[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42108-42117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5173-N-05]


Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool: 
Solicitation of Comment--30-Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995

AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice solicits public comment, for a period of 30 days, 
consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), on the 
Assessment Tool that would be provided by HUD for use by program 
participants in completing their assessment of fair housing as required 
by HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule. The purpose 
of the assessment of fair housing (AFH) is to aid HUD program 
participants in carrying out their statutory duty to affirmatively 
further fair housing. The Assessment Tool is designed to guide HUD 
program participants in undertaking a more thorough evaluation of fair 
housing issues in their respective jurisdictions, and setting goals to 
overcome issues that are barriers, among other things, to fair housing 
choice and opportunity. As stated in HUD's September 26, 2014, notice, 
this Assessment Tool is designed primarily for entitlement 
jurisdictions and for entitlement jurisdictions partnering with public 
housing agencies to use in submitting an AFH. The ``primary'' design is 
also for local governments and consortia required to submit 
consolidated plans under HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations. Although 
in the September 26, 2014, notice, HUD previously stated this 
assessment tool would not be used for regional collaborations, HUD 
believes that, given the changes made to this assessment tool based on 
comments received, this assessment tool can also be used for regional 
collaborations.
    The Assessment Tool published on September 26, 2014 provided a 60-
day comment period, which commenced the notice and comment process 
required by the PRA. This 30-day notice completes the public comment 
process required by the PRA. With the issuance of this notice, and 
following consideration of public comments received in response to this 
notice, HUD will seek approval of the Assessment Tool from the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) and assignment of an OMB control number. 
In accordance with the PRA, the Assessment Tool will undergo this 
public comment process every 3 years to retain OMB approval.
    With this 30-day notice, HUD is publishing two formats of the same 
assessment tool, each with the same content but slightly different 
organization. Specifically, the placement of the contributing factor 
analysis is the only difference between the two formats of the 
assessment tool. HUD is seeking comments on which format would be the 
most effective and efficient for program participants to use in 
conducting the required analysis of contributing factors and related 
fair housing issues.

DATES: Comment Due Date: August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 
10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the 
above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting 
public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number 
and title.
    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by 
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, 
Washington, DC 20410-0500.
    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit 
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit 
comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the 
commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely 
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to 
the public. Comments submitted electronically through the 
www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and 
interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the 
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:  To receive consideration as public comments, comments 
must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. 
Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of 
the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.
    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted 
comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for

[[Page 42109]]

public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the 
above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters 
building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be 
scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is 
not a toll-free number). Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing 
and individuals with speech impairments may access this number via TTY 
by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all 
comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General 
Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 
10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-1793 (this 
is not a toll-free number). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and 
persons with speech impairments may access this number through TTY by 
calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710, HUD published, for public 
comment, a proposed rule entitled ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair 
Housing'' (AFFH). The July 19, 2013, AFFH rule proposed a new approach 
that would enable program participants to more fully incorporate fair 
housing considerations into their existing planning processes and 
assist them in complying with their duty to affirmatively further fair 
housing as required by the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil 
Rights Act) and other authorities. The new process, the Assessment of 
Fair Housing (AFH), builds upon and refines the prior fair housing 
planning process, called the analysis of impediments (AI). As part of 
the new AFH process HUD advised that it would issue an ``Assessment 
Tool'' for use by program participants in completing and submitting 
their AFHs. The Assessment Tool, which includes instructions and 
nationally-uniform data provided by HUD, consists of a series of 
questions designed to help program participants identify, among other 
things, areas of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, 
patterns of integration and segregation, disparities in access to 
opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.
    At the time of publication of the July 19, 2013, AFFH proposed 
rule, HUD also posted and sought public comment on a draft ``Data 
Documentation'' paper online at www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html 
(under the heading Data Methodology). HUD requested public comments on 
the categories, sources, and format of data that would be provided by 
HUD to program participants to assist them in completing their AFH, and 
many program participants responded with comments on the Data 
Documentation paper.
    The Assessment Tool that HUD issued for public comment on September 
26, 2014 (79 FR 57949) (Initial Assessment Tool), and found at 
www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html was, as HUD noted in the Summary 
of this notice, primarily designed for use by entitlement jurisdictions 
and by entitlement jurisdictions and PHAs that are jointly submitting 
an AFH. As further noted in the Summary, the Assessment Tool, which was 
the subject of the September 26, 2014, notice and this notice, is also 
designed for use by local governments and consortia required to submit 
consolidated plans under HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations, codified 
in 24 CFR part 91, specifically subparts C and E, which pertain to 
local governments and consortia.\1\ In this notice, HUD uses the term 
``entitlement jurisdictions'' to refer to all jurisdictions for which 
this tool is primarily designed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In HUD's AFFH proposed rule published on July 19, 2013, at 
78 FR 43710, HUD noted that a consortium participating in HUD's HOME 
Investment Partnerships program (HOME program), and which term 
(consortium) is defined 24 CFR 91.5, must submit an AFH. HUD stated 
that a HOME consortium is considered a single unit of general local 
government (see 78 FR at 43731).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the September 26, 2014, notice HUD also advised that the Initial 
Assessment Tool was not the tool that would be used by the following 
program participants: PHAs that would not be making a joint submission; 
States; and Insular Areas. While the Initial Assessment Tool was 
tailored primarily for entitlement jurisdictions and joint submissions 
by entitlement jurisdictions and PHAs, HUD invited comments by all 
types of program participants, as it, ``present[ed] the basic structure 
of the Assessment Tool to be used by all program participants, and is 
illustrative of the questions that will be asked of all program 
participants.''
    HUD followed the September 26, 2014, publication with a notice 
published on January 15, 2015, at 80 FR 2062, which solicited public 
comment on a staggered submission deadline for AFHs to be submitted for 
specific types of program participants. In the January 2015 notice, HUD 
advised that it was considering providing certain HUD program 
participants--States, Insular Areas, qualified PHAs,\2\ and 
jurisdictions receiving a small Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) grant with the option of submitting their first AFH at a date 
later than would otherwise be required for other program participants. 
In addition to proposing a staggered submission deadline, HUD had 
previously announced that it would be developing separate assessment 
tools for certain types of program participants, including States and 
insular areas, PHAs and program participants submitting AFHs in a 
regional collaboration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 2702 of title II of the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act (HERA) defined ``qualified PHAs'' as PHAs that have 
fewer than 550 units, including public housing and section 8 
vouchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The 60-Day Notice and Initial Assessment Tool

    In developing the assessment tool, HUD had four key objectives in 
mind. First, the assessment tool must ask questions that would be 
sufficient to enable program participants to perform a meaningful 
assessment of key fair housing issues and contributing factors \3\ and 
set meaningful fair housing goals and priorities. Second, the 
assessment tool must clearly convey the analysis of fair housing issues 
and contributing factors that program participants must undertake in 
order for an AFH to be accepted by HUD. Third, the assessment tool must 
be designed so program participants would be able to use it to prepare 
an AFH that would be accepted by HUD without unnecessary burden. 
Fourth, the assessment tool must facilitate HUD's review of the AFHs 
submitted by program participants, since the Affirmatively Furthering 
Fair Housing rule requires HUD to determine within a certain period of 
time whether to accept or not accept each AFH or revised AFH submitted 
to HUD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``fair housing determinants'' was changed to ``fair 
housing contributing factors'' in the AFFH final rule. This notice 
therefore uses the term ``fair housing contributing factors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these objectives in mind, HUD issued the Initial Assessment 
Tool for public comment for a period of 60 days. The 60-day notice then 
provided a detailed description of the five main sections of the 
Assessment Tool: Section I--Cover Sheet and Certification; Section II--
Executive Summary; Section III--Community Participation Process; 
Section IV--Analysis; and Section V--Fair Housing Goals and Priorities.
    In the 60-day notice, in addition to soliciting comment on the 
Initial Assessment Tool overall, HUD specifically solicited comments on 
the following topics:

[[Page 42110]]

    1. The description of local data and local knowledge;
    2. The clarity of the options for including information about the 
community participation in the AFH;
    3. The adequacy of the list of determinants (now contributing 
factors) in order to produce a meaningful AFH;
    4. Aspects of the Publicly Supported Housing (PSH) subsection, 
specifically: (a) The type of program participant required to include 
project-level data in tabular format for various categories of PSH; (b) 
the formatting of the tables; (c) the most effective ways of providing 
assessment of project-level data in an Assessment Tool used by States;
    5. Whether HUD inadvertently failed to consider fair housing issues 
relating to individuals with disabilities by considering Disability and 
Access issues separately;
    6. The sufficiency and clarity of the Initial Assessment Tool for 
addressing additional fair housing issues and inability to answer 
questions due to a lack of data and whether HUD should include 
instructions on how to address these issues;
    7. The content of the tool, the clarity of the questions, and areas 
of information that are included in the tool, but that are unnecessary 
to conduct a meaningful AFH, and areas that HUD may have overlooked 
that should be included in the Initial Assessment Tool;
    8. Whether the Initial Assessment Tool can be used by program 
participants independently, without the need to rely on outside 
contractors to conduct an AFH;
    9. Any additional instructions that would be helpful;
    10. The costs associated with gathering and analyzing data 
necessary for conducting an AFH;
    11. Whether program participants anticipate using federal funds to 
complete an AFH;
    12. What strategies program participants can use to reduce the cost 
and burden of completing an AFH and how to reduce costs of obtaining 
local data and local knowledge;
    13. How do program participants envision joint participation in 
completing the AFH;
    14. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the agency and whether it will have practical 
utility;
    15. The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
collecting the information;
    16. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    17. Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on those who are 
required to respond.

III. Public Comments on the 60-Day Notice

    By the close of the comment period on November 25, 2015, HUD 
received 198 public comments. Commenters included PHAs, CDBG grantees, 
including States and local governments, advocacy groups, nonprofit 
organizations, and various individuals. All public comments received in 
response to the 60-day notice can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2014-0080-0001. HUD 
appreciates the time and effort of all the public commenters in 
preparing their comments. The information was helpful and valuable.
    This section provides a summary of the most significant issues 
raised by commenters and HUD's responses, including where HUD made 
changes to the Assessment Tool.

Overview of Significant Issues Raised

    The majority of comments offered positive and constructive 
recommendations for improving the Assessment Tool. Many commenters 
provided suggestions for expanding certain portions of the assessment 
tool and for improving the questions and analysis required. Many 
comments also raised concerns about the assessment tool's burden, the 
timing of introducing a new analysis mechanism, the reliability of the 
data to be provided, and its content and the impact on specific types 
of program participants, including small entities, States, and others. 
The areas of concern identified by the majority of commenters are 
discussed below.
Burden
    Many commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool imposes a 
significant burden on program participants in several ways. They stated 
that the amount of time and resources required to complete the Initial 
Assessment Tool itself is unduly burdensome, especially in light of the 
amount of local data and local knowledge that program participants must 
use. Commenters also stated that the community participation process 
could be very burdensome, especially for jurisdictions such as an 
entire State. Commenters stated that the additional time and resources 
required to conduct the type of community participation contemplated 
would be unduly burdensome. Commenters further stated that the amount 
of information, both HUD-provided data supplemented by local data and 
local knowledge, and the number of questions, makes the Initial 
Assessment Tool unreasonably complex and would likely result in the 
additional burden of having to hire a consultant in order to complete 
the AFH.
    Commenters also stated that the Initial Assessment Tool would be 
overly and unnecessarily burdensome on States. While commenters stated 
that they understood there would be a separate assessment tool for 
States, they nevertheless expressed concern with having to analyze data 
that entitlement jurisdictions in their respective States may have 
already analyzed in preparing their own AFHs. The commenters stated 
that States should not have to engage in duplicative, redundant 
analyses.
    Other commenter stated that they thought the Initial Assessment 
Tool would clarify the ``region'' to be analyzed by program 
participants because the rule did not provide sufficient specificity.
Timing
    Several commenters stated that the release of the Initial 
Assessment Tool is premature. They stated that the AFFH rule should be 
finalized, the development of the other types of assessment tools to be 
used should be completed, and that HUD should wait to complete 
development of the Assessment Tool based on the recent disparate impact 
case and the upcoming Supreme Court case, which was heard in early 2015 
and decided June 25, 2015. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fair 
Housing Act prohibits discrimination caused by policies or practices 
that have an unjustified disparate impact because of race, color, 
religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. Texas 
Dep't of Hous. & Cmty Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys Project, No. 13-1371, 
2015 U.S. LEXIS 4249 (June 25, 2015). In that decision, the Supreme 
Court also acknowledged ``the Fair Housing Act's continuing role in 
moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.'' Id. at *42.
Data
    Commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool requires too 
much local data and local knowledge. Other commenters took issue with 
the data provided by HUD, stating that, in the past, HUD data has been 
inaccurate and out of date. Commenters stated that the HUD-provided 
data is unwieldy and difficult to understand. Several commenters 
specifically referred to the efficacy of using dot density maps and the 
requirement that the analysis be conducted by neighborhood when the 
data is at the Census tract level.
    Commenters stated that, assuming the HUD-provided data is reliable, 
the data is most useful at the regional level, but

[[Page 42111]]

will be inefficient for use by States. Other commenters requested that 
the HUD-provided data include datasets of local information that are 
already available to HUD, so that program participants need not expend 
additional resources to gather such data.
Content of the Assessment Tool
    Several commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool is too 
subjective, stating that the Initial Assessment Tool makes an 
inappropriate leap from correlation to causation. The commenters stated 
that there may be alternative causes for the demographic makeup of a 
certain jurisdiction. Commenters requested that HUD eliminate any 
questions in the Initial Assessment Tool requiring an essay-type of 
response, which, the commenters stated, only adds to the subjective 
nature of the analysis. These commenters stated that they believe the 
Initial Assessment Tool will not achieve its stated objective because 
it promotes the creation of policy based on incomplete, and often 
subjective, information.
    Commenters stated that they found the Initial Assessment Tool to be 
incomplete. These commenters stated that HUD should be asking different 
questions than those posed in the Initial Assessment Tool, or should 
add questions to account for situations that HUD may have overlooked. 
For example, several commenters expressed appreciation for the separate 
section in the Initial Assessment Tool dedicated to Disability and 
Access Issues. However, other commenters stated that disability should 
be a topic that is discussed throughout the Initial Assessment Tool and 
not confined to one section.
    Other commenters stated that HUD does not adequately take into 
account the issues of housing opportunity and equity affecting women, 
especially in terms of domestic and sexual violence issues, and 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) individuals and families. 
Commenters stated that while there is a lack of data on LGBT 
individuals and families at the national level, the next version of the 
assessment tool could provide a mechanism to begin gathering such data. 
Commenters also made recommendations about items that should be added 
to the list of contributing factors and suggested edits to the existing 
language in the Initial Assessment Tool.
    Several commenters raised concerns about the Dissimilarity Index. 
The commenters stated that the next version of the assessment tool 
should use multiple measures of segregation, because, according to the 
commenters, the Dissimilarity Index alone is insufficient to fully 
understand residential segregation patterns in a community and region. 
The commenters recommended that HUD include additional measures of 
segregation besides only providing the Dissimilarity Index.
    Many commenters stated that the lack of a section on ``Action 
Steps'' to be taken by program participants weakens the overall purpose 
of the AFH, and inclusion of such a section would aid in enforcement.
    Other commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool lacked 
sufficient guidance for program participants. The commenters requested 
that HUD define certain terms, add clearer instructions, provide hands-
on, in-person training for completing the tool, and develop a helpline 
at HUD to aid program participants in navigating the complexities of 
the tool and the data provided.
Small Entities, Joint Participation, and Local Control Issues
    Commenters that are or that represent small PHAs and small 
jurisdictions stated that the Initial Assessment Tool would not be 
useful for them, and would impose a significant burden. These 
commenters stated that one way to deal with this burden would be for 
HUD to encourage, or even require, program participants to complete the 
AFH jointly in order to reduce the costs of the community participation 
process and the actual analysis conducted in the Initial Assessment 
Tool. In contrast, other commenters who stated they would be willing to 
participate in jointly submitting an AFH raised concerns about doing so 
and signing a joint certification. The commenters requested that HUD 
modify the certification language because the commenters stated that 
they cannot attest to the veracity of the information provided by other 
program participants.
    In a similar vein, commenters, mostly States and local governments, 
expressed concern that the AFH will result in a loss of local control 
and will interfere with local decision-making. States and local 
governments, and PHAs all submitted comments relating to their 
respective scopes of authority with respect to assessing fair housing 
choice. These commenters stated that the Assessment Tool appears to be 
asking program participants to conduct an analysis and take actions 
beyond the scope of their authority in order to implement plans to 
effect change with respect to fair housing. The commenters stated that 
they lack control over other entities and, consequently, cannot be 
expected to implement plans relating to fair housing.

III. This 30-Day Notice and Revised Assessment Tool

A. Changes to the Assessment Tool

General Approach to Content
    In response to public comment HUD has made several changes to the 
Initial Assessment Tool, which HUD believes address many of the burden 
and content concerns expressed by the commenters. These changes have 
resulted in a revised Assessment Tool (Revised Assessment Tool) that is 
shorter in length, contains fewer questions, and clarifies many of the 
questions that were in the previous version, and reduces the need for 
some duplicative analysis. The Revised Assessment Tool also includes 
detailed instructions to further assist program participants in 
answering the questions in the AFH and guide them on how to use the 
HUD-provided data. It also includes an Appendix providing further 
detail on each of the Contributing Factors referenced in the tool.
    HUD is also providing a link for program participants and the 
public to the Geospatial Mapping Tool (Data Tool), which contains 
interactive maps and exportable tables. The Data Tool also attempts to 
provide greater clarity in response to commenters' concerns about the 
area of analysis, and provides data for the region based on the program 
participant's Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The Data Tool will 
also be posted online at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html.
    The Data Tool contains the same data as that which was released on 
September 26, 2014, with some minor changes. Now, the data is 
accessible through an interactive application on a Web-based interface. 
Additionally, Table 14 now includes two transit-related indices.
    HUD anticipates further changes to the Data Tool prior to its final 
release for use by program participants. Some of those anticipated 
changes include:
     Consolidating several redundant tables;
     Modifications to improve the visual presentation of the 
maps (i.e., contrast and sizes of dots and icons on maps);
     Improved Data Tool functionality to allow the user to 
better access data on: (1) Locations and demographics of publicly 
supported housing developments, including census tracts; and (2) the 
ability to export maps and tables by the program participant for use 
during the community participation process and as part of the AFH 
submission to HUD. The export

[[Page 42112]]

functionality would apply to both maps and tables. It would not only 
provide access to the data, but also allow users to filter and sort 
demographic data for both developments and census tracts by common 
characteristics. The functionality would be similar to that in HUD's 
CPD Maps tool. This is intended to reduce burden in using the HUD-
provided data to answer the required questions in the Assessment Tool 
while providing the data that will enable program participants to 
conduct analyses required to identify key fair housing issues;
     Addition of maps to match updates in the Opportunity 
Indices;
     Additional datasets to correspond with the analysis in the 
Assessment Tool;
     Minor changes in terminology to match with the AFH Tool 
and final rule; and
     Minor changes in descriptions of the data provided (i.e., 
``top 5'' becoming ``5 most populous'').
    The Revised Assessment Tool includes substantial revisions to the 
questions that were in the Initial Assessment Tool. HUD has reduced the 
total number of questions in the analysis section while improving the 
clarity and utility of the analysis that is required. The Initial 
Assessment Tool would have required contributing factors to be 
identified twice, once separately and again in answering the specific 
questions. The Revised Assessment Tool only requires that contributing 
factors be identified once. The contributing factors analysis has also 
been revised by removing the previous requirement to list all 
contributing factors and then rate their degree of significance. In the 
Revised Assessment Tool, program participants are required to identify 
those contributing factors that significantly impact specific fair 
housing issues, and for the purposes of setting goals prioritize them, 
giving the highest priority to those factors that limit or deny fair 
housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact 
compliance with fair housing or civil rights law.
    In the Revised Assessment Tool, program participants are asked to 
provide one overarching narrative to justify the prioritization of 
contributing factors, rather than a separate explanation for each 
factor and that factor's level of significance as presented in the 
Initial Assessment Tool. In addition, the requirement to prioritize 
goals that was in the Initial Assessment Tool is removed in the Revised 
Assessment Tool. HUD expects that these changes will reduce burden 
while still providing the needed information and analysis regarding 
contributing factors. So long as program participants' goals address 
significant contributing factors and related fair housing issues, and 
can be reasonably expected to affirmatively further fair housing, 
participants' goals can vary.
    In the Initial Assessment Tool, separate questions that asked about 
different protected classes have been combined in the Revised 
Assessment Tool into one question about all protected classes for which 
data are provided (for example, race, national origin, and limited 
English proficiency (LEP)). With this change, program participants can 
now formulate one answer taking into account all of the data at one 
time, rather than provide two or three separate answers.
    In the Revised Assessment Tool, the wording of certain questions in 
the analysis section was improved to remove unnecessary complexity and 
hone the analysis to have the greatest impact. Several questions were 
reworded to avoid any interpretation that HUD was asking program 
participants to prepare an ``inventory'' or long list of projects or 
developments. Other questions were revised because some program 
participants might construe them to include unintended requests for 
unduly complex analyses. HUD found that other questions were worded too 
broadly and left program participants with uncertainty as to the 
information needed. These questions were narrowed in scope. Throughout 
the Assessment, HUD made an effort to clarify questions so program 
participants would understand the question being asked and the analysis 
sought.
    In response to commenters concerns that the requirement to obtain 
and use local data was too burdensome, the AFFH Final Rule clarifies 
that ``local data'' refer to ``metrics, statistics, and other 
quantified information, that are subject to a determination of 
statistical validity by HUD, relevant to the program participant's 
geographic areas of analysis,'' and are data ``that can be found 
through a reasonable amount of searching, are readily available at 
little or no cost, and are necessary for the completion of the AFH 
using the Assessment Tool.'' This clarification is based on the 
definition of local data included in the final rule, and referenced in 
the instructions, as data that is already available and easily 
accessible by the program participant, or data that can be made 
available at little or no cost. Local knowledge is also defined in the 
AFFH final rule as information to be provided by the program 
participant that relates to the participant's geographic areas of 
analysis and that is relevant to the program participant's AFH, is 
known or becomes known to the program participant, and is necessary for 
the completion of the AFH using the Assessment Tool. The instructions 
in the Revised Assessment Tool elaborate on ``information'' as 
including laws and policies, common neighborhood or area names and 
borders, information about the housing market and housing stock. 
Program participants are also required to consider additional 
information obtained through the community participation and 
consultation process that is required by the rule.
    Additional comments were received on the Initial Assessment Tool 
requesting further instructions and guidance for program participants. 
Accordingly, instructions have been added to the Revised Assessment 
Tool. These instructions provide additional explanations on the use of 
local data and knowledge in addition to the HUD-provided data. The 
instructions link each question to the specific maps and data tables 
that are relevant to that question, along with additional 
considerations or examples that program participants should keep in 
mind when answering. These instructions add clarity and guidelines for 
effective use of the assessment tool. Additionally, HUD is providing an 
additional appendix in the Revised Assessment Tool, Appendix C, which 
contains short explanations of each contributing factor contained in 
the Revised Assessment Tool.
    The inclusion of instructions also allows HUD to remove blocks of 
references to maps and tables that were included in various places in 
the Initial Assessment Tool, and instead provides a list and short 
description of the data that will be available on the Data Tool in 
Appendix A (maps) and Appendix B (tables) of the Revised Assessment 
Tool. These references, while helpful, in some cases provided less 
guidance and had the effect of breaking up the flow of questions, with 
the result that the questions were difficult to comprehend and follow. 
By removing these references and including instructions HUD believes 
the Revised Assessment Tool is clearer and easier to understand and 
complete.
    In response to the Initial Assessment Tool, commenters requested 
more clarity regarding joint submissions. The instructions in the 
Revised Assessment Tool specify that, when submitting jointly, each 
program participant is responsible for identifying contributing factors 
and setting goals within its jurisdiction; however, program

[[Page 42113]]

participants submitting jointly are permitted to set joint goals where 
appropriate. The Initial Assessment Tool did not include this 
instruction.
Cover Sheet
    HUD is committed to assisting program participants in completing 
their assessment tool in a manner that will allow them to make progress 
in affirmatively furthering fair housing. While the Initial Assessment 
Tool provided, at part I item 12, for ``Departmental acceptance or 
rejection,'' the Revised Assessment Tool refers, at item 11, to 
``Departmental acceptance or non-acceptance.'' This change signifies 
that rather than ending the submission and review of the AFH, non-
acceptance will result in a process in which HUD works with the program 
participant by explaining the reasons for non-acceptance and provides 
the program participant with an opportunity to submit a revised AFH to 
address those concerns.
Executive Summary
    The Initial Assessment Tool only contained a heading of ``Executive 
Summary,'' but did not include any further guidance for program 
participants on what to include in the Executive Summary. The Revised 
Assessment Tool explains and clarifies the information that program 
participants should include in the Executive Summary.
Assessment of Past Goals and Actions
    The Initial Assessment Tool sought information, at the very end of 
the analysis, on past goals and actions, asking ``how has the 
experience . . . with past goals influenced the selection of current 
goals?'' HUD proposes to place this information at the beginning of the 
assessment rather than at the end, so that the assessment of current 
goals can be informed by past experience. Accordingly, the Revised 
Assessment Tool moves the assessment of past goals and actions to 
Section IV, immediately prior to the analysis.
Analysis
Segregation/Integration
    The Revised Assessment Tool simplifies this topic, which in the 
Initial Assessment Tool included segregation, integration, and racially 
and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPS) under one 
heading. However, since segregated neighborhoods may be R/ECAPs, but 
are not always R/ECAPS, the same analysis may not apply equally to 
segregation/integration and R/ECAPS. In order to facilitate the 
analysis in these cases, in the Revised Assessment Tool, R/ECAPS is 
moved to its own separate subsection, and the questions are narrowed in 
scope to reflect this change.
    Also, in the context of segregation/integration, the Initial 
Assessment Tool considered the Dissimilarity Index a topic area, B.1, 
but did not provide sufficient guidance as to how this topic was to be 
addressed. The Dissimilarity Index is a method of analyzing the degree 
of segregation or integration in a particular geographic area and 
serves as an analytical tool rather than being a distinct topic within 
the analysis. The instructions in the Revised Assessment Tool describe, 
in detail, how it should be appropriately used in conducting the 
analysis.
    In addition, the Revised Assessment Tool removed B.2., the separate 
Geographic Analysis subtopic, because a geography-based analysis is 
already required in the analysis of segregation/integration and R/ECAPS 
(and, indeed, throughout the assessment tool), and a separate topic on 
geography is redundant in this context.
R/ECAPs
    As previously discussed in this notice, HUD has created a separate 
subsection for R/ECAPs, instead of having the analysis be combined with 
the Segregation/Integration analysis. The Revised Assessment Tool 
contains questions specifically about R/ECAPs and the questions have 
been narrowed in scope from the Initial Assessment Tool.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
    In the Revised Assessment Tool, this topic is changed from the 
topic entitled ``Disparities in Access to Community Assets and Exposure 
to Adverse Community Factors'' in the Initial Assessment Tool to 
``Disparities in Access to Opportunity.'' Instead of two separate 
topics on disparities in access to community assets and exposure to 
adverse community factors, the Revised Assessment Tool combines the 
questions under these topics under a single heading. HUD has also 
consolidated and streamlined questions, including those on access to 
jobs, access to transportation, and exposure to poverty and 
environmental health hazards.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
    In the Revised Assessment Tool, HUD has consolidated certain 
questions in this section to eliminate duplication.
Publicly Supported Housing \4\ Analysis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``publicly supported housing'' refers to housing 
assisted with funding through federal, state, or local agencies or 
programs as well as housing that is financed or administered by or 
through any such agencies or programs. HUD is currently providing 
data on five specific categories of housing: Public Housing; 
Project-Based Section 8; other HUD multifamily housing (including 
Section 202--Supportive Housing for the Elderly, Section 811--
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities, and other 
multifamily assisted properties); Low Income Housing Tax Credit 
(LIHTC) housing; and Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Other publicly 
supported housing relevant to the analysis includes housing funded 
through state and local programs, other federal agencies, such as 
USDA and VA, or other HUD-funded housing not captured in the five 
categories listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Revised Assessment Tool, HUD makes several revisions to this 
subtopic. Under ``Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy,'' 
question ii, which in the Initial Assessment Tool was on ``the racial 
composition of occupants in publicly supported housing in R/ECAPs,'' is 
broadened in the Revised Assessment Tool to ``publicly supported 
housing demographics.'' This revision recognizes that segregation in 
housing can involve protected characteristics other than race.
    Also under this subtopic, question iii, iv, and v in the Initial 
Assessment Tool asked the same question about race or ethnicity of 
residents of public housing, other HUD multifamily developments, and 
project-based Section 8 housing, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 
(LIHTC) housing. The Revised Assessment Tool streamlines these 
questions into a single question to be answered with respect to each of 
the four categories of housing. Additionally the question itself is 
streamlined by removing a sentence about segregation that would be 
redundant of an earlier question under the same topic, and the wording 
of the subtopic has been simplified to be more understandable. HUD also 
determined that several questions relating to policies for various 
housing programs were more appropriately considered in the Contributing 
Factors analysis.
    The Revised Assessment Tool also includes properties converted 
under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) in new question 
(1)(b)(iv)(A).
    The Revised Assessment Tool also contains an analysis within the 
publicly supported housing section of disparities in access to 
opportunities for residents of publicly supported housing.
Disability and Access Analysis
    The Revised Assessment Tool removes an instruction that was

[[Page 42114]]

included in the Initial Assessment Tool that read:

    There are limited sources of nationally consistent data on the 
extent to which individuals with different types of disabilities are 
able to access housing and community assets. To complete this 
section, program participants should solicit input from individuals 
with disabilities and disability advocates, who often have the most 
relevant information on these topics.

This instruction was included in the Initial Assessment Tool to help 
explain why HUD was placing Disability and Access Issues in a separate 
section of the AFH analysis. However, HUD recognizes that this 
instruction in the Initial Assessment Tool may have been confusing to 
some public commenters and may have suggested that extra efforts to 
obtain local data and local knowledge would be required to complete the 
Disability and Access Issues section of the assessment tool. To 
eliminate the potential confusion that this instruction may have 
caused, the instruction in the Revised Assessment Tool identifies 
specific questions for which HUD provides data as well as those 
questions for which HUD does not have data. There is no requirement in 
the Disability and Access Issues section for program participants to 
make an extra effort to obtain specific local data. Instead, as 
required in all sections of the Assessment Tool, program participants 
are only required to obtain and use local data that can be found 
through a reasonable amount of search and are readily available at 
little or no cost.
    The Disability and Access Analysis section has been streamlined in 
the Revised Assessment Tool. A question on ``the principal challenges 
faced by persons with disabilities in the Jurisdiction and Region'' has 
been removed, as that question is answered by the discussion of the 
disparities in access to opportunity and the contributing factors 
within the same section. Additionally, the list of opportunity 
indicators (in the context of disparities in access to opportunity) is 
streamlined in the Revised Assessment Tool.
    In the list of ``Disability and Access Issues Contributing 
Factors,'' a new item on ``State or local laws, policies, or practices 
that discourage individuals with disabilities from being placed in or 
living in apartments, family homes, and other integrated settings'' is 
added in the Revised Assessment Tool. This addition recognizes that 
there can be laws, policies, or practices affecting persons with 
disabilities other than land use and zoning laws, especially in the 
context of the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 
581 (1999).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ HUD's Statement on the Role of Housing in Accomplishing the 
Goals of Olmstead can be found at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OlmsteadGuidnc060413.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis
    This section, which was titled ``Fair Housing Compliance and 
Infrastructure'' in the Initial Assessment Tool, has been abbreviated 
through the elimination of a question and the questions associated with 
the contributing factors, and has been renamed in the Revised 
Assessment Tool.
Contributing Factors
    As noted in the Summary above, HUD is providing two formats of the 
Revised Assessment Tool for public comment. The two formats do not 
differ in content or analysis required by the assessment tool, but do 
differ with respect to where the analysis of contributing factors 
occurs.
    Option A of the Revised Assessment Tool provides a categorized list 
of the most common contributing factors relating to all fair housing 
issues (but it is not an exhaustive list of all possible contributing 
factors) in one location following the analysis sections of 
Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, 
and Disproportionate Housing Needs. The same categorized list of 
contributing factors also follows each of the following sections: 
Publicly Supported Housing Analysis; Disability and Access Analysis; 
and Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources 
Analysis. In identifying contributing factors, program participants are 
instructed to note which fair housing issue(s) (Segregation/
Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and 
Disproportionate Housing Needs) the selected contributing factor 
impacts. Program participants must also include any other contributing 
factors impacting fair housing issues in their jurisdiction or region 
that are not included in the provided lists.
    Option B of the Revised Assessment Tool contains more discrete 
lists of the most common contributing factors (but each list is not an 
exhaustive list of all possible contributing factors) after each 
section of analysis: Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in 
Access to Opportunity, Disproportionate Housing Needs, Publicly 
Supported Housing Analysis, Disability and Access Analysis, and Fair 
Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis. For the 
last three sections of analysis, program participants are instructed to 
note which fair housing issue(s) (Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, 
Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing 
Needs) the selected contributing factor impacts. It is unnecessary to 
do this step for the first four sections of Option B because of the 
placement of the more discrete contributing factor lists after each of 
those sections. Program participants are also required to include any 
other contributing factors impacting fair housing issues in their 
jurisdiction or region that are not included in the provided lists.
    Both formats of the Revised Assessment Tool also contain short 
explanations of all the listed contributing factors in Appendix C. 
These explanations provide program participants with additional 
guidance about each contributing factor, which may enable program 
participants to make more informed selections of contributing factors 
when conducting their analyses.
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
    The Initial Assessment Tool contained a table that seemed 
confusing, as well as subjective questions that related to the 
selection and prioritization of contributing factors (then called 
determinants) and goals. The Revised Assessment Tool provides program 
participants with additional guidance on how to prioritize contributing 
factors, creating a more objective framework for analysis. 
Additionally, the requirement that goals also be prioritized has been 
removed. The Revised Assessment Tool provides a new table for program 
participants to use when setting goals. The table is designed to make 
it easier for program participants to set goals as required by the AFFH 
final rule.

IV. Findings and Certifications

Paperwork Reduction Act

    With HUD's decision to prepare program participant-specific 
assessment tools, the information collection burden addressed in this 
notice is limited to this assessment tool that has been designed for 
entitlement jurisdictions and the possibility of program participants 
seeking to collaborate regionally on an AFH. The public reporting is 
estimated to include the time for reviewing the instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.

[[Page 42115]]

    As HUD is furnishing a significant amount of data directly to the 
program participants, the burden in completing the Assessment Tool is 
reduced. Where HUD is not providing data, as noted earlier in this 
preamble, program participants are to consider and in some cases 
utilize local data and local knowledge that is available or can be 
found at little or no cost. This refers to data already publicly 
available and reasonably easy to access. This does not refer to obscure 
data that may not be known or easily found, that requires an 
independent data or information collection effort such as a local 
survey or that requires extensive analytical expertise or staff effort, 
for instance, in manipulating data sets or developing a complex 
methodology for analyzing complex data that may be available. With the 
data that HUD provides for use with the Assessment Tool supplemented by 
available local data and local knowledge, HUD does not anticipate the 
need for any program participant to turn to outside consultants to 
collect data and conduct the assessment.
    In addition, local knowledge may be supplemented with information 
received through the public participation process. In such cases, 
program participants retain the discretion to consider data or 
information collected through this process as well as the manner in 
which it may be incorporated into the AFH, whether in the Section V 
(Analysis) or Section III (Community Participation Process) of the AFH, 
with an option to include extensive or lengthy comments in appendices 
or attachments. In short, the receipt of extensive public comments may 
require staff effort to review and consider input but would not result 
in a mandate to incur substantial additional costs and staff hours to 
do so. To the contrary, the public participation process should be 
viewed as a tool to acquire additional information to reduce burden.
    It is also important to note that the estimate of burden, in terms 
of staff hours and costs, is not an estimate of net new costs. That is, 
the cost of conducting the existing AI that was a legal obligation 
prior to the AFFH final rule, and which is now replaced by the AFH, is 
not deducted from the new estimate. Costs for conducting the AI for 
entitlement jurisdictions varied substantially and often involved costs 
for hiring consultants and outside parties to conduct the AI. HUD is 
making substantial effort and investment, by providing the data and 
mapping tool and ongoing technical assistance to improve the entire AFH 
process as compared to the previous, often cumbersome AI process.
Changes in Estimate From the 60-Day PRA Notice
    Compared to previous hour/burden estimate in the 60-day notice, 
several key changes, as discussed above, were made in an effort to 
reduce the burden of the analysis required in the assessment. Changes 
in the methodology for the estimate of total burden compared to the 
estimate in the 60-day notice are discussed here below.
    In addition, HUD is revising the estimate of how many program 
participants will employ this version of the Assessment Tool, by 
lowering the estimate of the number of PHAs that will likely engage in 
joint collaboration with block grant entitlement jurisdictions from 
one-half of all PHAs to approximately one-third of all PHAs. Many PHAs 
will however continue to engage in joint participation for the 
completion of the AFH, for instance by partnering with a State entity, 
particularly in the case of small PHAs who are located outside the 
geographic area of an entitlement jurisdiction.
    In addition to the changes discussed, HUD has also increased its 
estimate of the burden involved in completing an AFH using this 
Assessment Tool. While the Revised Assessment Tool has been streamlined 
compared to the Initial Assessment Tool, many public comments were 
received during the 60-day public comment period stating that the 200-
hour per program participant estimate as too low. Accordingly, HUD has 
increased this to 240 hours per entitlement jurisdiction submitting an 
AFH. However, it is not likely that all entities participating together 
will all incur the full cost as they would if they were submitting an 
AFH separately. Thus, the hour estimate for PHA partners using this 
Assessment Tool is estimated at 120 hours, which would include fixed 
costs (e.g. staff training, conducting community participation, setting 
PHA goals) but includes reduced costs for performing the entirety of 
the assessment itself. It is also foreseeable that many entities will 
choose to divide responsibilities differently based on their local 
characteristics and that the split of hours used for the overall 
estimate may vary in many cases.
Costs in the First Year
    Approximately 25 entitlement jurisdictions will be required to 
submit an AFH in the summer and fall of 2016. In recognition of the 
need to mitigate any new burden associated with this effort, the AFFH 
final rule provides for staggered submission of AFHs. Staggered 
submission delays the application of the AFFH final rule for certain 
program participants, such as States, Insular Areas, and PHAs that opt 
to submit their own AFH without an entitlement jurisdiction partner. In 
addition, because of the Consolidated Plan cycle, a relatively small 
group of program participants will submit an AFH within the first year 
following the effective date of the AFFH final rule, but the majority 
of program participants will be submitting their AFH in later years. 
For program participants that will submit an AFH in later years, HUD 
anticipates taking additional steps to reduce regulatory burden, which 
may include dissemination of best practices obtained from the first 
round of AFH submissions.
    Assuming approximately the same number of PHAs choose to partner 
with entitlement jurisdictions in the first round of AFH submissions 
(joint AFH), the burden estimate for completing an AFH would increase 
somewhat, to take into account some additional effort for community 
participation and goal setting. However, the cost of conducting the 
analysis would be shared. For instance, PHAs could conduct the portion 
of the assessment related to publicly supported housing, with the 
entitlement jurisdiction conducting the bulk of the remainder of the 
analysis. There would be some costs for the two types of program 
participants to coordinate and communicate with each other, but in 
general total costs are expected to be less than if each program 
participant chose to complete their own separate AFH.
    Using the estimated hours of the effort required by type of program 
participant, and assuming approximately 25 entitlement jurisdictions 
will partner with 25 PHAs to submit joint AFHs, the first year's burden 
would be approximately 9,000 total hours (6,000 for 25 entitlement 
jurisdictions and 3,000 for 25 PHAs). This estimate is included within 
the total estimated burden.
    HUD has committed to provide technical assistance to program 
participants in completing their AFHs, and HUD anticipates targeted 
technical assistance for the relatively small number of program 
participants that would be required to submit an AFH in the first year 
following the effective date of the AFFH final rule. Such targeted 
technical assistance is anticipated to mitigate burden due to the 
change in the AFH from the AI model which relied heavily on the Fair 
Housing Planning Guide that was last issued in the 1990s.

[[Page 42116]]

Small Entities
    HUD has adopted several important changes to reduce burden for 
small entities in particular. HUD's AFFH final rule includes a delay in 
the submission date for small entitlement jurisdictions, defined as 
jurisdictions receiving $500,000 or less in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 CDBG 
funds, and small PHAs that are qualified PHAs (with respect to size are 
defined as PHAs with fewer than 550 units, including public housing and 
section 8 vouchers).
    The costs for entitlement jurisdictions receiving a small CDBG 
grant are included in the total burden estimate for this notice, even 
though they have a later AFH submission date and their costs will arise 
in later years. The burden estimate also allows that some qualified 
PHAs may choose to participate with entitlement jurisdictions that will 
use this Assessment Tool, which is the subject of this notice. However, 
because many such PHAs are located outside of metropolitan areas, HUD 
anticipates that these PHAs will choose, instead, to partner with a 
State. All program participants that are required to submit an AFH 
under the AFFH final rule are encouraged to partner with other entities 
to submit a joint AFH, or regional AFH.
    Also, as stated above, the estimated burden per program participant 
is an average within a wider range of actual costs. Smaller program 
participants will have much less total burden both in terms of staff 
hours and costs.
Encouraging Coordination
    All HUD program participants are greatly encouraged to issue joint 
AFHs and to consider regional cooperation. More coordination in the 
initial years between entitlement jurisdictions and PHAs will reduce 
total costs for both types of program participants in later years. In 
addition, combining and coordinating some elements of the Consolidated 
Plan and the PHA Plan will reduce total costs for both types of program 
participants. Completing an AFH in earlier years will also help reduce 
costs later, for instance by incorporating the completed analysis into 
later planning documents, such as the PHA plan, will help to better 
inform planning and goal setting decisions ahead of time.
    The Revised Assessment Tool is available at http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html. Information on the estimated public reporting 
burdens is provided in the following table.

                                       Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Estimated
                                                    Number of                      average  time     Estimated
                                   Number of      responses per    Frequency of         for         burden  (in
                                 respondents *     respondent      response **      requirement       hours)
                                                                                  (in hours) ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR Section Reference: Sec.    2,508 total                    1  Once every five  ..............  ..............
 5.154(d) (Assessment of Fair   entities (1,194                   years (or
 Housing).                      Entitlement                       three years in
                                Jurisdictions                     the case of 3-
                                and                               Year
                                approximately                     Consolidated
                                1,314 PHAs) *.                    Plans) **.
Entitlement Jurisdiction.....  1,194...........  ..............  ...............         *** 240         286,560
PHAs.........................  1,314 *.........  ..............  ...............        **** 120         157,680
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden.............  2,508...........         * 1,194  ...............  ..............         444,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This template is primarily designed for entitlement jurisdictions, of which there are approximately 1,194, and
  PHAs seeking to join with entitlement jurisdictions on a jointly submitted AFH. There are 3,942 PHAs and HUD
  estimates that approximately 1/3 of PHAs may seek to join with an entitlement jurisdiction and submit a joint
  AFH. The Total Number of responses is listed as 1,194 based on the number of entitlement jurisdictions that
  will submit AFHs using this Assessment Tool. The total hours and burden are based on the total estimated
  number of both types of program participants and the ``estimated average time'' listed for type of program
  participant.
** The timing of submission depends upon whether an entitlement jurisdiction submits its consolidated plan every
  3 years or every 5 years.
*** As noted in the explanatory text, this is an average within a range, with some AFH requiring either more or
  less time and effort based on jurisdiction size and complexity. The 240 hour estimate is an increase from the
  previous 200 hour estimate in the 60-Day PRA Notice, published on September 26, 2014. The increased time
  estimate takes into account public comments on the 60-Day Notice. For some joint participants, the division of
  hours may be higher or lower based on the program participant's areas of expertise, program operations or
  through mutual agreement.
**** PHAs participating in joint submissions using the Assessment Tool under this notice are assumed to have
  some fixed costs, including staff training, conducting community participation costs, but reduced costs for
  conducting the analysis in the assessment itself.

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is specifically 
soliciting comment from members of the public and affected program 
participants on the Assessment Tool on the following:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses;
    (5) Whether Option A or Option B of the Revised Assessment Tool 
would be the most effective and efficient way of conducting the 
analysis with respect to the selection of contributing factors. If one 
option is preferred over the other, please state the reasons for the 
preference;
    (6) While the Revised Assessment Tool was designed to set minimum 
AFH requirements as well as providing a straightforward process for HUD 
to review the AFH, how might program participants use the template to 
conduct broader collaborations including more comprehensive cross-
sector collaborations? How could the Revised Assessment Tool provide 
greater flexibility for participants to collaborate and expand upon the 
framework HUD has set in the Revised Assessment Tool? How could the 
Revised Assessment Tool allow program participants to incorporate 
better or additional data, alternative mapping tools, or other data 
presentations; and
    (7) Whether additional changes to the Revised Assessment Tool would 
better

[[Page 42117]]

facilitate regional collaboration among program participants.
    HUD encourages not only program participants but interested persons 
to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in 
this proposal. Comments must be received by August 17, 2015 to 
www.regulations.gov as provided under the ADDRESSES section of this 
notice. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number 
(FR-5173-N-05).

    Dated: July 13, 2015.
Camille E. Acevedo,
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2015-17463 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P