2062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3 79 FR 32172. 

site during open comment periods at: 

http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/submit-comment/

submit-comment-index.html. Further 

outreach meetings are scheduled for 

Boston on May 4, 2015; Chicago on 

October 19, 2015; and Washington, DC, 

on December 2, 2015. The Agencies also 

plan to hold an outreach meeting this 

summer that will focus on rural banks. 

All participants should register for the 

Dallas outreach meeting at http://

egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/outreachindex.html. Because of space 

constraints, on-site attendance will be 

limited. Online registrations will be 

accepted through January 28, 2015, or 

until all seats are filled, whichever is 

earlier. If seats are available, individuals 

may register in person at the Federal 

Reserve Bank of Dallas on the day of the 

meeting. Registration is not required to 

view the live-stream broadcast. 

Further details about the first 

outreach meeting, including the agenda, 

are published on the EGRPRA Web site 

at http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/outreach/

outreach-index.html. 

Additional Background on EGRPRA 

Section 2222 of EGRPRA directs the 

Agencies, along with the Council, to 

conduct a review of their regulations not 

less frequently than once every ten years 

to identify outdated or otherwise 

unnecessary regulatory requirements 

imposed on insured depository 

institutions. In conducting this review, 

the Agencies are required to categorize 

their regulations by type and, at regular 

intervals, provide notice and solicit 

public comment on categories of 

regulations, requesting commenters to 

identify areas of regulations that are 

outdated, unnecessary, or unduly 

burdensome. The statute requires the 

Agencies to publish in the Federal 

Register a summary of the comments 

received, identifying significant issues 

raised and commenting on these issues. 

The statute also directs the Agencies to 

eliminate unnecessary regulations to the 

extent that such action is appropriate. 

Finally, section 2222 requires the 

Council, of which the Agencies are 

members, to submit a report to Congress 

that summarizes any significant issues 

raised in the public comments and the 

relative merits of such issues. The report 

also must include an analysis of 

whether the Agencies are able to 

address the regulatory burdens 

associated with such issues by 

regulation or whether these burdens 

must be addressed by legislative action. 

For purposes of this review, the 

Agencies have grouped our combined 

regulations into 12 categories: 

Applications and Reporting; Banking 

Operations; Capital; Community 

Reinvestment Act; Consumer Protection; 

Directors, Officers and Employees; 

International Operations; Money 

Laundering; Powers and Activities; 

Rules of Procedure; Safety and 

Soundness; and Securities. On June 4, 

2014, we published a Federal Register 

notice asking for public comment on 

three of these categories—Applications 

and Reporting, Powers and Activities, 

and International Operations 

regulations.3 We also published a chart 

listing all of the regulations included in 

the EGRPRA review. Over the next year, 

we will publish additional notices, 

seeking comment on the remaining 

categories. 

Dated: January 8, 2015. 

Thomas J. Curry, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, January 9, 2015. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

Dated: January 8, 2015. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation by, 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00516 Filed 1–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 5 

[Docket No. FR–5173–N–03] 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: 

Re-Opening Public Comment Period 

on Subject of Later First AFH 

Submission Date for Certain Entities 

AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, 

HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; re-opening of 

comment period for a specific topic. 

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2013, HUD 

published a proposed rule on 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. 

The comment period for the proposed 

rule closed on September 17, 2013. HUD 

received over 1,000 public comments in 

response to the proposed rule. While 

many commenters expressed outright 

support for HUD’s proposal, and other 

commenters expressed outright 

opposition, the majority of the 

commenters provided valuable feedback 

and suggestions on HUD’s proposal. 

One area of concern expressed by 

many commenters was the ability of 

program participants, those that are 

small or those that receive small grants 

or allocations of HUD funds, to prepare 

and submit the Assessment of Fair 

Housing (AFH) in accordance with the 

process set out in HUD’s proposed rule, 

and by the proposed submission 

deadline. Commenters comprised of 

State jurisdictions or their 

representatives also expressed concern 

about the ability to complete an AFH, 

which they commented did not take 

into consideration the unique role of 

States. These commenters stated that 

HUD’s proposed AFH was tailored to 

entitlement jurisdictions. 

In response to these comments, HUD 

is considering providing certain HUD 

program participants—States, Insular 

Areas, qualified PHAs, jurisdictions 

receiving a small Community 

Development Block (CDBG) grant 

(which is based on a percentage of the 

CDBG formula appropriation, as 

described in this notice)—with the 

option of submitting their first AFH at 

a date later than would otherwise be 

required for program participants that 

are not States or Insular Areas, not 

qualified PHAs, and are not grantees 

receiving a small CDBG grant, as 

proposed to be defined in this notice. 

This supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking therefore re-opens the 

public comment period on the 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 

proposed rule for an additional 30 days 

solely to seek comment on these specific 

issues. HUD is not soliciting comment 

on any other issues related to HUD’s 

July 19, 2013, proposed rule. 

DATES: The comment period for a 

specific topic in the proposed rule 

published on July 19, 2013 (78 FR 

43709), is re-opened. The due date for 

comments discussed in this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking is February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments responsive 

to this request for information to the 

Regulations Division, Office of General 

Counsel, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410– 

7000. Communications must refer to the 

above docket number and title and 

should contain the information 

specified in the ‘‘Request for 

Comments’’ of this supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

Electronic Submission of Comments. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2063 

1The July 19, 2013, proposed rule can be found 

at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-19/

pdf/2013-16751.pdf. 

2All public comments on HUD’s July 19, 2013, 

proposed rule can be found at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2013- 

0066. 

3HUD’s proposed Assessment Tool can be found 

at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-09-26/

pdf/2014-22956.pdf, and the public comments can 

be found at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2014-0080. 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site can be 

viewed by interested members of the 

public. Commenters should follow 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Submission of Hard Copy Comments. 

Comments may be submitted by mail or 

hand delivery. To ensure that the 

information is fully considered by all of 

the reviewers, each commenter 

submitting hard copy comments, by 

mail or hand delivery, should submit 

comments or requests to the address 

above, addressed to the attention of the 

Regulations Division. Due to security 

measures at all federal agencies, 

submission of comments or requests by 

mail often result in delayed delivery. To 

ensure timely receipt of comments, 

HUD recommends that any comments 

submitted by mail be submitted at least 

2 weeks in advance of the public 

comment deadline. All hard copy 

comments received by mail or hand 

delivery are a part of the public record 

and will be posted to http://

www.regulations.gov without change. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of this 

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Comments. All 

comments submitted to HUD regarding 

this supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking will be available, without 

charge, for public inspection and 

copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

weekdays at the above address. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the documents 

must be scheduled by calling the 

Regulation Division at 202–708–3055 

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

of all comments submitted will also be 

available for inspection and 

downloading at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Camille Acevedo, Associate General 

Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, 

Office of General Counsel, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, 

Washington, DC 20410; telephone 

number 202–708–1793 (this is not a tollfree number). Individuals with hearingor speech-impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service during working 

hours at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43709, 

HUD published in the Federal Register 

rulemaking that proposed a new fair 

housing planning process to assist 

program participants in carrying out 

their duty to affirmatively further fair 

housing, a duty required under the 

authority of the Fair Housing Act (title 

VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 

U.S.C. 3601–3619).1 Section 808(e)(5) of 

the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 

3608(e)(5)) requires that HUD programs 

and activities be administered in a 

manner that affirmatively furthers the 

policies of the Fair Housing Act. The 

proposed rule presented a proposed 

definition of the term ‘‘affirmatively 

furthering fair housing’’ for purposes of 

program participants’ planning 

processes and an approach to fair 

housing planning that HUD believes 

would better aid program participants 

fulfill their statutory obligation to 

affirmatively further fair housing in 

accordance with Fair Housing Act 

requirements. 

As noted in the Summary of this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking, HUD received over 1,000 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule.2 While HUD continues to review 

and consider the helpful and thoughtful 

questions, recommendations, and 

concerns raised by the public 

commenters, this document seeks 

comment on the limited issue of a 

delayed submission of the first AFH for 

certain entities. 

As more fully discussed below, HUD 

is considering providing a later 

submission date for the first AFH to be 

completed by qualified PHAs, and 

entitlement jurisdictions that receive 

small CDBG grants (as defined below), 

States, and Insular Areas. 

In the July 19, 2013, proposed rule, 

HUD specifically sought public 

comment on issues pertaining to the 

subject matter of this document. 

Question 12 of the proposed rule, at 78 

FR 43724, solicited comment on 

whether there are any AFH 

requirements that should be modified 

for States. Question 13 of the proposed 

rule, at 78 FR 43724, solicited comment 

on whether there are any AFH 

requirements that should be modified 

for small program participants, such as 

small units of general local government 

and small public housing agencies 

(PHAs). 

HUD appreciates the comments 

specifically directed to these issues, and 

solicits further comment on these issues 

as modified and elaborated upon in this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

II. Specific Requests for Comment— 

Later AFH Submission Date for Certain 

Entities 

HUD takes the opportunity in this 

document to assure all program 

participants that HUD intends to 

provide all program participants with 

sufficient time to prepare and submit 

their first AFH. HUD agrees with 

commenters that not all program 

participants are the same; that they vary 

in such aspects as size, capacity, the 

amount of HUD resources generally 

received annually, the scope of 

responsibilities under various HUD 

programs; and any or all of such aspects 

may factor in their ability to timely 

respond to new regulatory requirements. 

To address this concern, HUD is 

considering providing the following 

categories of program participants with 

a later submission date for their first 

AFH. 

Along with the consideration to 

provide certain entities additional time 

to complete their AFHs, as described in 

this supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking, HUD is considering a 

staggered AFH submission approach, as 

recommended by many commenters. 

States and Insular Areas: HUD 

acknowledges the comments stating that 

the AFH process proposed in the July 

19, 2013, rulemaking is better suited for 

local jurisdictions, and not States and 

Insular Areas. In the 60-day notice on 

the AFFH Assessment Tool that HUD 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 26, 2014, at 79 FR 57949, in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, HUD advised that the 

Assessment Tool that is the subject of 

the 60-day notice is primarily designed 

for use by entitlement jurisdictions, 

other than States, and for joint 

submissions by entitlement jurisdictions 

and public housing agencies (PHAs). 

(See 79 FR 57950–57951.) 3 The notice 

also stated that HUD is considering 

developing program participant-specific 

Assessment Tools, such as one 

specifically for States and Insular Areas, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4Public Law 110–289, 122 Stat. 2654, approved 

July 30, 2008, see 122 Stat 2863. 

5See pages P–15 and P–16 for FY 2013 CJ at 

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

huddoc?id=CommunityDevelopmentFund.pdf; and 

page Q24 of the FY 2014 CJ at http://portal.hud.gov/ 

hudportal/documents/

huddoc?id=COMDEVFUND.pdf. 

6See https://www.hudexchange.info/trainingevents/courses/moving-cdbg-forward-smallgrantees-cdbg-grant—350-000-per-year-webinar/. 

and that: ‘‘It is HUD’s intention to have 

any program-participant-specific 

Assessment Tools developed by HUD 

available for public comment at the 30- 

day notice required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act.’’ 

Upon further consideration, HUD has 

decided to design a separate Assessment 

Tool for States and Insular Areas. HUD 

believes that a separate Assessment Tool 

for States and Insular Areas would 

address commenters’ concerns about the 

AFH approach being better suited for 

entitlement jurisdictions. This separate 

Assessment Tool will not be provided 

for public comment as part of the 30-day 

notice for the Assessment Tool 

presented in the September 26, 2014, 

notice. Rather, HUD will have the 

Assessment Tool for States and Insular 

Areas separately undergo the full notice 

and comment process (a 60-day notice 

and a 30-day notice) under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Specific solicitation of comment #1: 

HUD welcomes public comment on the 

proposal to delay submission of the first 

AFH for States and Insular Areas. 

Qualified PHAs: HUD is also 

considering delaying the date of 

submission of the first AFH for PHAs 

that meet the criteria of a ‘‘qualified 

PHA,’’ as defined in section 2702 of title 

VII of the Housing and Economic 

Recovery Act (HERA).4 Section 2702 of 

HERA defines ‘‘qualified PHA’’ as a 

PHA: (1) For which the sum of (i) the 

number of public housing dwelling 

units administered by PHA, and (ii) the 

number of vouchers under section 8(o) 

of the United States Housing Act of 

1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) administered 

by the PHA is 550 or fewer; and (2) that 

is not designated under section 6(j)(2) of 

the United States Housing Act as a 

troubled PHA, and does not have a 

failing score under the Section 8 

Management Assessment Program 

during the prior 12 months. HUD 

codified this statutory definition in its 

regulations on Public Housing Agency 

Plans at 24 CFR part 903, and the 

definition of ‘‘qualified PHA’’ is found 

at § 903.3(c). 

HERA defined qualified PHAs to 

exempt such PHAs, which are small 

PHAs, from the burden of preparing and 

submitting an annual PHA Plan. Given 

that Congress has determined that 

qualified PHAs should have reduced 

administrative burdens, HUD believes it 

is appropriate to provide these agencies 

with more time to submit their first 

AFH. 

Specific solicitation of comment #2: 

HUD seeks comment on a delayed 

submission date of the first AFH due for 

qualified PHAs. 

Entitlement Jurisdictions Receiving 

Small CDBG Grants (Grants of 

Approximately $350,000 or Less): In 

addition to recognizing the burdens 

faced by small entities, such as small 

PHAs, HUD recognizes that the amount 

of HUD funding that many entitlement 

jurisdictions receive is not substantial. 

HUD has discussed the challenges faced 

by entitlement jurisdictions receiving 

small CDBG grants in HUD’s 

Congressional Justifications (CJ) 

provided for Fiscal Years 2014 and 

2013.5

In the two CJs, HUD discussed that 

the median CDBG grant size for 

entitlement communities in FY 2012 

was just under $800,000, but that almost 

15 percent of CDBG entitlement grantees 

received an allocation of less than 

$300,000 in 2012. HUD advised that 

given the very limited amount of money 

the grantees can use for planning and 

administrative costs ($60,000 for a 

$300,000 grant), HUD expressed 

concern about the ability of grantees to 

effectively sustain their programs with 

such small dollar-amount grants. In 

response to such concern and in order 

to assist entitlement jurisdictions 

receiving small CDBG grants, in October 

4, 2012, HUD hosted a webinar for 

‘‘Small Grantees (CDBG Grantee < 

$350,000 Per Year).’’ The purpose of the 

webinar was to invite small CDBG 

grantees to express their concerns, and 

to address certain topics posed by 

HUD.6

Although the focus in the CJs and the 

webinar have been on dollar amounts in 

the range of $300,000 to $350,000, HUD 

proposes that delineation of which 

entitlement jurisdictions are defined as 

those receiving small CDBG grants 

should be based on a percentage of the 

CDBG formula appropriation, and HUD 

proposed such delineation in the FY 

2014 CJ. HUD proposed to establish a 

minimum grant threshold of 0.0125 

percent of the CDBG formula 

appropriation amount in order for a 

jurisdiction to receive a direct CDBG 

entitlement allocation. HUD stated that 

based on the requested funding level of 

$2.798 billion in FY 2014, and 

jurisdictions that received fiscal year 

2012 CDBG entitlement allocations, 

HUD estimated that 239 local 

governments would fall below the 

0.0125 percent minimum grant 

threshold ($348,875). The percentage 

proposed by HUD in the FY 2014 CJ, 

reaches the same result as a dollar 

threshold, approximately $350,000, but 

is a better measure of a small grant that 

a strict dollar amount threshold. 

Accordingly, HUD is proposing that 

entitlement jurisdictions receiving a 

grant of 0.0125 of the CDBG formula 

appropriation or less are designated as 

small CDBG grantees and, similar to 

qualified PHAs, HUD would delay the 

submission date of the first AFFH by 

small CDBG grantees. 

Specific solicitation of comment #3: 

HUD seeks comment on whether the 

proposed percentage of 0.0125 of the 

CDBG formula appropriation is an 

appropriate threshold to set for 

entitlement jurisdictions that would be 

provided a later first AFH submission 

date. HUD welcomes any alternative 

thresholds that would better capture 

those entitlement jurisdictions that have 

capacity challenges. HUD asks that 

commenters offering alternative 

thresholds explain the basis for any 

alternative threshold suggested. 

III. Solicitation of Comment Only on 

Delayed Submission of First AFH 

This solicitation of public comment is 

solely on the specific questions 

pertaining to whether there should be a 

delayed submission date for certain 

entities as provided in this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking. This notice is not reopening public comment on any other 

issues related to HUD’s July 19, 2013, 

proposed rule, and HUD will not review 

or consider public comments that 

address issues other than the specific 

questions in this document directed to 

delayed submission of the first AFH. 

Dated: January 9, 2015. 

Camille E. Acevedo, 

Associate General Counsel for Legislation and 

Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00468 Filed 1–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS