[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9321]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 19, 1994]


DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development
[Docket No. N-94-3705; FR-3561-N-02]

States That Receive a Match Reduction Under the HOME Investment 
Partnerships Program Because of Fiscal Distress or Severe Fiscal 
Distress

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of match reduction under the HOME program.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Starting with Fiscal Year 1993 funds, participating 
jurisdictions must provide a 25 percent matching contribution for HOME 
funds drawn from the participating jurisdiction's Treasury accounts for 
rental assistance, housing rehabilitation and acquisition of standard 
housing, and a 30 percent matching contribution for HOME funds drawn 
for new construction, unless the participating jurisdiction has 
received a reduction in the match requirement. This notice provides 
information on the level of fiscal distress for each State and 
indicates those States that receive a reduction in the match 
requirement for Fiscal Year 1994 because they are in fiscal distress or 
severe fiscal distress.

DATES: The match reductions published in this notice are applicable for 
FY 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kolesar, Director, Program Policy 
Division, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, 451 Seventh Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2470, TDD (202) 708-
2565. (These are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Match Reduction for States

    A HOME interim rule is published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register. Section 92.222(a) of this interim rule sets out the criteria 
for determining fiscal distress and severe fiscal distress for 
participating jurisdictions that are States. This notice is published 
to announce the States that receive a match reduction for Fiscal Year 
1994 under these distress criteria.
    This notice lists all States (as well as Puerto Rico and the 
District of Columbia which are, by statute, defined as States for the 
HOME Program), the average per capita income (PCI) for each, how the 
State's PCI relates to the national average PCI (which was $14,277 for 
1989, the latest data available), the percent of each State's families 
in poverty and how that relates to the national average (which was 
10.58 percent in 1990), the average personal income growth rate in the 
State over the most recent four quarters, and how that relates to the 
national personal income growth rate during that period (which was 5.4 
percent from the end of the third quarter of 1992 to the end of the 
third quarter of 1993).
    Thus, to qualify under the PCI criterion, the PCI for the State 
must be less than $10,708. To qualify under the poverty criterion, the 
State's percent of families in poverty must be 13.23 percent or higher, 
and to qualify under the personal income growth rate, the State's rate 
must be 4.0 percent or less.
    As the interim rule indicates, States that satisfy one of the 
criteria are considered in fiscal distress and receive a 50 percent 
match reduction for the term specified at 24 CFR 92.222(a)(4). States 
that satisfy at least two of the three distress criteria are considered 
in severe fiscal distress and receive a 100 percent match reduction for 
the period specified at 24 CFR 92.222(a)(3). The list of States follows 
as appendix A to this notice.

    Dated: April 8, 1994.
Andrew Cuomo,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

BILLING CODE 4210-29-P

TN19AP94.000


[FR Doc. 94-9228 Filed 4-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-C
_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing



_______________________________________________________________________



Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program; Notice of Funding 
Availability
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
[Docket No. N-94-3739; FR-3640-N-01]

 
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Comprehensive 
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of funding availability for Fiscal Year (FY) 1994.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice informs HAs that own or operate fewer than 250 
units and, therefore, are eligible to apply and compete for CIAP funds, 
of the availability of FY 1994 CIAP funding. HAs with 250 or more units 
are entitled to receive a formula grant under the Comprehensive Grant 
Program (CGP) and are not eligible to apply for CIAP funds.

DATES: Application is due on or before 3 p.m. local time on June 18, 
1994, at the HUD Field Office with jurisdiction over the Public Housing 
Agency or Indian Housing Authority (herein referred to as HA), 
Attention: Director, Public or Indian Housing Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Janice D. Rattley, Director, Office 
of Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., room 4138, Washington, 
DC 20410. Telephone (202) 708-1800. (This is not a toll free number).
    IHAs may contact Dominic A. Nessi, Director, Office of Native 
American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
Seventh Street, SW., room 4140, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 
708-1015. (This is not a toll free number).
    Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call HUD's TDD number 
(202) 708-0850. (This is not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Substantive Description

(a) Authority

    Sec. 14, United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 14371); sec. 
7(d) Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 
3535(d)). An interim rule revising the CIAP regulation, 24 CFR part 
968, subparts A and B, for PHAs and 24 CFR part 905, subpart I, for 
IHAs, and streamlining the program was published on March 15, 1993. A 
final rule will be published shortly.

(b) Major Changes

    In FY 1993, the CIAP was streamlined to make it easier for smaller 
HAs to participate in the program and to give smaller HAs the same 
flexibility as CGP agencies. The CIAP Application was simplified, the 
processing groups were reduced to two (Group 1 and Group 2), and the 
modernization types were reduced to two (Emergency and Other). Under 
the modernization type of ``Other'', the HA may apply for, and HUD may 
fund, a variety of needs, ranging from a single physical or management 
work item to complete rehabilitation.

(c) Program Highlights

(1) Departmental Priority
    Improving Public and Indian Housing is one of the Department's 
major priorities. Accordingly, a review is being made of the entire 
Public and Indian Housing Program. Specifically, the Department is very 
concerned about several aspects of the Modernization Program.
    (i) Design. When identifying physical improvement needs to meet the 
modernization standards, HAs are encouraged to consider design which 
supports the integration of public housing into the broader community. 
Although high priority needs, such as those related to health and 
safety, vacant/substandard units, structural or system integrity, and 
compliance with statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines, will 
receive funding priority, HAs should plan their modernization in a way 
which promotes good design, but maintains the modest nature of public 
housing. The HA should pay particular attention to design and be 
receptive to creative, but cost-effective approaches suggested by 
architects, residents, HA staff, and other local entities. Such 
approaches can complement the planning for basic rehabilitation needs. 
It should be noted that there will be no increase in operating subsidy 
due to items added (for example, additional landscaping) to promote the 
blend of public housing into the surrounding neighborhood.
    (ii) Expediting the program. HAs are reminded that they are 
expected to obligate all funds within two years and to expend all funds 
within three years of program approval (Annual Contributions Contract 
(ACC) Amendment execution) unless a longer project implementation 
schedule is approved by the Field Office. If the HA does not obligate 
approved funds in a timely manner, the Department will recapture the 
funds unless there are clear, valid reasons for not meeting the 
obligation deadline; i.e., delays which are outside of the HA's 
control.
    (iii) Resident involvement and economic uplift. HAs are encouraged 
to explore and implement through all feasible means the involvement of 
residents in all aspects of the CIAP, from planning through 
implementation. In addition, HAs are encouraged to seek ways to employ 
residents in all aspects of the CIAP's operation and/or to develop 
means to promote contracting opportunities for resident-owned 
businesses. PHAs should use Section 3 provisions to the maximum 
feasible extent.
    (iv) Elimination of vacant units. Although the Department has a 
vacancy reduction effort specifically aimed at reducing vacancies, HAs 
are encouraged to apply for CIAP funds to address eligible vacancy 
problems (i.e., those which do not involve routine maintenance) to the 
extent such problems have not been funded through other sources.
(2) Relationship to Technical Review Factors
    The Departmental goal of improving Public and Indian Housing is 
reflected in the technical review factors, set forth in section 
IV(c)(5), on which the Field Office scores each HA's CIAP Application. 
Based on the HA's total score, the Field Office then ranks each HA to 
determine selection for Joint Review. The technical review factors 
include the following Departmental initiatives to improve Public and 
Indian Housing:
    (i) Restoration of vacant units to occupancy;
    (ii) Resident capacity-building, including opportunities for 
resident management;
    (iii) Economic development, job training and employment 
opportunities for residents;
    (iv) Drug elimination initiatives; and
    (v) Partnership with local government.

II. Allocation Amounts

(a) Total Available

    The FY 1994 HUD Appropriations Act Public Law 103-124, enacted 
October 28, 1993, made available $3,230,000,000 of budget authority for 
the Modernization Program in the Annual Contributions Account. An 
emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Public Law 103-211 made 
available an additional $25,000,000 for modernization of existing 
public housing projects damaged in the January 1994 earthquake in 
Southern California. In addition, there is a reduction of $1,170, which 
is the Modernization Program's share of the Department's estimated 1993 
carry-over of the Annual Contributions Account. The following chart 
shows the total amount of funds available in FY 1994, which are the 
appropriations, plus the carry-overs from FY 1993, minus the reduction 
and set-asides: 

FY 1994 Appropriation................................     $3,230,000,000
FY 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation.........         25,000,000
Plus Carry-over from FY 1993.........................        247,057,902
                                                      ------------------
Minus Annual Contributions Account Reduction.........            (1,170)
FY 1994 Adjusted Total Appropriation.................     $3,502,056,732
Minus FY 1994 Set-Asides:                                               
    Vacancy Reduction Program*.......................        201,736,318
    Choice in Management (Being reevaluated)*........        100,000,000
    CGP Emergency and Natural Disaster Reserve.......       a 75,000,000
    Section 6J Activities*...........................         41,317,270
    Earthquake Emergency Supplemental................         25,000,000
    Resident Management Technical Assistance*........         25,000,000
    Inspection and Technical Assistance*.............       b 19,101,573
    LBP Risk Assessment*.............................         11,956,923
    CGP Allocation from CGP Carry-Over...............          6,063,827
    LBP Indemnification..............................            971,983
    CIAP Allocation from CIAP Carry-Over.............             16,299
        Total Set-Asides.............................       $506,164,193
Adjusted Total Appropriation for FY 1994 Minus Set-                     
 Asides..............................................    $2,995,892,539 
                                                                        
*Set-asides to be implemented through separate NOFAs or Requests for    
  Proposals.                                                            
aIf the demand for LBP Risk Assessment funds is greater than the set-   
  aside of $11,956,923, the Department may use a portion of the         
  $75,000,000 reserve for this purpose where emergencies are involved.  
  Emergencies would be limited to units housing children under seven    
  years old with elevated blood lead levels (EBLs) and HA-owned day care
  facilities used by children under seven years old with EBLs. Use of   
  reserve funds for LBP Risk Assessment emergencies at CIAP agencies    
  would require a waiver of 24 CFR 968.103(b) or 24 CFR 905.601(b).     
bOf this amount, $6,969,024 was obligated by the Department in October  
  1993, leaving a balance of $12,132,548.                               


(b) Explanation of Carry-Overs

    The $247,057,902 in carry-overs from FY 1993 are:
    (1) $98,376,318 from the set-aside for the Vacancy Reduction 
Program;
    (2) $57,093,709 from the national reserve for emergencies and 
natural and other disasters under the CGP;
    (3) $50,000,000 from the set-aside for Choice-in-Management;
    (4) $15,477,270 from the set-aside for implementing Section 6J 
activities, which pertain to the Public Housing Management Assessment 
Program, of Section 113 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992. Section 6J activities include independent assessments of Troubled 
and Mod Troubled PHAs, technical assistance for Troubled and Mod 
Troubled PHAs, and provision for alternative management;
    (5) $11,956,923 from the Lead-Based Paint (LBP) risk assessment 
set-aside, established in FY 1992;
    (6) $7,101,573 from the set-aside for inspection of modernization 
work and technical assistance for Troubled PHAs and for IHAs;
    (7) $6,063,827 from the CGP allocation due to seven HAs not 
applying and one HA not being approved;
    (8) $971,983 from the set-aside for the indemnification of three 
PHAs (Albany, New York; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Omaha, Nebraska) 
that are participating in the LBP Abatement Demonstration. The FY 1991 
Appropriations Act extended the availability of these funds 
appropriated in FY 1990 from October 1, 1991 to October 1, 1998; and
    (9) $16,299 from the CIAP allocation.

(c) Allocation Between CGP and CIAP

    The $2,995,892,539 balance is allocated as follows:


CGP Allocation......................................     a$2,679,029,034
CIAP Allocation.....................................        b316,863,505
                                                                        
aDoes not include $6,063,827 in CGP funds carried over from FY 1993     
  which will be added to the CGP allocation.                            
bDoes not include $16,299 in CIAP funds carried over from FY 1993 which 
  will be added to the CIAP allocation.                                 


    (1) The $2,995,892,539 balance is allocated between CIAP and CGP 
agencies based on the relative shares of backlog needs (weighted at 
50%) and accrual needs (weighted at 50%), as determined by the field 
inspections conducted for the HUD-funded ABT study of modernization 
needs. This allocation results in CIAP agencies receiving 10.58% or 
$316,863,505 (plus the $16,299 carryover for a total of $316,879,804) 
and CGP agencies receiving 89.42% or $2,679,029,034 (plus the 
$6,063,827 carryover for a total of $2,685,092,861) of the funds 
available.
    (i) Backlog needs are needed repairs and replacements of existing 
physical systems, items that must be added to meet the HUD 
modernization and energy conservation standards and State or local/
tribal codes, and items that are necessary for the long-term viability 
of a specific housing development.
    (ii) Accrual needs are needs that arise over time and include 
needed repairs and replacements of existing physical systems and items 
that must be added to meet the HUD modernization and energy 
conservation standards and State or local/tribal codes.
    (2) The $316,879,804 available to CIAP agencies (which includes the 
$16,299 carryover) is allocated between Public Housing at 92.1249% or 
$291,925,067, and Indian Housing at 7.8751% or $24,954,737. This 
allocation also is based on the relative shares of backlog needs 
(weighted at 50%) and accrual needs (weighted at 50%).

(d) Subassignment of Funds to Non-Indian Field Offices

    Headquarters has determined the distribution of Public Housing CIAP 
funds for each HUD Region based on the relative shares of backlog and 
accrual needs for CIAP agencies. In assigning funds to each Region, 
Headquarters will designate an amount to be subassigned to each non-
Indian Field Office, based on each Office's FY 1993 subassignment and 
adjusted as necessary. The FY 1993 subassignments reflected both 
relative shares of modernization needs within the Region and PHA 
capability to administer the modernization.
    (1) The Field Office Public Housing Division Director shall have 
authority to make Joint Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
    (2) If additional funds for Public Housing CIAP become available, 
as set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, Headquarters will 
allocate the funds to one or more Field Offices based on their relative 
shares of modernization need, approvable applications, and PHA 
capability to carry out the modernization.
    (3) If a Field Office does not receive sufficient fundable 
applications to use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the 
remaining funds to one or more Field Offices based on approvable 
applications and PHA capability to carry out the modernization.
    Of the $291,925,067 available for Public Housing, 1% or $2,919,251 
has been set aside to carry out goals related to pending civil rights 
litigation (e.g., Young v. Cisneros), which is subject to judicial 
oversight. The following table shows the distribution of CIAP funds for 
PHAs, excluding IHAs, assigned by Headquarters to each Region for 
subassignment to the Field Offices as percentages of the $289,005,816 
balance available for Public Housing: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent of
                                                                public  
                           Region                              housing  
                                                                funds   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. New England.............................................       6.4094
II. New York/New Jersey....................................       6.8667
III. Midatlantic...........................................       4.0141
IV. Southeast..............................................      25.1639
V. Midwest.................................................      17.6794
VI. Southwest..............................................      20.3983
VII. Great Plains..........................................       8.6821
VIII. Rocky Mountain.......................................       3.8029
IX. Pacific/Hawaii.........................................       4.1646
X. Northwest/Alaska........................................       2.8186
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................     100.0000
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Subassignment of Funds to Offices of Native American Programs 
(ONAP)

    In assigning funds to the appropriate Region, Headquarters will 
designate an amount to be subassigned to each ONAP, covering Indian 
Housing and any Public Housing owned and operated by IHAs.
    (1) The ONAP Administrator shall have authority to make Joint 
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
    (2) If additional funds for Indian Housing CIAP become available, 
as set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, Headquarters will 
allocate the funds to one or more ONAPs based on their relative shares 
of modernization need, approvable applications, and IHA capability to 
carry out the modernization.
    (3) If an ONAP does not receive sufficient fundable applications to 
use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the remaining funds to 
one or more ONAPs based on approvable applications and IHA capability 
to carry out the modernization.
    The following table shows the distribution of CIAP funds for IHAs, 
assigned by Headquarters to each appropriate Region for subassignment 
to the ONAPs as percentages of the total $24,954,737 available for 
Indian Housing: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent of
                                                                indian  
                            ONAP                               housing  
                                                                funds   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago (Midwest Region)...................................      19.2962
Oklahoma (Southwest Region)................................      18.9139
Denver (Rocky Mountain Region).............................       9.0980
Phoenix (Pacific/Hawaii Region)............................      29.5490
Seattle (Northwest Region).................................      19.5380
Anchorage (Northwest Region)...............................       3.6049
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................    100.0000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Application Preparation and Submission by HA

(a) Planning

    In preparing its CIAP Application, the HA is encouraged to assess 
all its physical and management improvement needs. Physical improvement 
needs should be reviewed against the modernization standards, as set 
forth in HUD Handbook 7485.2, as revised, and any cost-effective energy 
conservation measures, identified in updated energy audits. The 
modernization standards include development specific work to ensure the 
long-term viability of the developments, such as amenities and design 
changes to promote the integration of low-income housing into the 
broader community. See section I(c)(1)(i). In addition, the HA is 
strongly encouraged to contact the Field Office to discuss its 
modernization needs and obtain information. The term ``Field Office'' 
includes the ONAP.

(b) Resident Involvement/Local Official Consultation Requirements

(1) Residents/Homebuyers
    The CIAP regulations at Secs. 968.220 or 905.624 require the HA to 
establish a Partnership Process for rental developments which ensures 
full resident participation in the planning, implementation and 
monitoring of the modernization program, as follows:
    (i) Before submission of the CIAP Application, consultation with 
residents, resident organization, and resident management corporation 
(herein referred to as residents) of the development(s) being proposed 
for modernization and request for resident recommendations;
    (ii) Reasonable opportunity for residents to present their views on 
the proposed modernization and alternatives to it, and full and serious 
consideration of resident recommendations;
    (iii) Written response to residents, indicating acceptance or 
rejection of resident recommendations, consistent with HUD requirements 
and the HA's own determination of efficiency, economy and need, with a 
copy to the Field Office at Joint Review;
    (iv) After HUD funding decisions, notification to residents of the 
approval or disapproval and, where requested, provision to residents of 
a copy of the HUD-approved CIAP budget; and
    (v) During implementation, periodic notification to residents of 
work status and progress and maximum feasible employment of residents 
in the modernization effort.
(2) Local Officials
    Before submission of the CIAP Application, consultation with 
appropriate local officials regarding how the proposed modernization 
may be coordinated with any local plans for neighborhood 
revitalization, economic development, drug elimination and expenditure 
of local funds, such as Community Development Block Grant funds.

(c) Contents of CIAP Application

    Within the established time frame, the HA shall submit the CIAP 
Application to the Field Office, with a copy to appropriate local/
tribal officials. The HA may obtain the necessary forms from the Field 
Office. The CIAP Application is comprised of the following documents:
    (1) Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, in an original and two 
copies, which includes:
    (i) A general description of HA development(s), in priority order, 
(including the current physical condition, for each development for 
which the HA is requesting funds, or for all the HA's developments) and 
physical and management improvement needs (to meet the Secretary's 
standards in Sec. 968.115 or Sec. 905.603), general description of 
major work categories (e.g., kitchens, bathrooms) required to correct 
identified deficiencies and estimated costs, including a statement 
concerning consultation with local officials and residents and long-
term viability of the development(s). For example:
    Development 1-1: 50 units of low-rent; 25 years old; physical needs 
are: new roofs, LBP testing, storm windows and doors, and electrical 
upgrading at estimated cost of $150,000.
    Development 1-2: 40 units of low-rent; 20 years old; physical needs 
are: physical accessibility of 2 units, kitchen floors, shower/bathtub 
surrounds, fencing, and exterior lighting at estimated cost of $90,000.
    Development 1-3: 35 units of Turnkey III; 15 years old; physical 
needs are: physical accessibility of 3 units and roof insulation at 
estimated cost of $50,000.
    Development 1-4: 20 units of low-rent; 5 years old; no physical 
needs; no funding requested.
    (ii) An estimate of the replacement cost of equipment systems or 
structural elements which would normally be replaced over the remaining 
period of the annual contributions contract or during the 30-year 
period beginning on the date of submission of the application.
    (iii) Where funding is being requested for management improvements, 
an identification of the deficiency, a general description of the work 
required for correction, and estimated cost. Examples of management 
improvements include, but are not limited to the following areas:
    (A) The management, financial, and accounting control systems of 
the HA;
    (B) The adequacy and qualifications of personnel employed by the HA 
in the management and operation of its developments by category of 
employment; and
    (C) The adequacy and efficacy of resident programs and services, 
resident and development security, resident selection and eviction, 
occupancy and vacant unit turnaround, rent collection, routine and 
preventive maintenance, equal opportunity, and other HA policies and 
procedures.
    (2) Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and 
Cooperative Agreements, in an original only, required of HAs 
established under State law, applying for grants exceeding $100,000.
    (3) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in an original only, 
required of HAs established under State law, only where any funds, 
other than federally appropriated funds, will be or have been used to 
influence Federal workers, Members of Congress and their staff 
regarding specific grants or contracts.
    (4) Form HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Update/Disclosure Report, in 
an original only, required of HAs established under State law which 
have requested or received an aggregate amount of Federal assistance in 
excess of $200,000 during the current FY.
    (5) At the option of the HA, a narrative statement addressing any 
or all of the technical review factors in section IV(c)(5).
    (6) At the option of the HA, photographs or video cassettes showing 
the physical condition of the developments.

(d) CIAP Application Deadline

    The CIAP Application must be physically received by the local HUD 
Field Office by 3 p.m. local time on June 20, 1994. Faxed copies will 
not be considered official applications. The application deadline for 
this NOFA is firm as to date and hour. In the interest of fairness to 
all competing applicants, the Department will not consider any 
application that is received after the application deadline. All 
applicants should take this into account and submit application 
materials as early as possible to avoid any risk brought about by 
unanticipated delays or delivery-related problems. This application 
deadline does not apply to applications for emergency funding, which 
may be submitted at any time when funds are available.

IV. Application Processing by Field Office

(a) Completeness Review (Corrections to Deficient Applications)

    To be eligible for processing, the CIAP Application must be 
received by the Field Office within the time period specified in this 
NOFA and must be complete. In order to determine whether an application 
is complete, responsive to the NOFA and acceptable for technical 
processing, the Field Office shall perform a completeness review, using 
the following criteria:
    (1) The application was received by HUD at the appropriate address 
by the date and time specified in the NOFA and was complete and 
responsive (excluding exhibits which are certifications); or
    (2) If an application is determined to be incomplete or to have 
missing certifications, the HA shall be advised in writing of any 
deficiencies or any inconsistencies. The missing information is to be 
submitted within a specified period of time from the date of HUD's 
written notification. This is not additional time to substantially 
revise the application. Deficiencies which may be corrected at this 
time are inadvertently omitted documents or clarifications of 
previously submitted material and other changes which are not of such a 
nature as to improve the competitive position of the application. The 
HA must acceptably correct deficiencies (including furnishing missing 
certifications) within 21 calendar days of notification from the Field 
Office.
    (i) If Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, is missing, the HA's 
application will be considered substantially incomplete and, therefore, 
ineligible for further processing.
    (ii) If Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, 
and Cooperative Agreements, SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, 
or Form HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Update/Disclosure Form, is 
required, but missing or there is a technical mistake, such as no 
signature on a submitted form, the HA will be given an opportunity to 
correct the deficiency.

(b) Eligibility Review

    HAs with fewer than 250 units are eligible to participate in the 
CIAP. After the HA's CIAP Application is determined to be complete and 
accepted for review, the Field Office eligibility review shall 
determine if the application meets the basic eligibility requirements 
and, therefore, is eligible for processing.
(1) Eligibility for Processing
    To be eligible for processing:
    (i) Development eligibility. The development is either a public 
housing development, including a conveyed Lanham Act or Public Works 
Administration development, or a Section 23 Leased Housing Bond-
Financed project (BFP).
    (ii) Date of full availability (DOFA). Each eligible development 
for which work is proposed has reached DOFA at the time of CIAP 
Application submission.
(2) Eligibility for Processing on Reduced Scope
    Where certain conditions exist, the HA will be eligible for 
processing on a reduced scope as follows:
    (i) Funds owed the department. Where the HA owes funds to the 
Department as a result of excess development, modernization or 
operating funds previously provided and the HA has not repaid the 
funds, or has not entered into a repayment agreement, or is not meeting 
its obligations under a repayment agreement, the HA is eligible for 
processing only for Emergency Modernization.
    (ii) FHEO Compliance. Where the HA has not complied with Fair 
Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) requirements as evidenced by an 
action, finding or determination as described below, unless the HA is 
implementing a voluntary compliance agreement or settlement agreement 
designed to correct the area(s) of noncompliance, the HA is eligible 
for processing only for Emergency Modernization or physical work needed 
to remedy civil rights deficiencies.
    (A) A pending proceeding against the HA based upon a Charge of 
Discrimination issued under the Fair Housing Act. A Charge of 
Discrimination is a charge under section 810(g)(2) of the Fair Housing 
Act, issued by the Department's General Counsel or legally authorized 
designee;
    (B) A pending civil rights suit against the HA, referred by the 
Department's General Counsel and instituted by the Department of 
Justice;
    (C) Outstanding HUD findings of HA noncompliance with civil rights 
statutes and executive orders under Sec. 968.110(a) or Sec. 905.115, or 
implementing regulations, as a result of formal administrative 
proceedings, unless the HA is implementing a HUD-approved resident 
selection and assignment plan or compliance agreement designed to 
correct the area(s) of noncompliance;
    (D) A deferral of the processing of applications from the HA 
imposed by HUD under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
Attorney General's Guidelines (28 CFR 50.3) and the HUD Title VI 
regulations (24 CFR 1.8) and procedures (HUD Handbook 8040.1), or under 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and HUD implementing 
regulations (24 CFR 8.57); or
    (E) An adjudication of a violation under any of the authorities 
under Sec. 968.110(a) or Sec. 905.115 in a civil action filed against 
the HA by a private individual, unless the HA is implementing a HUD-
approved resident selection and assignment plan or compliance agreement 
designed to correct the area(s) of noncompliance.
    (iii) Section 504 Compliance. Where the Section 504 needs 
assessment identified a need for accessible units, the HA was required 
to make structural changes to meet that need by July 11, 1992. Where 
the HA has not completed all required structural changes or obtained an 
extension from HUD, the HA is eligible for processing only for 
Emergency Modernization or physical work needed to complete the 
structural changes. Refer to PIH Notice 92-65 (PHA), dated December 14, 
1992.
    (iv) LBP Testing Compliance. Where the HA will not comply with the 
statutory requirement to complete LBP testing on all pre-1978 family 
units by December 6, 1994, the HA is eligible for processing only for 
Emergency Modernization or work needed to complete LBP testing.
    (c) Selection Criteria and Ranking Factors. After all CIAP 
Applications are reviewed for eligibility, the Field Office shall 
categorize the eligible HAs and their developments into two processing 
groups, as defined in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph: Group 1 for 
Emergency Modernization; and Group 2 for Other Modernization. HA 
developments may be included in both groups and the same development 
may be in each group. However, the HA is only required to submit one 
CIAP Application, which the Field Office will process under either 
Group 1 or Group 2.
(1) Grouping Modernization Types
    (i) Group 1, emergency modernization. Developments having physical 
conditions of an emergency nature, posing an immediate threat to the 
health or safety of residents or related to fire safety, and which must 
be corrected within one year of CIAP funding approval. Funding is 
limited to physical work items and may not be used for management 
improvements. Emergency Modernization includes all LBP testing and 
abatement of units housing children under seven years old with elevated 
blood lead levels (EBLs) and all LBP testing and abatement of HA-owned 
day care facilities used by children under seven years old with EBLs. 
Group 1 developments are not subject to the technical review rating and 
ranking in subparagraphs (5) and (6) of this paragraph or the long-term 
viability and reasonable cost determination in section V(e).
    (ii) Group 2, other modernization. Developments not having physical 
conditions of an emergency nature and located in HAs which have 
demonstrated a capability of carrying out the proposed modernization 
activities. Other Modernization includes: one or more physical work 
items, where the Field Office determines that the physical improvements 
are necessary and sufficient to extend the useful life of the 
development; and/or one or more development specific or HA-wide 
management work items (including planning costs); and/or testing, 
professional risk assessments, interim containment, and abatement of 
LBP. Therefore, eligibility of work under Other Modernization ranges 
from a single work item to the complete rehabilitation of a 
development. Refer to section I(c)(1)(i) regarding modest amenities and 
improved design. Group 2 developments are subject to the technical 
review rating and ranking in subparagraphs (5) and (6) of this 
paragraph and the long-term viability and reasonable cost determination 
in section V(e).
(2) Assessment of HA's Management Capability
    As part of its technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field 
Office shall evaluate the HA's management capability. Particular 
attention shall be given to the adequacy of the HA's maintenance in 
determining the HA's management capability. This assessment shall be 
based on the compliance aspects of on-site monitoring, such as audits, 
reviews or surveys which are currently available within the Field 
Office, and on the performance review under the Public Housing 
Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) for PHAs or the Administrative 
Capability Assessment for IHAs, and other information sources, as 
follows:
    (i) Public housing. A PHA has management capability if it is (A) 
not designated as Troubled under Part 901, PHMAP, or (B) designated as 
Troubled, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring management 
capability which may include through CIAP-funded management 
improvements. A Troubled PHA may be considered for funding of non-
emergency physical improvements where it is making reasonable progress 
toward meeting the performance targets established in its memorandum of 
agreement under Sec. 901.140.
    (ii) Indian housing. An IHA has management capability if it is (A) 
not designated as High Risk under Sec. 905.135 or (B) designated as 
High Risk, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring management 
capability which may include through CIAP funded management 
improvements. A High Risk IHA may be considered for funding of non-
emergency physical improvements where it is making reasonable progress 
toward meeting the goals established in its management improvement plan 
under Sec. 905.135.
(3) Assessment of HA's Modernization Capability
    As part of its technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field 
Office shall evaluate the HA's modernization capability, including the 
progress of previously approved modernization and the status of any 
outstanding findings from CIAP monitoring visits, as follows:
    (i) Public housing. A PHA has modernization capability if it is (A) 
not designated as Modernization Troubled under Part 901, PHMAP, or (B) 
designated as Modernization Troubled, but has a reasonable prospect of 
acquiring modernization capability which may include through CIAP-
funded management improvements and administrative support, such as 
hiring staff or contracting for assistance. A Modernization Troubled 
PHA may be considered for funding of non-emergency physical 
improvements where it is making reasonable progress toward meeting the 
performance targets established in its memorandum of agreement under 
Sec. 901.140. Where a PHA does not have a funded modernization program 
in progress, the Field Office shall determine whether the PHA has a 
reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization capability through 
hiring staff or contracting for assistance.
    (ii) Indian housing. An IHA has modernization capability if it is 
capable of effectively carrying out the proposed modernization 
improvements. Where an IHA does not have a funded modernization program 
in progress, the ONAP shall determine whether the IHA has a reasonable 
prospect of acquiring modernization capability through hiring staff or 
contracting for assistance.
(4) Technical processing
    After the Field Office has categorized the eligible HAs and their 
developments into Group 1 and Group 2, the Field Office shall rate all 
Group 2 HAs on each of the technical review factors in subparagraph (5) 
of this paragraph. With the exception of the technical review factor of 
``extent and urgency of need'', a Group 2 HA is rated on its overall HA 
application and not on each development. For the technical review 
factor of ``extent and urgency of need,'' each development for which 
funding is requested by a Group 2 HA is scored; the development with 
the highest priority needs is scored the highest number of points, 
which is then used for the overall HA score on that factor. High 
priority needs are non-emergency needs, but related to: Health or 
safety; vacant, substandard units; structural or system integrity; or 
compliance with statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines.
(5) Technical Review Factors
    The technical review factors for assistance are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Technical review factors                   Maximum points 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extent and urgency of need, including need to comply                    
 with statutory, regulatory or court-ordered                            
 deadlines...........................................                 40
Extent of vacancies..................................                 10
HA's modernization capability........................                 15
HA's management capability...........................                 15
Degree of resident involvement in HA operations......                  5
Degree of HA activity in resident initiatives,                          
 including resident management, economic development,                   
 and drug elimination efforts........................                  5
Degree of resident employment........................                  5
Local government support for proposed modernization..                 5 
                                                      ------------------
    Total Maximum Score..............................               100 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Rating and Ranking
    After rating all Group 2 HAs on each of the technical review 
factors set forth in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph, the Field 
Office shall rank each Group 2 HA based on its total score, list Group 
2 HAs in descending order and identify other Group 2 HAs with lower 
ranking applications, but with high priority needs.

(d) Joint Review

    The purpose of the Joint Review is for the Field Office to discuss 
with the HA the proposed modernization program, as set forth in the 
CIAP Application, and determine the size of the grant, if any, to be 
awarded.
    (1) The Field Office shall select HAs, including all Group 1 HAs, 
for Joint Review so that the total dollar value of all proposed 
modernization recommended for funding exceeds the subassignment amount 
by at least 15%. This will preserve the Field Office's ability to 
adjust cost estimates and work items as a result of Joint Review.
    (2) The Field Office shall notify in writing each HA whose 
application has been selected for further processing as to whether the 
Joint Review will be conducted on-site or off-site (e.g., by telephone 
or in-office meeting). An HA will not be selected for Joint Review if 
other funding is available (refer to section V(g)). The Field Office 
shall notify in writing each HA not selected for Joint Review and 
provide the reasons for non-selection.
    (3) Where the HA has not included some of its developments in the 
CIAP Application, the Field Office may not, as a result of Joint 
Review, consider funding any non-emergency work at excluded 
developments or subsequently approve use of leftover funds at excluded 
developments. Therefore, to provide maximum flexibility, the HA may 
wish to include all of its developments in the CIAP Application, even 
though there are no current needs.
    (4) The HA shall prepare for the Joint Review by preparing a draft 
CIAP budget, and reviewing the other items to be covered during the 
Joint Review, such as the need for professional services, method of 
accomplishment of physical work (contract or force account labor), HA 
compliance with various Federal statutes and regulations, etc. If 
conducted on-site, the Joint Review may include an inspection of the 
proposed physical work.

(e) HUD Awards

    After all Joint Reviews are completed, the Field Office shall 
adjust the HAs, developments, and work items to be funded and the 
amounts to be awarded, on the basis of information obtained from Joint 
Reviews, environmental reviews, and FHEO review. Such adjustments are 
necessary where Joint Review determines that actual Group 1 emergencies 
and Group 2 high priority needs, HA priorities, or cost estimates vary 
from the HA's application. Such adjustments may preclude the Field 
Office from funding all of the higher ranked HA applications. However, 
where the information obtained from Joint Reviews, environmental 
reviews, and FHEO review does not substantially alter the information 
used to establish the rankings before Joint Review, the Field Office 
shall make funding decisions in accordance with its rankings. The Field 
Office shall then announce the HAs selected for CIAP grants, subject to 
their submission of an approvable CIAP budget and other required 
documents.

(f) HA Submission of Additional Documents

    After Field Office funding decisions, the Field Office shall 
provide written notification to the HA of funding approval, subject to 
HA submission of the following documents within the time frame 
prescribed by the Field Office:
    (1) Form HUD-52825, CIAP Budget/Progress Report, which includes the 
implementation schedule(s), in an original and two copies.
    (2) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace, in an 
original only.
    (3) Form HUD-52820, HA Board Resolution Approving CIAP Budget, in 
an original only.
    (4) For each Turnkey III development approved for modernization, 
the number of units to be included in the modernization program and, 
where applicable, the estimated cost attributed to each home, in an 
original only.
    (5) On a voluntary basis, an estimate of goals under Section 3 of 
the HUD Act of 1968 for the FY 1994 CIAP funds.

(g) ACC Amendment

    After HUD approval of the CIAP budget, HUD and the HA shall enter 
into an ACC amendment in order for the HA to requisition modernization 
funds. The ACC amendment shall require low-income use of the housing 
for not less than 20 years from the date of the ACC amendment (subject 
to sale of homeownership units in accordance with the terms of the 
ACC). HUD has the authority to condition an ACC amendment (e.g., to 
require an HA to hire a modernization coordinator or contract 
administrator to administer its modernization program).

(h) Declaration of Trust

    Where requested by the Field Office, the HA shall execute and file 
for record a Declaration of Trust as provided under the ACC to protect 
the rights and interests of HUD throughout the 20-year period during 
which the HA is obligated to operate its developments in accordance 
with the ACC, the Act, and HUD regulations and requirements. HUD has 
determined that its interest in Mutual Help Program units is 
sufficiently protected without the further requirement of a Declaration 
of Trust; therefore, a Declaration of Trust is not required for Mutual 
Help units.

(i) ``Fast Tracking'' Applications

    Emergency applications do not have to be processed within the 
normal processing time allowed for other applications. Where an 
immediate hazard must be addressed, HA applications may be submitted 
and processed at any time during the year when funds are available. The 
Field Office shall ``fast track'' the processing of these emergency 
applications so that fund reservation may occur as soon as possible.

V. Other Program Items

(a) Turnkey III Developments

(1) General
    Eligible physical improvement costs for existing Turnkey III 
developments are limited to work items under Emergency Modernization or 
Other Modernization which are not the responsibility of the homebuyer 
families and which are related to health and safety, correction of 
development deficiencies, physical accessibility, energy audits and 
cost-effective energy conservation measures, or LBP testing, interim 
containment, professional risk assessment and abatement. In addition, 
eligible costs include management improvements under the modernization 
type of Other Modernization. Work on any units which have been paid 
off, even though not conveyed by the time the CIAP Application is 
submitted, is ineligible. The cost of non-emergency health and safety 
work items shall increase the purchase price and amortization period 
for homebuyer families; other eligible costs shall not increase the 
purchase price and amortization period.
(2) Ineligible Costs
    Nonroutine maintenance or replacements, dwelling additions, and 
items that are the responsibility of the homebuyer families are 
ineligible costs.
(3) Exception for Vacant or Non-Homebuyer-occupied Turnkey III Units
    (i) Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraph (1) of this 
paragraph, an HA may carry out Other Modernization in a Turnkey III 
development, whenever a Turnkey III unit becomes vacant or is occupied 
by a non-homebuyer family. An HA that intends to use funds under this 
paragraph must identify in its CIAP Application, the estimated number 
of units proposed for Other Modernization and subsequent sale. In 
addition, an HA must certify that: the proposed modernization under 
this paragraph would result in bringing the identified units into full 
compliance with the homeownership objectives under the Turnkey III 
Program; and the HA has homebuyers who both are eligible for 
homeownership, in accordance with the regulatory requirements, and have 
demonstrated their intent to be placed into each of the Turnkey III 
units proposed for Other Modernization.
    (ii) Before an HA may be approved for Other Modernization of a unit 
under this paragraph, it must first deplete any Earned Home Payments 
Account (EHPA) or Non-Routine Maintenance Reserve (NRMR) pertaining to 
the unit, and request the maximum operating subsidy. Any increase in 
the value of a unit caused by its Other Modernization under this 
paragraph shall be reflected solely by its subsequent appraised value, 
and not by an automatic increase in its purchase price.

(b) Mutual Help Developments

    Mutual Help developments are eligible for the same physical and 
management improvement costs as are rental developments. Work on any 
Mutual Help units which have been paid off, even though not conveyed, 
by the time the CIAP Application is submitted is ineligible.

(c) Professional Risk Assessment for LBP

    An additional $11,956,923 set-aside will be made available for 
Professional Risk Assessments under a separate NOFA and Processing 
Notice. HAs with pre-1980 family developments are strongly encouraged 
to apply for these funds to conduct professional risk assessments.

(d) In-Place Management (Interim Containment of LBP)

    Where the results of the professional risk assessment recommend 
that the HA undertake in-place management measures, the HA is strongly 
encouraged to apply for CIAP funds to carry out such measures. However, 
if the HA is not successful in obtaining CIAP funds for in-place 
management measures, the HA may request a budget revision of previously 
approved, but unobligated CIAP funds to accomplish such measures. Where 
the HA had a CIAP budget revision approved for this purpose in FY 1993, 
the HA may request FY 1994 CIAP funds to complete the items which were 
eliminated as a result of the budget revision.

(e) Long-Term Viability and Reasonable Cost

    On Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, the HA shall indicate whether 
the developments proposed for modernization have long-term viability, 
including prospects for full occupancy. During Joint Review, the Field 
Office shall determine whether the estimated costs are reasonable for 
the proposed work items and, if not, adjust the costs. The Field Office 
shall review estimated costs against national indices, adjusted to 
reflect local conditions, such as R.S. Means Index, the Dodge Report or 
Marshall and Swift, as well as using actual, local experience. The 
Field Office is no longer required to compare estimated modernization 
costs against computed Total Development Cost (TDC) limits. Where the 
HA or Field Office believes that a particular development may not have 
long-term viability, the Field Office shall make a final viability 
determination, using the following criteria:
    (1) Any special or unusual conditions have been adequately 
explained, all work has been justified as necessary to meet the 
modernization and energy conservation standards, including development 
specific work necessary to blend the development in with the design and 
architecture of the neighborhood; and
    (2) Reasonable cost estimates have been provided, and every effort 
has been made to reduce costs; and
    (3) Rehabilitation of the existing development is more cost-
effective in the long-term than construction or acquisition of 
replacement housing; or
    (4) There are no practical alternatives for replacement housing.

(f) Use of Dwelling Units for Economic Self-Sufficiency Services and/or 
Drug Elimination Activities

    On August 24, 1990, the Department issued HUD Notice PIH 90-39 
(PHA), concerning the eligibility for funding under the Performance 
Funding System of dwelling units used to promote economic self-
sufficiency services for residents and anti-drug programs. CIAP funds 
may be used to convert units for these purposes. Also refer to the 
Family Self-Sufficiency Program Guidelines (56 FR 49592, September 30, 
1991).

(g) Availability of Funding

    (1) Where available, authorized residual receipts or debt 
forgiveness replacement reserve funds shall be used in lieu of CIAP 
funds. Residual receipts may be retained for only two years.
    (2) The HA shall not receive duplicate funding for the same work 
item or activity under any circumstance and shall establish controls to 
assure that an activity, program, or project that is funded under any 
other HUD program, shall not be funded by CIAP.
    (3) A building which is assisted with Major Reconstruction of 
Obsolete Projects (MROP) funding after FY 1988 which has not yet 
reached Date of Full Availability (DOFA) is not eligible for CIAP 
funding. A building which was assisted with MROP funding during FYs 
1986-1988 which has not yet expended all MROP funds is not eligible for 
CIAP funding.

VI. Application Deadline Date and Summary of FY 1994 CIAP Processing 
Steps

    See section III(d) for the deadline date for submission of the FY 
1994 CIAP application. Dates for other processing steps will be 
established by each Field Office to reflect local workload issues. The 
Field Office shall notify HAs of its processing schedule before the 
application deadline date.

Summary of Processing Steps

    1. HA submits CIAP Application.
    2. Field Office conducts completeness review and requests 
corrections to deficient applications.
    3. HA submits corrections to deficient applications within 21 
calendar days of notification from Field Office.
    4. Field Office conducts eligibility review and technical review 
(rating and ranking) and makes Joint Review selections.
    5. Field Office completes Joint Reviews, environmental reviews and 
FHEO review.
    6. Field Office makes funding decisions and forwards Congressional 
notifications to Headquarters.
    7. Congressional notification is completed and Field Office 
notifies HA of funding decisions.
    8. HA submits additional documents as required in section IV(f).
    9. Field Office completes fund reservations and forwards ACC 
amendment to HA for signature and return.
    10. Field Office executes ACC amendment and HA begins 
implementation.

VII. Other Matters

(a) Environmental Impact

    A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment 
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50 
implementing section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Finding of No Significant Impact is 
available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 
p.m. weekdays at the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, 451 Seventh 
Street SW., room 10276, Washington, DC 20410.

(b) Federalism Impact

    The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a) 
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies 
and procedures contained in this NOFA will not have substantial direct 
effects on States or their political subdivisions, or the relationship 
between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
As a result, the NOFA is not subject to review under the Order.

(c) Impact on the Family

    The General Counsel, as the Designated Official for Executive Order 
12606, The Family, has determined that this NOFA will likely have a 
beneficial impact on family formation, maintenance and general well-
being. Accordingly, since the impact on the family is beneficial, no 
further review is considered necessary.

(d) Accountability in the Provision of HUD Assistance

    The Department has promulgated a final rule to implement section 
102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 
1989 (HUD Reform Act). The final rule is codified at 24 CFR part 12. 
Section 102 contains a number of provisions that are designed to ensure 
greater accountability and integrity in the provision of certain types 
of assistance administered by the Department. On January 16, 1992, the 
Department published at 57 FR 1942, additional information that gave 
the public (including applicants for, and recipients of, HUD 
assistance) further information on the implementation, public access, 
and disclosure requirements of section 102. The documentation, public 
access, and disclosure requirements of section 102 are applicable to 
assistance awarded under this NOFA as follows:
(1) Documentation and Public Access
    The Department will ensure that documentation and other information 
regarding each application submitted pursuant to this NOFA are 
sufficient to indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or 
denied. This material, including any letters of support, will be made 
available for public inspection for a five-year period beginning not 
less than 30 days after the award of the assistance. Material will be 
made available in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 
U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In 
addition, HUD include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this 
NOFA in its quarterly Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD 
assistance awarded on a competitive basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 
12.16(b), and the notice published in the Federal Register on January 
16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for further information on these requirements.)
(2) HUD Responsibilities--Disclosures
    The Department will make available to the public for five years all 
applicant disclosure reports (Form HUD-2880) submitted in connection 
with this NOFA. Update reports (also Form HUD-2880) will be made 
available along with the applicant disclosure reports, but in no case 
for a period less than three years. All reports, both applicant 
disclosures and updates, will be made available in accordance with the 
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing 
regulations at 24 CFR part 15. (See 24 CFR part 12, subpart C, and the 
notice published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 
1942), for further information on these disclosure requirements.)

(e) Prohibition Against Advance Information on Funding Decisions

    HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the HUD Reform Act, 
codified as 24 CFR part 4, applies to the funding competition announced 
today. The requirements of the rule continue to apply until the 
announcement of the selection of successful applicants. Also refer to a 
final rule amending part 4 published in the Federal Register on 
November 19, 1993 (58 FR 61016), regarding the regulation of certain 
conduct by HUD employees and by applicants for HUD assistance during 
the selection process for the award of financial assistance by HUD.
    HUD employees involved in the review of applications and in the 
making of funding decisions are limited by part 4 from providing 
advance information to any person (other than an authorized employee of 
HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from otherwise giving any 
applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons who apply for 
assistance in this competition should confine their inquiries to the 
subject areas permitted under 24 CFR Part 4.
    Applicants who have questions should contact the HUD Office of 
Ethics at (202) 708-3815 (voice), (202) 708-1112 (TDD). These are not 
toll-free numbers. The Office of Ethics can provide information of a 
general nature to HUD employees, as well. However, a HUD employee who 
has specific program questions, such as whether particular subject 
matter can be discussed with persons outside the Department, should 
contact his or her Field Office Counsel or Headquarters Counsel for the 
program to which the question pertains.

(f) Prohibition Against Lobbying of HUD Personnel

    Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 13 of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531 et 
seq.) . Section 13 contains two provisions dealing with efforts to 
influence HUD's decisions with respect to financial assistance. The 
first imposes disclosure requirements on those who are typically 
involved in these efforts--those who pay others to influence the award 
of assistance or the taking of a management action by the Department 
and those who are paid to provide the influence. The second restricts 
the payment of fees to those who are paid to influence the award of HUD 
assistance, if the fees are tied to the number of housing units 
received or are based on the amount of assistance received, or if they 
are contingent upon the receipt of assistance.
    HUD regulations implementing section 13 are at 24 CFR part 86. If 
readers are involved in any efforts to influence the Department in 
these ways, they are urged to read the regulation, particularly the 
examples contained in appendix A of the rule.
    A final rule published in the Federal Register on September 7, 
1993, amended the definition of ``person'' to exclude from coverage a 
State or local government, or the officer or employee of a State or 
local government or housing finance agency thereof who is engaged in 
the official business of the State or local government.
    Any questions regarding the rule should be directed to the Office 
of Ethics, room 2158, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-3000. Telephone: (202) 708-
3815 (voice); (202) 708-1112 (TDD). These are not toll-free numbers. 
Forms necessary for compliance with the rule may be obtained from the 
local HUD Office.

(g) Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities

    The use of funds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the 
disclosure requirements and prohibitions of section 319 of the 
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the HUD implementing regulations 
at 24 CFR part 87. These authorities prohibit recipients of federal 
contracts, grants or loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying 
the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in 
connection with a specific contract, grant or loan. The prohibition 
also covers the awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements 
or loans unless the recipient has made an acceptable certification 
regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR part 87, applicants, recipients and 
subrecipients of assistance exceeding $100,000 must certify that no 
federal funds have been or will be spent on lobbying activities in 
connection with the assistance.
    IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a result of the exercise of 
the tribe's sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the Byrd 
Amendment, but IHAs established under State law are not excluded from 
the statute's coverage.
    If the amount applied for is greater than $100,000, the 
certification is required at the time application for funds is made 
that federally appropriated funds are not being or have been used in 
violation of the Byrd Amendment. If the amount applied for is greater 
than $100,000 and the HA has made or has agreed to make any payment 
using nonappropriated funds for lobbying activity, as described in 24 
CFR Part 87 (Byrd Amendment), the submission also must include the SF-
LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. The HA determines if the 
submission of the SF-LLL is applicable.

(h) Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1989 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520) and have been assigned OMB control number 2577-0044.

VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program

     The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number is 
14.852.

    Dated: April 5, 1994.
Joseph Shuldiner,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 94-9321 Filed 4-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P