[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14538-14545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6562]
[[Page 14537]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing for Public and Indian
Housing
_______________________________________________________________________
Funding Availability for Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 /
Notices
[[Page 14538]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
[Docket No. N-95-3867; FR-3774-N-02]
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)
agency: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
action: Notice of Funding Availability for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice informs HAs that own or operate fewer than 250
units and, therefore, are eligible to apply and compete for CIAP funds,
of the availability of FY 1995 CIAP funding. HAs with 250 or more units
are entitled to receive a formula grant under the Comprehensive Grant
Program (CGP) and are not eligible to apply for CIAP funds.
DATES: Application is due on or before 3:00 p.m. local time on May 16,
1995, at the HUD Field Office with jurisdiction over the Public Housing
Agency or Indian Housing Authority (herein referred to as HA),
Attention: Director, Office of Public Housing, or Administrator, Office
of Native American Programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William J. Flood, Director, Modernization Division, Office of
Distressed and Troubled Housing Recovery, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4134, Washington, DC
20410. Telephone (202) 708-1640. (This is not a toll-free number).
IHAs may contact Dominic A. Nessi, Director, Office of Native
American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW., B-133, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 755-
0032. (This is not a toll-free number).
Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call HUD's TDD number
(202) 708-4595. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On January 20, 1995, at 60 FR 4352, the Department published an
Advance Notice of FY 1995 CIAP, setting forth all application
requirements, except the allocation amounts and the application
deadline date. Since the requirements set forth in the Advance Notice
pertain to this NOFA, the entire Advance Notice is being republished as
an attachment to this NOFA.
II. Allocation Amounts
(a) Total Available. The FY 1995 HUD Appropriations Act P.L. 103-
327, enacted September 28, 1994, made available $3,700,000,000 of
budget authority for the Modernization Program in the Annual
Contributions Account. Funding may change if the carry-overs,
recaptures and transfers estimated to occur in FY 1995 are not
realized. The following chart shows the total amount of funds available
in FY 1995, which is the appropriation, plus the carry-over from FY
1994, less the reduction and set-asides, as of the date of this NOFA:
FY 1995 Appropriation................................. $3,700,000,000
Plus Carry-over from FY 1994.......................... 194,092,503
Less Annual Contributions Account Reduction........... (79,049,983)
-----------------
FY 1995 Adjusted Appropriation........................ 3,815,042,520
Less FY 1995 Set-Asides:
Choice in Management (Being reevaluated)*........... 100,000,000
Emergency and Natural Disaster Reserve.............. 75,000,000
Section 6J Activities*.............................. 40,042,520
Tenant Opportunity Program*......................... 25,000,000
Inspection and Technical Assistance*................ 15,270,323
CGP Allocation from CGP Carry-Over.................. 10,882,865
LBP Risk Assessment*................................ 8,052,534
LBP Indemnification................................. 971,983
-----------------
Total Set-Asides.................................. 275,220,225
FY 1995 Adjusted Appropriation Less Set-Asides........ 3,539,822,295
*Set-asides to be implemented through separate NOFAs or Requests for
Proposals.
(b) Explanation of Carry-Overs. The $194,092,503 in carry-overs
from FY 1994 are:
(1) $100,000,000 from the set-aside for Choice-in-Management;
(2) $40,042,520 from the set-aside for implementing Section 6J
activities;
(3) $32,259,237 from the national reserve for emergencies and
natural and other disasters;
(4) $10,882,865 from the CGP allocation, including $1,438,509 from
three HAs which did not apply for their FY 1994 grant, $99,963 unused
due to the statutorily authorized conversion of a public housing
project to a Section 8 project, and $9,344,393 from reduced formula
funding of Mod Troubled PHAs;
(5) $8,052,534 of unused funds from the Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Risk
Assessment set-aside, established in FY 1992;
(6) $1,612,976 from the set-aside for the Vacancy Reduction
Program;
(7) $971,983 from the set-aside for the indemnification of three
PHAs (Albany, New York; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Omaha, Nebraska)
that are participating in the LBP Abatement Demonstration. The FY 1991
Appropriations Act extended the availability of these funds
appropriated in FY 1990 from October 1, 1991 to October 1, 1998;
(8) $270,323 from the set-aside for inspection of modernization
work and technical assistance for HAs; and
(9) $65 from unassigned CIAP funds.
(c) Allocation between CGP and CIAP. The allocation between CGP and
CIAP is explained below:
FY 1995 Adjusted Appropriation, Less Set-Asides........ $3,539,822,295
Less CGP Credits Withheld for Mod Troubled Agencies.... 16,862,619
----------------
Amount Available for CGP and CIAP...................... 3,522,959,676
CGP Allocation......................................... 3,153,244,533
CIAP Allocation........................................ 369,715,143
*Does not include $10,882,865 in CGP funds carried over from FY 1994
which will be added to the CGP allocation.
(1) The $3,522,959,676 balance is allocated between CIAP and CGP
agencies based on the relative shares of backlog needs (weighted at
50%) and accrual needs (weighted at 50%), as determined by the field
inspections conducted for the HUD-funded ABT study of modernization
needs. This allocation results in CIAP agencies receiving 10.49% or
$369, 715, 143 and CGP agencies receiving 89.51% or $3,153,244,533
(plus the $10,822,865 carryover for a total of $3,164,067,398) of the
funds available.
(i) Backlog needs are needed repairs and replacements of existing
physical systems, items that must be added to meet the HUD
modernization and energy conservation standards and State or local/
tribal codes, and items that are necessary for the long-term vaibility
of a specific housing development.
(ii) Accrual needs are needs that arise over time and include
needed repairs and replacements of existing physical systems and items
that must be added to meet the HUD modernization and energy
conservation standards and State or local/tribal codes.
(2) The $369,715,143 available to CIAP agencies is allocated
between Public Housing at 91.8505% or $339,585,355, and Indian Housing
at 8.1495% or $30,129,788. This allocation also is based on the
relative shares of backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and accrual needs
(weighted at 50%). [[Page 14539]]
(d) Subassignment of Funds to Field Offices of Public Housing
(OPH). Headquarters has determined the distribution of Public Housing
CIAP funds for each Field OPH, based on the relative shares of backlog
and accrual needs for CIAP PHAs, adjusted as necessary.
(1) The Field OPH Director shall have authority to make Joint
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
(2) If additional funds for Public Housing CIAP become available,
Headquarters will allocate the funds to one or more Field OPHs based on
their relative shares of modernization need, approvable applications,
and PHA capability to carry out the modernization.
(3) If a Field OPH does not receive sufficient fundable
applications to use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the
remaining funds to one or more Field OPHs based on approvable
applications and PHA capability to carry out the modernization.
Of the $339,585,355 available for Public Housing, 1% or $3,395,854
has been set aside to carry out goals related to pending civil rights
litigation (e.g., Young v. Cisneros), which is subject to judicial
oversight. The following table shows the distribution to CIAP funds for
PHAs, excluding IHAs, assigned by Headquarters to each Field OPH as
percentages of the $336,189,501 balance available for Public Housing:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of Public
Office of Public Housing (OPH) Housing
Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New England Region:
Massachusetts State Office................................. 2.6187
Connecticut State Office................................... .9266
New Hampshire State Office................................. 1.5066
Rhode Island State Office.................................. .7365
New York/New Jersey Region:
Buffalo Area Office........................................ 2.1551
New Jersey State Office.................................... 2.7271
New York State Office...................................... 1.1576
Midatlantic Region:
Maryland State Office...................................... .4142
West Virginia State Office................................. 1.4359
Pennsylvania State Office.................................. 1.1444
Pittsburgh Area Office..................................... 1.2048
Virginia State Office...................................... .5756
District of Columbia Office................................ .1686
Southeast Region:
Georgia State Office....................................... 5.3561
Alabama State Office....................................... 4.7698
South Carolina State Office................................ .9216
North Carolina State Office................................ 3.0244
Mississippi State Office................................... 1.7112
Jacksonville Area Office................................... 2.9639
Knoxville Area Office...................................... .9171
Kentucky State Office...................................... 4.7691
Tennessee State Office..................................... 1.8640
Midwest Region:
Illinois State Office...................................... 3.5943
Cincinnati Area Office..................................... .4374
Cleveland Area Office...................................... .5098
Ohio State Office.......................................... 1.1247
Michigan State Office...................................... 2.0393
Grand Rapids Area Office................................... 3.0354
Indiana State Office....................................... 1.2262
Wisconsin State Office..................................... 2.8249
Minnesota State Office..................................... 2.9713
Southwest Region:
New Mexico State Office.................................... 1.3454
Texas State Office......................................... 5.4523
Houston Area Office........................................ 1.1773
Arkansas State Office...................................... 3.0053
Louisiana State Office..................................... 3.9795
Oklahoma State Office...................................... 1.9327
San Antonio Area Office.................................... 2.6835
Great Plains Region:
Iowa State Office.......................................... 1.4211
Kansas/Missouri State Office............................... 3.8535
Nebraska State Office...................................... 1.2155
St. Louis Area Office...................................... 2.2640
Rocky Mountain Region:
Colorado State Office...................................... 3.5448
Pacific/Hawaii Region:
Los Angeles Area Office.................................... 1.2057
Arizona State Office....................................... 1.2634
Sacramento Area Office..................................... .2747
California State Office.................................... 1.5927
Northwest/Alaska Region:
Oregon State Office........................................ 1.2688
Washington State Office.................................... 1.6876
Total.................................................... 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Subassignment of Funds to Offices of Native American Programs
(ONAPs). Headquarters has determined the distribution of Indian Housing
CIAP funds for each ONAP, based on the relative shares of backlog and
accrual needs for CIAP IHAs, adjusted as necessary. The fund assignment
will cover Indian Housing and any Public Housing owned and operated by
IHAs.
(1) The ONAP Administrator shall have authority to make Joint
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
(2) If additional funds for Indian Housing CIAP become available,
Headquarters will allocate the funds to one or more ONAPs based on
their relative shares of modernization need, approvable applications,
and IHA capability to carry out the modernization.
(3) If an ONAP does not receive sufficient fundable applications to
use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the remaining funds to
one or more ONAPs based on approvable applications and IHA capability
to carry out the modernization.
The following table shows the distribution of CIAP funds for IHAs,
assigned by Headquarters to each ONAPs as percentages of the total
$30,129,788 available for Indian Housing:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of Indian
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Housing
Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern/Woodlands............................................ 14.8444
Southern Plains.............................................. 12.3324
Northern Plains.............................................. 13.3174
Southwest.................................................... 29.9263
Northwest.................................................... 24.4868
Alaska....................................................... 5.0927
----------
Total...................................................... 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Application Deadline Date
The CIAP Application must be physically received by the local HUD
Field Office by 3 p.m. local time on May 16, 1995. Faxed copies will
not be considered official applications. The application deadline for
this NOFA is firm as to date and hour. In the interest of fairness to
all competing applicants, the Department will not consider any
application that is received after the application deadline. All
applicants should take this into account and submit application
materials as early as possible to avoid any risk brought about by
unanticipated delays or 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. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number is
14.852.
Dated: March 9, 1995.
Joseph Shuldiner,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Attachment
Note: This is a republication of the advance notice published on
January 20, 1995 at 60 FR 4352.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
[Docket No. N-95-3867; FR 3774-N-01]
Advance Notice of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Funding for Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Advance Notice of FY 1995 Funding for CIAP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice provides advance information to Public Housing
Agencies and Indian Housing Authorities (herein referred to as HAs)
that own or operate fewer than 250 public housing units and,
therefore, are eligible to apply and compete for CIAP funds, of the
requirements for applying for FY 1995 [[Page 14540]] CIAP funding.
Therefore, the CIAP eligible HA may start now to plan and develop
its FY 1995 CIAP application. HAs with 250 or more public housing
units are entitled to receive a formula grant under the
Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) and are not eligible to apply for
CIAP funds.
DATES: This Advance Notice does not establish an application
deadline date. A Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) will be
published at a later date and will establish an application deadline
date, as well as set forth the amount of funds available for the
CIAP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Flood, Director,
Modernization Division, Office of Distressed and Troubled Housing
Recovery, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW., Room 4134, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 708-
1640. (This is not a toll free number).
IHAs may contact Dominic A. Nessi, Director, Office of Native
American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development 451
Seventh Street, SW., B-133, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202)
755-0032. (This is not a toll free number).
Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call HUD's TDD number
(202) 708-4595. (This is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Substantive Description
(a) Authority. Sec. 14, United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 14371); Sec. 7(d) Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). An interim rule revising the CIAP
regulation, 24 CFR Part 968, Subparts A and B, for PHAs and 24 CFR
Part 905, Subpart I, for IHAs, and streamlining the program was
published on March 15, 1993. A final rule will be published shortly.
(b) Program Highlights.
(1) Departmental Priority. Improving Public and Indian Housing
is one of the Department's major priorities. Accordingly, a review
has been made of the entire Public and Indian Housing Program.
Specifically, the Department is very concerned about several aspects
of the Modernization Program, as follows:
(i) Design. When identifying physical improvement needs to meet
the modernization standards, HAs are encouraged to consider design
which supports the integration of public housing into the broader
community. Although high priority needs, such as those related to
health and safety, vacant/substandard units, structural or system
integrity, and compliance with statutory, regulatory or court-
ordered deadlines, will receive funding priority, HAs should plan
their modernization in a way which promotes good design, but
maintains the modest nature of public housing. The HA should pay
particular attention to design, which is sensitive to traditional
cultural values, and be receptive to creative, but cost-effective
approaches suggested by architects, residents, HA staff, and other
local entities. Such approaches may complement the planning for
basic rehabilitation needs. It should be noted that there will be no
increase in operating subsidy due to improved design promoting the
blend of public housing into the surrounding neighborhood or to
additional amenities improving the quality of life.
(ii) Expediting the Program. HAs are reminded that they are
expected to obligate all funds within two years and to expend all
funds within three years of program approval (Annual Contributions
Contract (ACC) Amendment execution) unless a longer project
implementation schedule is approved by the Field Office. If the HA
does not obligate approved funds in a timely manner, the Department
will recapture the funds unless there are clear, valid reasons for
not meeting the obligation deadline; i.e., delays which are outside
of the HA's control.
(iii) Resident Involvement and Economic Uplift. HAs are required
to explore and implement through all feasible means the involvement
of residents, including duly-elected resident councils, in every
aspect of the CIAP, from planning through implementation. HAs shall
use the provisions of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1968, as amended (Section 3) to the maximum feasible extent.
HAs are encouraged to seek ways to employ Section 3 residents in all
aspects of the CIAP's operation and to develop means to promote
contracting opportunities for businesses in Section 3 areas. Refer
to 24 CFR 85.36(e) regarding the provision of such opportunities.
(iv) Elimination of Vacant Units. Although the Department has a
vacancy reduction effort specifically aimed at reducing vacancies,
HAs are encouraged to apply for CIAP funds to address vacant units
where the work does not involve routine maintenance, but will result
in reoccupancy.
(2) Relationship to Technical Review Factors. The Departmental
goal of improving Public and Indian Housing is reflected in the
technical review factors, set forth in section IV(c)(5) of this
Notice, on which the Field Office scores each HA's CIAP Application.
Based on the HA's total score, the Field Office then ranks each HA
to determine selection for Joint Review. The technical review
factors include the following Departmental initiatives to improve
Public and Indian Housing:
(i) Restoration of vacant units to occupancy;
(ii) Resident capacity-building, including opportunities for
resident management;
(iii) Economic development, through job training and employment
opportunities for residents and contracting opportunities for
Section 3 businesses;
(iv) Drug elimination initiatives; and
(v) Partnership with local government.
II. Allocation Amounts
The Department will publish separately a NOFA in the Federal
Register, explaining the FY 1995 appropriation, minus any FY 1995
set-asides and reductions, plus any carry-over from FY 1994. The
NOFA also will explain the allocation between the CGP and the CIAP,
and within the CIAP, the allocation between Public Housing and
Indian Housing and the allocation to each Field Office/Office of
Native Americans Program (ONAP). The Field Office Public Housing
Director or the ONAP Administrator shall have authority to make
Joint Review selections and CIAP funding decisions.
III. Application Preparation and Submission by HA
(a) Planning. In preparing its CIAP Application, the HA is
encouraged to assess all its physical and management improvement
needs. Physical improvement needs should be reviewed against the
modernization standards, as set forth in HUD Handbook 7485.2, as
revised, and any 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(b)(1)(i) of this Notice). In addition, the HA is
strongly encouraged to contact the Field Office to discuss its
modernization needs and obtain information. The term ``Field
Office'' includes the ONAP.
(b) Resident Involvement/Local Official Consultation
Requirements.
(1) Residents/Homebuyers. The CIAP regulations at 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, including duly-
elected resident councils, to present their views on the proposed
modernization and alternatives to it, and full and serious
consideration of resident recommendations;
(iii) Written response to residents, including duly-elected
resident councils, indicating acceptance or rejection of resident
recommendations, consistent with HUD requirements and the HA's own
determination of efficiency, economy and need, with a copy to the
Field Office at Joint Review;
(iv) After HUD funding decisions, notification to residents of
the approval or disapproval and, where requested, provision to
residents of a copy of the HUD-approved CIAP budget; and
(v) During implementation, periodic notification to residents of
work status and progress and maximum feasible employment of
residents in the modernization effort.
(2) Local Officials. Before submission of the CIAP Application,
consultation with appropriate local officials regarding how the
proposed modernization may be coordinated with any local plans for
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, drug elimination
and expenditure of local funds, such as Community Development Block
Grant funds.
(c) Contents of CIAP Application. Within the established time
frame, the HA shall [[Page 14541]] submit the CIAP Application to
the Field Office, with a copy to appropriate local/tribal officials.
The HA may obtain the necessary forms from the Field Office. The
CIAP Application is comprised of the following documents:
(1) Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, in an original and two
copies, which includes:
(i) A general description of HA development(s), in priority
order, (including the current physical condition, for each
development for which the HA is requesting funds, or for all
developments in the HA's inventory) and physical and management
improvement needs to meet the Secretary's standards in Sec. 968.115
or Sec. 905.603; description of work items required to correct
identified deficiencies; and the estimated cost. For example:
Development 1-1: 50 units of low-rent; 25 years old; physical
needs are: new roofs; LBP testing; storm windows and doors; and
electrical upgrading at estimated cost of $150,000.
Development 1-2: 40 units of low-rent; 20 years old; physical
needs are: physical accessibility of 2 units; kitchen floors;
shower/bathtub surrounds; fencing; and exterior lighting at
estimated cost of $90,000.
Development 1-3: 35 units of Turnkey III: 15 years old; physical
needs are: physical accessibility of 3 units; and roof insulation at
estimated cost of $50,000.
Development 1-4: 20 units of low-rent; 5 years old; no physical
needs; no funding requested.
Note: Refer to Section IV(d)(3) of this Notice regarding the
consequences of not including all developments in the CIAP
Application; even where there are no known current needs.
(ii) Where funding is being requested for management
improvements, an identification of the deficiency, a description of
the work required for correction, and estimated cost. Examples of
management improvements include, but are not limited to the
following areas:
(A) the management, financial, and accounting control systems of
the HA;
(B) the adequacy and qualifications of personnel employed by the
HA in the management and operation of its developments by category
of employment; and
(C) the adequacy and efficacy of resident programs and services,
resident and development security, resident selection and eviction,
occupancy and vacant unit turnaround, rent collection, routine and
preventive maintenance, equal opportunity, and other HA policies and
procedures.
(iii) a certification that the HA has met the requirements for
consultation with local officials and residents/homebuyers and that
all developments included in the application have long-term physical
and social viability, including prospects for full occupancy. If the
HA cannot make this certification with respect to long-term
viability, the HA shall attach a narrative, explaining its viability
concerns.
(2) A narrative statement, in an original and two copies,
addressing each of the technical review factors in section IV(c)(5)
and, where applicable, the bonus points in section IV(c)(6).
(3) Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans
and Cooperative Agreements, in an original only, required of HAs
established under State law, applying for grants exceeding $100,000.
(4) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in an original
only, required of HAs established under State law, only where any
funds, other than federally appropriated funds, will be or have been
used to influence Federal workers, Members of Congress and their
staff regarding specific grants or contracts.
(5) Form HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Update/Disclosure Report,
in an original only, required of HAs established under State law.
(6) At the option of the HA, photographs or video cassettes
showing the physical condition of the developments.
IV. Application Processing by Field Office.
(a) Completeness Review (Corrections to Deficient Applications).
To be eligible for processing, the CIAP Application must be
physically received by the Field Office within the time period
specified in the NOFA to be published at a future date, and must be
complete, including the signed certification. Immediately after the
application deadline, the Field Office shall perform a completeness
review to determine whether an application is complete, responsive
to the NOFA and acceptable for technical processing.
(1) If either Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, or the narrative
statement on the technical review factors is missing, the HA's
application will be considered substantially incomplete and,
therefore, ineligible for further processing. The Field Office shall
immediately notify the HA in writing.
(2) If Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants,
Loans, and Cooperative Agreements, or SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities, are required, but missing, or Form HUD-2880, Applicant/
Recipient Update/Disclosure Form, is missing, or there is a
technical mistake, such as no signature on a submitted form or the
HA failed to address all of the technical review factors, the Field
Office shall immediately notify the HA in writing that the HA has 14
calendar days from the date of HUD's notification to submit or
correct the deficiency. This is not additional time to substantially
revise the application. Deficiencies which may be corrected at this
time are inadvertently omitted documents or clarifications of
previously submitted material and other changes which are not of
such a nature as to improve the competitive position of the
application.
(3) If the HA fails to submit or correct the items within the
required time period, the HA's application will be ineligible for
further processing. The Field Office shall notify the HA in writing
immediately after this occurs.
(b) Eligibility Review. After the HA's CIAP Application is
determined to be complete and accepted for review, the Field Office
eligibility review shall determine if the application is eligible
for processing or processing on a reduced scope.
(1) Eligibility for Processing. To be eligible for processing:
(i) HA Eligibility. HA has fewer than 250 Public and Indian
housing units.
(ii) Development Eligibility. The development is either a public
housing development, including a conveyed Lanham Act or Public Works
Administration development, or a Section 23 Leased Housing Bond-
Financed project (BFP).
(iii) Date of Full Availability (DOFA)/Major Reconstruction of
Obsolete Projects (MROP) Funding. Each eligible development for
which work is proposed has reached DOFA at the time of CIAP
Application submission. In addition, where funded under MROP after
FY 1988, the development/building has reached DOFA or where funded
during FYs 1986-1988, all MROP funds for the development/building
have been expended.
(2) Eligibility for Processing on Reduced Scope. Where the
following conditions exist, the HA will be reviewed on a reduced
scope:
(i) Section 504 Compliance. Where the Section 504 needs
assessment identified a need for accessible units, the HA was
required to make structural changes to meet that need by July 11,
1992. (``Section 504'' refers to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973.) Where the HA has not completed all required structural
changes or obtained a time extension from HUD to July 11, 1995, the
HA is eligible for processing only for Emergency Modernization or
physical work needed to meet Section 504 requirements. Refer to PIH
Notice 94-56 (HA), dated August 15, 1994.
(ii) Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Testing Compliance. Where the HA has
not complied with the statutory requirement to complete LBP testing
on all pre-1978 family units, the HA is eligible for processing only
for Emergency Modernization or work needed to complete LBP testing.
(iii) FHEO Compliance. Where the HA has not complied with Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) requirements as evidenced by an
action, finding or determination as described below, unless the HA
is implementing a voluntary compliance agreement or settlement
agreement designed to correct the area(s) of noncompliance, the HA
is eligible for processing only for Emergency Modernization or
physical work needed to remedy civil rights deficiencies.
(A) A pending proceeding against the HA based upon a Charge of
Discrimination issued under the Fair Housing Act. A Charge of
Discrimination is a charge under Section 810(g)(2) of the Fair
Housing Act, issued by the Department's General Counsel or legally
authorized designee;
(B) A pending civil rights suit against the HA, referred by the
Department's General Counsel and instituted by the Department of
Justice;
(C) Outstanding HUD findings of HA noncompliance with civil
rights statutes and executive orders under 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 [[Page 14542]] 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.
(c) Selection Criteria and Ranking Factors. After all CIAP
Applications are reviewed for eligibility, the Field Office shall
categorize the eligible HAs and their developments into two
processing groups, as defined in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph:
Group 1 for Emergency Modernization; and Group 2 for Other
Modernization. HA developments may be included in both groups and
the same development may be in each group. However, the HA is only
required to submit one CIAP Application.
(1) Grouping Modernization Types.
(i) Group 1, Emergency Modernization. Developments having
physical conditions of an emergency nature, posing an immediate
threat to the health or safety of residents or related to fire
safety, and which must be corrected within one year of CIAP funding
approval. Funding is limited to physical work items and may not be
used for management improvements. Emergency Modernization includes
all LBP testing and abatement of units housing children under six
years old with elevated blood lead levels (EBLs) and all LBP testing
and abatement of HA-owned day care facilities used by children under
six years old with EBLs. Group 1 developments are not subject to the
technical review rating and ranking in subparagraphs (5), (6) and
(7) of this paragraph or the long-term viability and reasonable cost
determination in section V(e).
(ii) Group 2, Other Modernization. Developments not having
physical conditions of an emergency nature and located in HAs which
have demonstrated a capability of carrying out the proposed
modernization activities. Other Modernization includes: one or more
physical work items, where the Field Office determines that the
physical improvements are necessary and sufficient to extend the
useful life of the development; and/or one or more development
specific or HA-wide management work items (including planning
costs); and/or LBP testing, professional risk assessment, interim
containment, and abatement. Therefore, eligibility of work under
Other Modernization ranges from a single work item to the complete
rehabilitation of a development. Refer to section I(b)(1)(i) of this
Notice regarding modest amenities and improved design. Group 2
developments are subject to the technical review rating and ranking
in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this paragraph and the long-
term viability and reasonable cost determination in section V(e).
(2) Assessment of HA's Management Capability. As part of its
technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall
evaluate the HA's management capability. Particular attention shall
be given to the adequacy of the HA's maintenance in determining the
HA's management capability. This assessment shall be based on the
compliance aspects of on-site monitoring, such as audits, reviews or
surveys which are currently available within the Field Office, and
on the performance review under the Public Housing Management
Assessment Program (PHMAP) for PHAs or the Administrative Capability
Assessment for IHAs, and other information sources, as follows:
(i) Public Housing. A PHA has management capability if it is (A)
not designated as Troubled under 24 CFR Part 901, PHMAP, or (B)
designated as Troubled, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring
management capability which may include through CIAP-funded
management improvements. A Troubled PHA is eligible for Emergency
Modernization only, unless it is making reasonable progress toward
meeting the performance targets established in its memorandum of
agreement or equivalent under Sec. 901.140 or has obtained
alternative oversight of its management functions.
(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has management capability if it is
(A) not designated as High Risk under 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 is eligible for Emergency
Modernization only, unless 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 24 CFR Part 901,
PHMAP, or (B) designated as Modernization Troubled, but has a
reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization capability which may
include through CIAP-funded management improvements and
administrative support, such as hiring staff or contracting for
assistance. A Modernization Troubled PHA is eligible for Emergency
Modernization only, unless it is making reasonable progress toward
meeting the performance targets established in its memorandum of
agreement or equivalent under Sec. 901.140 or has obtained
alternative oversight of its modernization functions. Where a PHA
does not have a funded modernization program in progress, the Field
Office shall determine whether the PHA has a reasonable prospect of
acquiring modernization capability through hiring staff or
contracting for assistance.
(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has modernization capability if it
is capable of effectively carrying out the proposed modernization
improvements. Where an IHA does not have a funded modernization
program in progress, the ONAP shall determine whether the IHA has a
reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization capability through
hiring staff or contracting for assistance.
(4) Technical Processing. After the Field Office has categorized
the eligible HAs and their developments into Group 1 and Group 2,
the Field Office shall rate each Group 2 HA on each of the technical
review factors in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. With the
exception of the technical review factor of ``extent and urgency of
need'', a Group 2 HA is rated on its overall HA application and not
on each development. For the technical review factor of ``extent and
urgency of need,'' each development for which funding is requested
in the CIAP Application by a Group 2 HA is scored; the development
with the highest priority needs is scored the highest number of
points, which is then used for the overall HA score on that factor.
High priority needs are non-emergency needs, but related to: health
or safety; vacant, substandard units; structural or system
integrity; or compliance with statutory, regulatory or court-ordered
deadlines.
(5) Technical Review Factors. The technical review factors for
assistance are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Technical review factors points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extent and urgency of need, including need to comply with
statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines............ 40
HA's modernization capability................................ 15
HA's management capability................................... 15
Extent of vacancies, where the vacancies are not due to
insufficient demand......................................... 10
Degree of resident involvement in HA operations.............. 5
Degree of HA activity in resident initiatives, including
tenant opportunity, economic development, and drug
elimination efforts......................................... 5
Degree of resident employment through direct hiring or
contracting or job training initiatives..................... 5
Local government support for proposed modernization.......... 5
----------
Total Maximum Score...................................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Bonus points.
(i) For Public Housing only, the Field Office shall provide up
to 5 bonus points for any PHA that can demonstrate that it has
obtained funds from a non-HUD source to improve or support the
modernization activities or the general operation of the PHA. Non-
HUD sources of funding may include: local government, over and above
what is required under the Cooperation Agreement for municipal
services such as police and fire protection and refuse collection;
private non-profit organizations; or other public and private
entities. To qualify for the bonus points, the PHA shall identify
the entity, the amount of funds being obtained, and the purpose of
the funding.
(ii) For Public Housing only, the Field Office shall provide up
to 2 bonus points for any PHA that can demonstrate that it has
awarded contracts, including subcontracts, to minority business
enterprises (MBEs) or [[Page 14543]] women's business enterprises
(WBEs) within the last three years. Such affirmative action is
required by Executive Orders 11625 and 12432 for MBEs and by
Executive Order 12138 for WBEs. To qualify for the bonus points, the
PHA shall identify the contractor or the subcontractor, the dollar
value of the contract or subcontract, and the date of award.
(7) Rating and Ranking. After rating all Group 2 HAs on each of
the technical review factors and providing any bonus points as set
forth in subparagraph (6) of this paragraph, the Field Office shall
rank each Group 2 HA based on its total score, list Group 2 HAs in
descending order and identify other Group 2 HAs with lower ranking
applications, but with high priority needs. The Field Office shall
consult with Headquarters regarding any identified FHEO
noncompliance.
(d) Joint Review. The purpose of the Joint Review is for the
Field Office to discuss with the HA the proposed modernization
program, as set forth in the CIAP Application, and determine the
size of the grant, if any, to be awarded.
(1) The Field Office shall select HAs, including all Group 1
HAs, for Joint Review so that the total dollar value of all proposed
modernization recommended for funding exceeds the assignment amount
by at least 15%. This will preserve the Field Office's ability to
adjust cost estimates and work items as a result of Joint Review.
(2) The Field Office shall notify in writing each HA whose
application has been selected for further processing as to whether
the Joint Review will be conducted on-site or off-site (e.g., by
telephone or in-office meeting). An HA will not be selected for
Joint Review if there is a duplication of funding (refer to section
V(g)). The Field Office shall notify in writing each HA not selected
for Joint Review and the reasons for non-selection.
(3) Where the HA has not included some of its developments in
the CIAP Application, the Field Office may not, as a result of Joint
Review, consider funding any 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 known current needs.
(4) The HA shall prepare for the Joint Review by preparing a
draft CIAP budget, and reviewing the other items to be covered
during the Joint Review, such as the need for professional services,
method of accomplishment of physical work (contract or force account
labor), HA compliance with various Federal statutes and regulations,
etc. If conducted on-site, the Joint Review may include an
inspection of the proposed physical work.
(e) HUD Awards. After all Joint Reviews are completed, the Field
Office shall adjust the HAs, developments, and work items to be
funded and the amounts to be awarded, on the basis of information
obtained from Joint Reviews, FHEO review, and environmental reviews
(refer to paragraph (h)). Such adjustments are necessary where Joint
Review determines that actual Group 1 emergencies and Group 2 high
priority needs, HA priorities, or cost estimates vary from the HA's
application. Such adjustments may preclude the Field Office from
funding all of the higher ranked HA applications in order to
accommodate the funding of high priority needs. However, where the
information obtained from Joint Reviews, FHEO review, and
environmental reviews does not substantially alter the information
used to establish the rankings before Joint Review, the Field Office
shall make funding decisions in accordance with its rankings. After
Congressional notifications, the Field Office shall announce the HAs
selected for CIAP grants, subject to their submission of an
approvable CIAP budget and other required documents.
(f) HA Submission of Additional Documents. After field Office
funding decisions, the Field Office shall provide written
notification to the HA of funding approval, subject to HA submission
of the following documents within the time frame prescribed by the
Field Office:
(1) Form HUD-52825, CIAP Budget/Progress Report, which includes
the implementation schedule(s), in an original and two copies.
(2) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace, in
an original only.
(3) Form HUD-52820, HA Board Resolution Approving CIAP Budget,
in an original only.
(g) ACC Amendment. After HUD approval of the CIAP budget, HUD
and HA shall enter into an ACC amendment in order for the HA to
obtain modernization funds. The ACC amendment shall require low-
income use of the housing for not less than 20 years from the date
of the ACC amendment (subject to sale of homeownership units in
accordance with the terms of the ACC). HUD has the authority to
condition an ACC amendment (e.g., to require an HA to hire a
modernization coordinator or contract administrator to administer
its modernization program).
(h) Environmental review. The Field Office shall review the
environmental impact of all modernization activities under Part 50,
in accordance with the provisions of Parts 905 and 968. The Field
Office may obtain the information required to conduct the
environmental review during Joint Review. The HA shall provide any
documentation to the Field Office that it needs to carry out its
review under NEPA. After all Joint Reviews are conducted, the Field
Office shall complete the environmental reviews before funding
decisions are made and announced and before HAs are invited to
submit CIAP budgets. Therefore, in requesting CIAP budgets, the
Field Office shall specify any HA modification or elimination of
activities or expenditures that the Field Office has determined,
after review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or
related laws, to have an unacceptable environmental impact. Upon
approval of the CIAP budget, the Field Office shall send an approval
letter to the HA which includes notification that HUD has complied
with its responsibilities under 24 CFR 905.120(a) or 24 CFR
968.110(c) and (d) before entering into an ACC amendment with the
HA.
(i) Declaration of Trust. Where the Field Office determines that
a Declaration of Trust is not in place or is not current, the HA
shall execute and file for record a Declaration of Trust as provided
under the ACC to protect the rights and interests of HUD throughout
the 20-year period during which the HA is obliged to operate its
developments in accordance with the ACC, the Act, and HUD
regulations and requirements. HUD has determined that its interest
in Mutual Help units is sufficiently protected without the further
requirement of a Declaration of Trust; therefore, a Declaration of
Trust is not required for Mutual Help Units.
(j) ``Fast Tracking'' Applications. Emergency applications do
not have to be processed within the normal processing time allowed
for other applications. Where an immediate hazard must be addressed,
HA applications may be submitted and processed at any time during
the year when funds are available. The Field Office shall ``fast
track'' the processing of these emergency applications so that fund
reservation may occur as soon as possible.
V. Other Program Items
(a) Turnkey III Developments.
(1) General. Eligible physical improvement costs for existing
Turnkey III developments are limited to work items under Emergency
Modernization or Other Modernization which are not the
responsibility of the homebuyer families and which are related to
health and safety, correction of development deficiencies, physical
accessibility, energy audits and cost-effective energy conservation
measures, or LBP testing, interim containment, professional risk
assessment and abatement. In addition, eligible costs include
management improvements under the modernization type of Other
Modernization. Turnkey III units which have been paid off, but not
conveyed, are eligible for funding, but if funded, the modernization
work must be completed before conveyance. The cost of the physical
and management improvements shall not increase the purchase price
and amortization period for the homebuyer families.
(2) Ineligible Costs. Nonroutine maintenance or replacements,
dwelling additions, and items that are the responsibility of the
homebuyer families are ineligible costs.
(3) Exception of vacant or non-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 [[Page 14544]] 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. Mutual Help units which have been paid off,
but not conveyed, are eligible for funding, but if funded, the
modernization work must be completed before conveyance.
(c) Professional Risk Assessment for LBP. A set-aside may be
made available for LBP professional risk assessments under a
separate NOFA and Processing Notice. HAs with pre-1980 family
developments are strongly encouraged to apply for these funds to
conduct LBP professional risk assessments.
(d) In-Place Management (Interim Containment of LBP). Where the
results of the LBP professional risk assessment recommend that the
HA undertake in-place management measures, the HA is strongly
encouraged to apply for CIAP funds to carry out such measures.
However, if the HA is not successful in obtaining CIAP funds for 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 1994, the HA may request FY 1995 CIAP funds to
complete the items which were eliminated as a result of the budget
revision.
(e) Long-Term Viability and Reasonable Cost.
(1) Long-Term Viability. On Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application,
the HA certifies whether the developments proposed for modernization
have long-term viability, including prospects for full occupancy.
If, during Joint Review, the HA or Field Office believes that a
particular development may not have long-term viability, the Field
Office shall make a final viability determination. If the Field
Office determines that a development does not have long-term
viability, the Field Office shall only approve Emergency
Modernization or nonemergency funding necessary to maintain
habitability until the demolition or disposition application is
approved and residents can be relocated. In making the final
viability determination, the Field Office shall consider whether:
(i) Any special or unusual conditions have been adequately
explained, all work has been justified as necessary to meet the
modernization and energy conservation standards, including
development specific work necessary to blend the development in with
the design and architecture of the neighborhood; and
(ii) Reasonable cost estimates have been provided, and every
effort has been made to reduce costs; and
(iii) Rehabilitation of the existing development is more cost-
effective in the long-term than construction or acquisition of
replacement housing; or
(iv) There are no practical alternatives for replacement
housing.
(2) Reasonable Cost. During the Joint Review, the Field Office
shall determine reasonable cost for the proposed work, using one of
the following methods: (i) unfunded hard cost of 90 percent or less
of computed Total Development Cost (TDC), which is easier to apply
when comprehensive-type modernization is proposed; or (ii) the
reasonableness of the estimated cost of individual work items, using
national indices, such as R.S. Means Index, the Dodge Report or
Marshall and Swift, adjusted to reflect local conditions and actual
experience, which is easier to apply when piecemeal-type
modernization is proposed. No computation of the TDC is required
where the estimated per unit unfunded hard cost is equal to or less
than the per unit TDC for the smallest bedroom size at the
development.
(f) Use of Dwelling Units for Economic 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) Duplication of Funding. The HA shall not receive duplicate
funding for the same work item or activity under any circumstance
and shall establish controls to assure that an activity, program, or
project that is funded under any other HUD program, shall not be
funded by CIAP.
VI. Application Deadline Date and Summary of FY 1995 CIAP
Processing Steps
The deadline date for submission of the FY 1995 CIAP Application
will be established in the NOFA to be published at a future date.
Dates for other processing steps will be established by each Field
Office to reflect local workload issues.
Summary of Processing Steps
1. HA submits CIAP Application.
2. Field Office conducts completeness review and requests
corrections to deficient applications.
3. HA submits corrections to deficient applications within 14
calendar days of notification from Field Office.
4. Field Office conducts eligibility review and technical review
(rating and ranking) and makes Joint Review selections.
5. Field Office completes Joint Reviews, environmental reviews
and FHEO review.
6. Field Office makes funding decisions and forwards
Congressional notifications to Headquarters.
7. Congressional notification is completed and Field Office
notifies HA of funding decisions.
8. HA submits additional documents as required in section IV(f).
9. Field Office completes fund reservations and forwards ACC
amendment to HA for signature and return.
10. Field Office executes ACC amendment and HA begins
implementation.
VII. Other Matters
(a) Environmental Impact. A Finding of No Significant Impact
with respect to the environment will be made in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR Part 50 implementing section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) in
connection with issuance of the FY 1995 NOFA for this program. The
Finding of No Significant Impact will be available for public
inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at
the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room
10276, Washington, DC 20410.
(b) Federalism Impact. The General Counsel, as the designated
Official under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612, Federalism,
has determined that the policies and procedures contained in this
Notice will not have substantial direct effects on States or their
political subdivisions, or the relationship between the federal
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. As a
result, the Notice is not subject to review under the Order.
(c) Impact on the Family. The General Counsel, as the Designated
Official for Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that
this Notice will likely have a beneficial impact on family
formation, maintenance and general well-being. Accordingly, since
the impact on the family is beneficial, no further review is
considered necessary.
(d) Accountability in the Provision of HUD Assistance. The
Department has promulgated a final rule to implement section 102 of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989
(HUD Reform Act). The final rule is codified at 24 CFR Part 12.
Section 102 contains a number of provisions that are designed to
ensure greater accountability and integrity in the provision of
certain types of assistance administered by the Department. On
January 16, 1992, the Department published at 57 FR 1942, additional
information that gave the public (including applicants for, and
recipients of, HUD assistance) further information on the
implementation, public access, and disclosure requirements of
section 102. The documentation, public access, and disclosure
requirements of section 102 are applicable to assistance awarded
under the NOFA to be published as follows:
(1) Documentation and Public Access. The Department will ensure
that documentation and other information regarding each application
submitted pursuant to the NOFA to be published are sufficient to
indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or denied.
This material, including any letters of support, will be made
available for public inspection for a five-year period beginning not
less than 30 days after the award of the [[Page 14545]] assistance.
Material will be made available in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at
24 CFR Part 15. In addition, HUD will include the recipients of
assistance pursuant to the NOFA in its quarterly Federal Register
notice of all recipients of HUD assistance awarded on a competitive
basis. (See 24 CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b), and the notice published
in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for
further information on these requirements.)
(2) HUD Responsibilities--Disclosures. The Department will make
available to the public for five years all applicant disclosure
reports (Form HUD-2880) submitted in connection with the NOFA to be
published. Update reports (also Form HUD-2880) will be made
available along with the applicant disclosure reports, but in no
case for a period less than three years. All reports, both applicant
disclosures and updates, will be made available in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing
regulations at 24 CFR Part 15. (See 24 CFR Part 12, Subpart C, and
the notice published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57
FR 1942), for further information on these disclosure requirements.)
(e) Prohibition Against Advance Information on Funding
Decisions.
HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the HUD Reform Act,
codified as 24 CFR Part 4, will apply to the funding competition to
be announced under the separately published NOFA. The requirements
of the rule continue to apply until the announcement of the
selection of successful applicants. Also refer to a final rule
amending Part 4 published in the Federal Register on November 19,
1993 (58 FR 61016), regarding the regulation of certain conduct by
HUD employees and by applicants for HUD assistance during the
selection process for the award of financial assistance by HUD.
HUD employees involved in the review of applications and in the
making of funding decisions are limited by Part 4 from providing
advance information to any person (other than an authorized employee
of HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from otherwise giving any
applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons who apply for
assistance in this competition should confine their inquiries to the
subject areas permitted under 24 CFR Part 4.
Applicants who have questions should contact the HUD Office of
Ethics at (202) 708-3815 (voice), (202) 708-1112 (TDD). These are
not toll-free numbers. The Office of Ethics can provide information
of a general nature to HUD employees, as well. However, a HUD
employee who has specific program questions, such as whether
particular subject matter can be discussed with persons outside the
Department, should contact his or her Field Office Counsel or
Headquarters Counsel for the program to which the question pertains.
(f) Prohibition Against Lobbying of HUD Personnel.
Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act added a new Section 13 of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531 et
seq.). Section 13 contains two provisions dealing with efforts to
influence HUD's decisions with respect to financial assistance. The
first imposes disclosure requirements on those who are typically
involved in these efforts--those who pay others to influence the
award of assistance or the taking of a management action by the
Department and those who are paid to provide the influence. The
second restricts the payment of fees to those who are paid to
influence the award of HUD assistance, if the fees are tied to the
number of housing units received or are based on the amount of
assistance received, or if they are contingent upon the receipt of
assistance.
HUD regulations implementing Section 13 are at 24 CFR Part 86.
If readers are involved in any efforts to influence the Department
in these ways, they are urged to read the regulation, particularly
the examples contained in Appendix A of the rule.
A final rule published in the Federal Register on September 7,
1993, amended the definition of ``person'' to exclude from coverage
a State or local government, or the officer or employee of a State
or local government or housing finance agency thereof who is engaged
in the official business of the State or local government.
Any questions regarding the rule should be directed to the
Office of Ethics, Room 2158, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451, Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410-3000.
Telephone: (202) 708-3815 (voice); (202) 708-1112 (TDD). These are
not toll-free numbers. Forms necessary for compliance with the rule
may be obtained from the local HUD Office.
(g) Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities.
The use of funds awarded under the NOFA to be published is
subject to the disclosure requirements and prohibitions of Section
319 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the HUD
implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 87. These authorities
prohibit recipients of federal contracts, grants or loans from using
appropriated funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative
Branches of the Federal Government in connection with a specific
contract, grant or loan. The prohibition also covers the awarding of
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or loans unless the
recipient has made an acceptable certification regarding lobbying.
Under 24 CFR Part 87, applicants, recipients and subrecipients of
assistance exceeding $100,000 must certify that no federal funds
have been or will be spent on lobbying activities in connection with
the assistance.
IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a result of the exercise
of the tribe's sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the
Byrd Amendment, but IHAs established under State law are not
excluded from the statute's coverage.
If the amount applied for is greater than $100,000, the
certification is required at the time application for funds is made
that federally appropriated funds are not being or have not been
used in violation of the Byrd Amendment. If the amount applied for
is greater than $100,000 and the HA has made or has agreed to make
any payment using nonappropriated funds for lobbying activity, as
described in 24 CFR Part 87 (Byrd Amendment), the submission also
must include the SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. The HA
determines if the submission of the SF-LLL is applicable.
(h) Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. The information
collection requirements contained in this NOFA have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3504(h) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1989 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and have
been assigned OMB control number 2577-0044.
VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number is
14.852.
Dated: January 9, 1995.
Joseph Shuldiner,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 95-6562 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P