 

FEMA grant and insurance for the covered 

event, HUD assumes that the unmet need 

‘‘gap’’ is 20 percent of the difference between 

total damage and the FEMA grant. 

• FEMA does not inspect rental units for 

real property damage so personal property 

damage is used as a proxy for unit damage. 

Each of the FEMA inspected renter units are 

categorized by HUD into one of five 

categories: 

Æ Minor-Low: Less than $1,000 of FEMA 

inspected personal property damage. 

Æ Minor-High: $1,000 to $1,999 of FEMA 

inspected personal property damage. 

Æ Major-Low: $2,000 to $3,499 of FEMA 

inspected personal property damage (if 

basement flooding only, damage 

categorization is capped at major-low). 

Æ Major-High: $3,500 to $7,499 of FEMA 

inspected personal property damage or 4 to 

6 feet of flooding on the first floor. 

Æ Severe: Greater than $7,500 of FEMA 

inspected personal property damage or 

determined destroyed and/or 6 or more feet 

of flooding on the first floor. 

For rental properties, to meet the statutory 

requirement of ‘‘most impacted and 

distressed’’ in this legislative language, 

homes are determined to have a high level of 

damage if they have damage of ‘‘major-low’’ 

or higher. That is, they have a FEMA 

personal property damage assessment of 

$2,000 or greater or flooding over 4 feet. 

Furthermore, landlords are presumed to have 

adequate insurance coverage unless the unit 

is occupied by a renter with income of 

$30,000 or less. Units are occupied by a 

tenant with income less than $30,000 are 

used to calculate likely unmet needs for 

affordable rental housing. For those units 

occupied by tenants with incomes under 

$30,000, HUD estimates unmet needs as 75 

percent of the estimated repair cost. 

• The median cost to fully repair a home 

for a specific disaster to code within each of 

the damage categories noted above is 

calculated using the average real property 

damage repair costs determined by the Small 

Business Administration for its disaster loan 

program for the subset of homes inspected by 

both SBA and FEMA. Because SBA is 

inspecting for full repair costs, it is presumed 

to reflect the full cost to repair the home, 

which is generally more than the FEMA 

estimates on the cost to make the home 

habitable. If fewer than 100 SBA inspections 

are made for homes within a FEMA damage 

category, the estimated damage amount in 

the category for that disaster has a cap 

applied at the 75th percentile of all damaged 

units for that category for all disasters and 

has a floor applied at the 25th percentile. 

Calculating Unmet Infrastructure Needs 

• To proxy unmet infrastructure needs, 

HUD uses data from FEMA’s Public 

Assistance program on the state match 

requirement (extracted January 2014). This 

allocation uses only a subset of the Public 

Assistance damage estimates reflecting the 

categories of activities most likely to require 

CDBG funding above the Public Assistance 

and state match requirement. Those activities 

are categories: C-Roads and Bridges; D-Water 

Control Facilities; E-Public Buildings; FPublic Utilities; and G-Recreational-Other. 

Categories A (Debris Removal) and B 

(Protective Measures) are largely expended 

immediately after a disaster and reflect 

interim recovery measures rather than the 

long-term recovery measures for which CDBG 

funds are generally used. Because Public 

Assistance damage estimates are available 

only statewide (and not county), CDBG 

funding allocated by the estimate of unmet 

infrastructure needs are sub-allocated to New 

York City from the New York State total 

based on the distribution of initial projectlevel estimates obtained from FEMA (69 

percent New York City, 31 percent New York 

state). Note, that due to most states’ large 

private electric utilities being ineligible for 

FEMA Public Assistance, HUD does not 

include the estimated repair costs for the 

Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) in New 

York. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62194 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

• For the third round of CDBG–DR funding 

for Sandy recovery, HUD includes four 

additional sources of information: 

1. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Infrastructure Resilience Coordination 

(extracted June 2013). Many USACE Sandy 

projects require very high local cost shares. 

However, Federal requirements only allow 

grantees to no more than $250,000 of CDBG– 

DR funding towards local match 

requirements for these projects. As such, this 

calculation only includes $250,000 per 

USACE project where local match is higher 

than that amount. 

2. DOT, Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Sandy Recovery Grants—Emergency 

Relief (ER) (extracted June 2013). We include 

an estimate of the local cost share from this 

program. To calculate this estimate, we only 

include 20% of non-quick release Sandy ER 

project estimates as of July 2013. 

3. DOT, Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) Transit Emergency Relief (ER) 

(extracted June 2013). We include the 10% 

local cost share for these transit projects. 

Note, since much of the New York City 

transit damage is owned by a state 

organization, the Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority, New York State 

receives the vast majority of need from this 

grant. Also note that the State of New Jersey 

receives 66% of the local match requirement 

from the Port Authority’s match requirement; 

New York State receives 34% of the 

Authority’s match requirement. 

4. USDA Emergency Watershed Repair 

Program (extracted May 2014). For most 

impacted disasters in 2011, 2012, and 2013 

that have not received supplemental funding 

to address watershed repairs, HUD includes 

the estimated unmet repair costs calculated 

by USDA in the unmet repair needs 

calculation. 

Calculating Economic Revitalization (Small 

Business) Needs 

• Based on SBA disaster loans to 

businesses (extracted January 2014), HUD 

used the sum of real property and real 

content loss of small businesses not receiving 

an SBA disaster loan. This is adjusted 

upward by the proportion of applications 

that were received for a disaster that content 

and real property loss were not calculated 

because the applicant had inadequate credit 

or income. For example, if a state had 160 

applications for assistance, 150 had 

calculated needs and 10 were denied in the 

pre-processing stage for not enough income 

or poor credit, the estimated unmet need 

calculation would be increased as (1 + 10/

160) * calculated unmet real content loss. 

• Because applications denied for poor 

credit or income are the most likely measure 

of needs requiring the type of assistance 

available with CDBG–DR funds, the 

calculated unmet business needs for each 

state are adjusted upwards by the proportion 

of total applications that were denied at the 

pre-process stage because of poor credit or 

inability to show repayment ability. Similar 

to housing, estimated damage is used to 

determine what unmet needs will be counted 

as severe unmet needs. Only properties with 

total real estate and content loss in excess of 

$30,000 are considered severe damage for 

purposes of identifying the most impacted 

and distressed areas. 

Æ Category 1: real estate + content loss = 

below $12,000 

Æ Category 2: real estate + content loss = 

$12,000 to $30,000 

Æ Category 3: real estate + content loss = 

$30,000 to $65,000 

Æ Category 4: real estate + content loss = 

$65,000 to $150,000 

Æ Category 5: real estate + content loss = 

above $150,000 

To obtain unmet business needs, the 

amount for approved SBA loans is subtracted 

out of the total estimated damage. 

Resiliency Needs 

CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds are often 

used to not only support rebuilding to prestorm conditions, but also to build back 

much stronger. For the disasters covered by 

this Notice, HUD has required that grantees 

use their funds in a way that results in 

rebuilding back stronger so that future 

disasters do less damage and recovery can 

happen faster. To calculate these resiliency 

costs, HUD multiplied it estimates of total 

repair costs for seriously damaged homes, 

small businesses, and infrastructure by 30 

percent. Total repair costs are the repair costs 

including costs covered by insurance, SBA, 

FEMA, and other federal agencies. The 

resiliency estimate at 30 percent of damage 

is intended to reflect some of the unmet 

needs associated with building to higher 

standards such as elevating homes, voluntary 

buyouts, hardening, and other costs in excess 

of normal repair costs. Note that because 

FEMA Public Assistance does not include the 

estimated cost to repair Public Housing that 

is covered by private insurance, HUD adds to 

its resiliency calculation 30 percent times the 

insurance payment for Public Housing 

repairs. 

Housing and Small Business Construction 

Cost Adjustment 

Prior to making this final allocation, HUD 

staff carefully reviewed the housing programs 

being operated by New York City and New 

Jersey. Out of this analysis came the 

observation that higher construction costs in 

New York and New Jersey were not being 

adequately accounted for in HUD’s base 

formula for determining relative share of 

funding among the 2011, 2012, and 2013 

disasters. As a result, for this allocation, HUD 

has increased its estimate of severe unmet 

housing and business repair and resiliency 

needs to account for these higher 

construction costs. To do this, HUD used the 

same Marshall & Swift regional cost 

adjustment multipliers used for HUD’s 

annual calculation of Total Development 

Costs developed for HUD’s public housing 

repair programs. The specific construction 

cost multiplier used for adjusting the above 

calculations of unmet housing and business 

needs for each grantee was as follows: 

Connecticut: 1.19 

Maryland: 1.00 

New York State: 1.44 

New York City: 1.45 

New Jersey: 1.34 

Rhode Island: 1.00 

[FR Doc. 2014–24662 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Invasive Species Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meetings of the 

Invasive Species Advisory Committee. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

notice is hereby given of meetings of the 

Invasive Species Advisory Committee 

(ISAC). Comprised of 30 nonfederal 

invasive species experts and 

stakeholders from across the nation, the 

purpose of ISAC is to provide advice to 

the National Invasive Species Council 

(Council), as authorized by Executive 

Order 13112, on a broad array of issues 

related to preventing the introduction of 

invasive species and providing for their 

control and minimizing the economic, 

ecological, and human health impacts 

that invasive species cause. The Council 

is co-chaired by the Secretary of the 

Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, 

and the Secretary of Commerce. The 

duty of the Council is to provide 

national leadership regarding invasive 

species issues. 

Purpose of Meeting: The meeting will 

be held on November 12–14, 2014 in 

San Antonio, Texas, and will focus 

primarily on the management of 

invasive species in urban areas, 

particularly: (1) On-the-ground efforts in 

the Austin, San Marcos, and San 

Antonio areas of Texas, which are 

experiencing rapid growth and 

developing new ways of addressing the 

problems invasive species cause to 

buildings and homes, as well as parks 

and other public spaces; and, (2) Transborder cooperation between the U.S. 

and Mexico on invasive species issues. 

A copy of the meeting agenda is 

available on the Web site, www.doi.gov/ 

invasivespecies. 

DATES: Meeting of the Invasive Species 

Advisory Committee: Wednesday, 

November 12, 2014 and Friday, 

November 14, 2014; beginning at 

approximately 8:00 a.m., and ending at 

approximately 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Members will be participating in an offsite field tour on Thursday, November 

13, 2014. The field tour is closed to the 

public. 

ADDRESSES: Holiday Inn Riverwalk, 217 

North Saint Mary’s Street, San Antonio, 

Texas 78205. The general session on 

November 12, 2014 and November 14, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES