[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57601-57610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20125]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5173-N-10-B]


Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Local Government 
Assessment Tool--Information Collection Renewal: Solicitation of 
Comment 30-Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

AGENCY: Office of the Assistance Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity, 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 Local 
Government Assessment Tool, the assessment tool developed by HUD for 
use by local governments that receive Community Development Block 
Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency 
Solutions Grants (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 
(HOPWA) formula funding from HUD when conducting and submitting their 
own Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The Local Government Assessment 
Tool is also available for use for AFHs conducted by joint and regional 
collaborations between: (1) Such local governments; (2) one or more 
such local governments with one or more public housing agency (PHA) 
partners; and (3) other collaborations in which such a local government 
is designated as the lead for the collaboration.
    HUD is committed to issuing four assessment tools for its program 
participants covered by the AFFH final rule. One assessment tool is for 
use by local governments (Local Government Assessment Tool) that 
receive assistance under certain grant programs administered by HUD's 
Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), as well as by joint 
and regional collaborations between: (i) Local governments; (ii) one or 
more local governments and one or more public housing agency (PHA) 
partners; and (iii) other collaborations in which such a local 
government is designated as the lead for the collaboration. The second 
tool is for use by States and Insular Areas (State and Insular Area 
Assessment Tool) and joint collaborating partner local governments and/
or PHAs (including Qualified PHAs) where the State is designated as the 
lead entity. The third assessment tool is for PHAs (including for joint 
collaborations among multiple PHAs). The fourth assessment tool is for 
Qualified PHAs (including for joint collaborations among multiple 
QPHAs). The next Federal Register Notice that will solicit public 
comment on the State and Insular Area Assessment Tool will solicit 
specific feedback from program participants as to how to best 
facilitate collaboration between program participants using this tool, 
including any changes to the tool or instructions that may be necessary 
to facilitate such collaborations.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the Local 
Government Assessment Tool under the PRA for a period of one year. This 
notice follows HUD's solicitation of public comment for a period of 60 
days on the Local Government Assessment Tool that published on March 
23, 2016, and takes into consideration the public comments received in 
response to the 60-day notice. The 60-day notice commenced the notice 
and comment process required by the PRA in order to obtain approval 
from OMB for the information collected by the Local Government 
Assessment Tool. This 30-day notice completes the public comment 
process required by the PRA. With the issuance of this notice, and 
following consideration of additional public comments received in 
response to this notice, HUD will seek renewal of approval from OMB of 
the Local Government Assessment Tool, with a renewal period of 3 years. 
In accordance with the PRA, the assessment tool will undergo this 
public comment process every 3 years to retain OMB approval.

DATES: Comment Due Date: September 22, 2016.

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

[[Page 57602]]

submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice. 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 
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: Dustin Parks, Office of Fair Housing 
and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
7th Street SW., Room 5249, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 866-
234-2689 (toll-free). Individuals with hearing or speech impediments 
may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay 
Service during working hours at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 31, 2015, at 80 FR 81840, HUD announced the 
availability for use of the Local Government Assessment Tool by notice 
published in the Federal Register. This announcement was preceded by 
the two Federal Register notices for public comment required by the 
PRA. The 60-day notice was published on September 26, 2015, at 79 FR 
57949, and the 30-day notice published on July 16, 2015, at 80 FR 
42108, the same day that HUD published in the Federal Register its 
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule, at 80 FR 
42272. The Local Government Assessment Tool, HUD's AFFH final rule, and 
HUD's AFFH Rule Guidebook accompanying the Local Government Assessment 
Tool can all be found at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/affh/. 
The Local Government Assessment Tool approved by OMB was assigned OMB 
Control Number 2529-0054, but the period of approval was for one year.

II. The 60-Day Notice for the Local Government Assessment Tool

    On March 23, 2016, at 81 FR 15546, HUD published its 60-day notice, 
the first notice for public comment required by the PRA, to commence 
the process for renewal of approval of the Local Government Assessment 
Tool. Although HUD made no changes to the Local Government Assessment 
Tool approved by OMB in December 2015, HUD specifically solicited 
public comment on 6 issues (inadvertently numbered as 7 in the March 
23, 2016 publication). The 60-day public comment period ended on May 
23, 2016. HUD received 18 public comments. The following section, 
Section III, highlights changes made to the Local Government Assessment 
Tool in response to public comment received on the 60-day notice, and 
further consideration of issues by HUD. Section IV responds to the 
significant issues raised by public commenters during the 60-day public 
comment period, and Section V provides HUD's estimation of the burden 
hours associated with the Local Government Assessment Tool, and further 
solicits issues for public comment, those required to be solicited by 
the PRA, and additional issues which HUD specifically solicits public 
comment.

III. Changes Made to the Local Government Assessment Tool

    The following highlights changes made to the Local Government 
Assessment Tool in response to public comment and further consideration 
of issues by HUD.
    Inserts. HUD has included two inserts that may be used to 
facilitate collaboration between different types of program 
participants on a joint or regional AFH with a local government. The 
first is an insert for use by Qualified Public Housing Agencies 
(QPHAs). As a reminder, program participants, whether contiguous or 
noncontiguous, that are either not located within the same CBSA or that 
are not located within the same State and seek to collaborate on an 
AFH, must submit a written request to HUD for approval of the 
collaboration, stating why the collaboration is appropriate. Please 
note that QPHAs that collaborate with local governments are still 
required to complete an analysis of their jurisdiction and region, but 
HUD believes such analyses would be less burdensome due to the 
inclusion of this insert. For QPHAs with service areas in the same CBSA 
as the Local Government, the analysis required in the insert is 
intended to meet the requirements of a QPHA service area analysis while 
relying on the Local Government to complete the QPHA's regional 
analysis. For QPHAs whose service area extends beyond, or is outside 
of, the Local Government's CBSA, the analysis in the insert must cover 
the QPHA's service area and region.
    The second insert is meant for use by local government consolidated 
plan program participants that receive relatively small CDBG grants and 
collaborate with another local government using this Assessment Tool. 
HUD is proposing that local governments that received a CDBG grant of 
$500,000 or less in the most recent fiscal year prior to the due date 
for the joint or regional AFH may use the insert as part of a 
collaboration. HOME consortia whose members collectively received less 
than $500,000 in CDBG funds or received no CDBG funding, in the most 
recent fiscal year prior to the due date for the joint or regional AFH 
would also be permitted to use the insert. HUD welcomes input with 
regard to the utility of the proposed QPHA insert and the proposed 
insert for local governments that receive smaller amounts of CDBG funds 
for conducting the jurisdictional and regional analysis of fair housing 
issues and contributing factors as well as the classifications of 
grantees that would be permitted to use the inserts as part of a 
collaboration. HUD will continue to assess the use of any such inserts 
at the next opportunity for Paperwork Reduction Act approval.
    Further, HUD has committed to issuing a fourth assessment tool to 
be used by Qualified PHAs (including joint collaborations among 
multiple QPHAs). HUD is also committed to continue to explore 
opportunities to reduce the burden of conducting AFFH analyses by 
consolidated planning agencies that receive relatively small amounts of 
HUD funding.
    Jurisdictional and Regional Analysis. HUD has provided additional 
clarification in some questions in the Assessment Tool to specify the 
geographic scope of the analysis required by that question.
    Contributing Factors. HUD has amended some contributing factors and 
provided additional clarity in the descriptions of certain contributing 
factors. HUD has also added the contributing factor of ``lack of source 
of income protection.''
    Instructions. HUD has provided additional explanation in certain 
portions of the instructions with respect to how to use the HUD-
provided data and the use of local data and local knowledge when 
completing an

[[Page 57603]]

Assessment of Fair Housing. Instructions have also been provided for 
each of the two inserts. These instructions are both general and on a 
question-by-question basis.

IV. Public Comments on the Local Government Assessment Tool and HUD's 
Responses

General Comments

    General comments offered by the commenters included the following:
    The tool is burdensome and costly. Several of the commenters stated 
that they recognize the importance of fair housing planning to the 
development of strong and sustainable communities, but stated that the 
Local Government Assessment Tool is burdensome, will require additional 
resources to complete, and grantees' resources are already strained by 
what they stated was the insufficient HUD funding they currently 
receive. The commenters stated that despite HUD's announcements that 
the AFH would reduce the need to hire consultants to help with fair 
housing planning, the opposite was true and consultants would be 
needed, and they would be costly. The commenters requested that HUD 
provide additional funding for grantees to aid them in their fair 
housing planning requirements. Other commenters stated that at a 
minimum the Local Government Assessment Tool must be streamlined for 
small grantees. The commenters stated that reporting and recordkeeping 
burden table in the 60-day notice greatly underestimates the burden. A 
commenter suggested that 5,000 hours is a better estimate of the hours 
needed to complete an AFH.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates and understands the concern of the 
commenters. HUD's provision of an Assessment Tool, certain nationally-
uniform data, and the inclusion of a community participation process, 
which should yield important information about fair housing issues in a 
community, are intended to relieve some of the burden associated with 
conducting an Assessment of Fair Housing. HUD notes that the estimation 
of burden is an average burden estimate and that depending on the size 
of the grantee or the complexity of the issues, some grantees may have 
higher burden hours. HUD hopes that the inclusion of a local government 
insert for program participants that receive smaller amounts of CDBG 
funding and QPHAs will also help to reduce burden when such entities 
choose to partner in a collaboration with a local government.
    Comments related to the AFFH Data and Mapping Tool: HUD received a 
large number of comments related to the HUD-provided data and the Data 
and Mapping Tool itself. These comments, along with the comments 
received on several specific data-related issues that HUD solicited 
public feedback on are discussed in greater detail below.
    HUD Response: HUD's responses to the many substantive and valuable 
comments received are discussed in greater detail below.
    The assessment tool duplicates other planning processes. To reduce 
burden, commenters requested that the AFH community participation 
process be combined with the citizen participation process that must be 
undertaken as required by HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations, and the 
similar public participation process required by the Public Housing 
Agency (PHA) plan. The commenters stated that the public participation 
process of the Local Government Assessment Tool is duplicative of the 
public participation processes required by these other planning 
documents.
    HUD Response: HUD understands the concern of the commenters, but 
notes that the AFH and the Consolidated plan or PHA Plan (as 
applicable) are two distinct steps in the planning process. The AFH is 
intended to undertake a different analysis in order inform the 
Consolidated plan or PHA Plan. For this reason, it is important that 
the community have an opportunity to provide the program participant 
with input at each stage of the planning process. HUD also notes that 
while there are separate community participation processes for the 
different stages of the planning process, the requirements for 
conducting the community participation process are essentially the 
same. Jurisdictions may be able to appropriately conduct some outreach 
or hearings on both, but must be aware that submission timelines 
require that the AFH must be submitted 270 calendar days (for first 
AFHs) or 195 calendar days (for subsequent AFHs) before the start of 
the program year for which the next 3-5 year consolidated plan is due 
It may be more likely that there be shared outreach efforts on a prior 
year action plan or performance report, but in any such case the AFH 
should be a distinct agenda item for any public hearing.
    The community participation process is not effective. A commenter 
stated the community participation process fails to encourage a wide 
range of stakeholders in the AFH process, and that, in order to 
encourage a robust and meaningful AFH community participation process 
(page 1), HUD should amend question 2, as follows: ``Provide a list of 
organizations consulted during the community participation process, 
including stakeholders who are working in the areas of public health, 
education, workforce development, environmental planning, or 
transportation.'' The commenter stated that the tool should also 
specifically reference civil rights and fair housing organizations and 
other groups providing legal assistance to families affected by HUD 
programs in the community participation section. Another commenter 
asked HUD to change the question that seeks an explanation if there is 
a small turnout for the public hearing. The commenter stated that local 
governments may not be able to identify the reasons for a small 
turnout, and are likely to provide responses that are merely guesswork. 
The commenter asked that HUD reformulate the question to ask 
jurisdictions how they plan to change their outreach and other 
procedures next time to encourage greater turnout. The commenter stated 
that this approach will encourage constructive thinking about needed 
changes so that community participation in the fair housing planning 
process will improve.
    HUD Response: HUD notes that the AFFH rule states, at 24 CFR 
5.158(a), that ``To ensure that the AFH is informed by meaningful 
community participation, program participants must give the public 
reasonable opportunities for involvement in the development of the AFH 
and in the incorporation of the AFH into the consolidated plan, PHA 
Plan, and other required planning documents.'' Further, program 
participants are directed to ``employ communications means designed to 
reach the broadest audience.'' 24 CFR .158(a). HUD appreciates the 
commenter's suggestion to amend question 2, but declines to include 
such language in the question at this time. HUD notes, however, that 
the AFFH Rule Guidebook provides additional guidance about potential 
groups program participants may wish to specifically consult during the 
community participation process. HUD also acknowledges the suggestion 
about the low participation question, but declines to revise it at this 
time.
    Integrate planning information in one system. Commenters requested 
that HUD develop an interface in the Integrated Disbursement and 
Information System (IDIS) so that grantees may efficiently transfer its 
Assessment Tool data into their Consolidated Plan and Annual Action 
Plans.
    HUD Response: HUD understands the difficulty in having several 
different systems for grantees and will continue

[[Page 57604]]

to evaluate the feasibility of combining systems or having systems 
connect to one another to pull information from one plan into a 
subsequent plan.
    Undertake consultation with local practitioners. Commenters stated 
that before implementing the next version of the Local Government 
Assessment Tool, HUD should undertake consultation with local 
practitioners.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates this comment, and will seek 
opportunities in the future to use public feedback including from local 
government agencies in order to improve the effectiveness and utility 
and minimize burden of the assessment tool. Local governments are 
strongly encouraged to submit comments in response to this and other 
notices regarding assessment tools since that is the primary mechanism 
for providing feedback under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Remove list of Contributing Factors. A commenter stated that 
contributing factors should be removed from the tool because each 
entitlement jurisdiction should have the freedom to identify the 
contributing factors that are meaningful to their unique community. The 
commenter stated that by including this list, HUD introduces 
predisposed biases and assumes a Fair Housing Impact that may or may 
not exist. The commenter further stated that a mere correlation to 
contributing factors does not necessarily cause decreased access to 
opportunity.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenter's view that local 
governments should have the freedom to identify contributing factors 
that are unique to their community. HUD notes that the list provided is 
of ``potential'' contributing factors only, and an option for ``other'' 
exists on that list. Program participants are encouraged to identify 
any other contributing factors that are unique to their communities. 
HUD provides the list of potential contributing factors, which consists 
of some of the most common contributing factors affecting fair housing 
issues, in an effort to reduce burden for program participants so that 
they do not need to come up with a list of factors on their own.
    The tool does not address the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. 
A commenter stated that the Assessment Tool leaves out any questions 
regarding the HCV program, which is a central part of the Section 8 
Administrative plan. The commenter stated that the tool should be 
revised to include questions related to fair housing, including low 
payment standards, portability restrictions, inspection delays, refusal 
to extend search times, lack of notice to families of their choices, 
lack of assistance to families in locating housing in opportunity 
areas, and geographic concentration of apartment listings provided to 
HCV families by the PHA.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the commenter's suggestion to include 
additional questions about the HCV program. HUD notes that there are 
certain questions that relate to the HCV program, however, the issues 
the commenter raises are addressed through contributing factors, as 
opposed to individual questions in the Assessment Tool. HUD notes that 
the descriptions of a number of contributing factors highlight the 
issues raised by the commenter. In order to not impose additional 
burden on program participants, HUD declines to add specific questions 
at this time.
    It is not clear how the Assessment Tool addresses homelessness. A 
commenter stated that many of the issues asked in the Assessment Tool 
also affect the homeless population, which is made up of persons in 
protected classes. The commenter stated the section on disproportionate 
housing needs should include data and analysis on the population of 
people experiencing homelessness that are currently unhoused. The 
commenter asked that HUD include ``access to public space for people 
experiencing homelessness'' as a contributing factor throughout the 
assessment. The commenter further stated that laws that criminalize 
homelessness or otherwise burden the use or access to public space for 
those without shelter or housing have a deleterious and segregative 
impact on living patterns and fair housing opportunity that is not 
captured in any of the other contributing factors. The commenter stated 
that HUD should specifically reference laws that have the effect of 
restricting or allowing provision of services to persons experiencing 
homelessness (including transitional shelters, day shelters, soup 
kitchens, or other provision of services) in the definitions of ``land 
use and zoning laws'' as well as ``occupancy codes and restrictions.'' 
The commenter suggested, alternatively, that HUD could create a factor 
that mirrors ``regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive 
services for persons with disabilities,'' which appears to serve the 
same purpose with respect to the fair housing analysis, but for persons 
with disabilities as opposed to those experiencing homelessness.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates this suggestion and has added 
language to the instructions relating to the use of local data and 
local knowledge with respect to homelessness, and added to the 
description of the contributing factors of ``Land use and zoning laws'' 
and ``Occupancy codes and restrictions.'' The addition to the ``Land 
use and zoning laws'' description provides, ``Restriction of provision 
of housing or services to persons experiencing homelessness, such as 
limiting transitional shelters, day shelters, soup kitchens, the 
provision of other services, or limitations on homeless persons' access 
areas that are open to the public (e.g. anti-loitering or nuisance 
ordinances).'' and the addition to the ``Occupancy codes and 
restrictions'' descriptions provides, ``Restriction of provision of 
services to persons experiencing homelessness, such as limiting 
transitional shelters, day shelters, soup kitchens, or other provision 
of services.'' HUD has also noted in the instructions for the 
Disproportionate Housing Needs section that the HUD-provided data do 
not include data on persons experiencing homelessness. HUD notes that 
such data is available from a variety of sources and the analysis 
relating to disproportionate housing needs may benefit from the use of 
local data and local knowledge.
    HUD further notes that consolidated planning requires an assessment 
of homeless needs, facilities and services, and a strategy for 
addressing homelessness.
    Include availability of housing at different affordability levels. 
A few commenters stated that the availability of housing at different 
affordability levels needs to be included in the definitions of the 
contributing factors of ``location and type of affordable housing'' and 
``availability of affordable units in a range of sizes.'' The 
commenters stated that it should be part of the analysis of 
restrictions placed on affordable housing through other contributing 
factors, including but not limited to ``land use and zoning laws'' and 
``occupancy codes and restrictions.'' The commenter stated that the 
current description of ``Land Use and Zoning Laws'' lists 
``[i]nclusionary zoning practices that mandate or incentivize the 
creation of affordable units,'' and instead the words ``lack of'' 
should be added to the very beginning of the description as 
inclusionary zoning is a tool with the potential to expand access for 
low-income families who seek to move to lower-poverty.
    HUD Response: HUD notes that the contributing factor of ``Location 
and type of affordable housing'' does include the concept of different 
levels of affordability. HUD specifically notes that ``What is 
`affordable' varies by circumstance . . .'' HUD has added

[[Page 57605]]

``lack of'' prior to the bullet point in the description of ``Land use 
and zoning laws'' that reads ``Inclusionary zoning practices that 
mandate or incentivize the creation of affordable units.''
    The tool should address sex discrimination. A few commenters stated 
that the tool does not mention any questions or prompting related to 
sex discrimination, and stated that there are several groups that 
suffer under sex discrimination, such as domestic violence survivors, 
members of the LGBT community, and victims of sexual harassment. The 
commenters stated that there are no questions in the tool that directly 
prompt the jurisdiction to consider barriers to fair housing choice and 
opportunity for these populations, and that there are no questions that 
focus on how sexual harassment creates barriers to fair housing choice. 
The commenters recommended that local nuisance ordinances that 
negatively impact crime victims be specifically addressed in the AFFH 
certification process and Local Government Assessment Tool to ensure 
that meaningful actions are taken on the front end to avoid sex 
discrimination violations of the Fair Housing Act. The commenters 
stated that there are policies that penalize property owners based on 
the number of times police are called, crime victims, including 
domestic violence victims, have been evicted, threatened with eviction, 
and denied housing because of calls to the police for domestic violence 
incidents. The commenters stated that the repeal or modification of 
such laws and policies should be a component of the Fair Housing Goals 
and Priorities.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates these commenters suggestions and 
notes that ``sex'' is one of the protected characteristics under the 
Fair Housing Act that must be analyzed in the AFH. HUD notes that there 
are two tables included in the AFFHT that include data relating to sex. 
Those tables are Table 1 and Table 2, which provide demographic data 
for the jurisdiction and region. Table 1 provides demographic data from 
2010, while Table 2 provides demographic data for 1990, 2000, and 2010 
in order to evaluate trends over time. There are several contributing 
factors listed in the Assessment Tool that speak to the issues raised 
by these commenters. For example, the description of the contributing 
factor or ``Lack of state or local fair housing laws,'' includes 
protections based on sexual orientation and survivors of domestic 
violence. HUD has also added a potential contributing factor of ``Lack 
of housing support for victims of sexual harassment, including victims 
of domestic violence'' to the Disparities in Access to Opportunity 
Section of the Assessment Tool.
    The impediments highlighted by the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) are outside of a grantee's control. A GAO analysis of 30 Analyses 
of Impediments (AIs) highlighted the most common impediments to fair 
housing choice: zoning and site selection, inadequate public services 
in low- and moderate-income areas, less favorable mortgage terms from 
private lenders, and lack of information about fair housing rights and 
responsibilities (GAO, 2010). Some commenters stated that these common 
impediments are outside of the local government's control. The 
commenter stated that local governments generally do not have the 
authority to require a change in zoning or site selection (other than 
site selection with projects it has funded, which is very small 
compared to the private market). The commenter stated that the one 
impediment that the commenter can focus on is access to information 
about fair housing rights and responsibilities.
    HUD Response: Program participants covered by the AFFH rule have 
both an obligation to comply with the regulation and to affirmatively 
further fair housing under the Fair Housing Act. See 24 CFR5.150-5.180; 
42 U.S.C. 3608(d), (e). One of the primary purposes of the Assessment 
Tool is to consider a wide range of policies, practices, and activities 
underway in a program participant's jurisdiction and region and to 
consider how its policies, practices, or activities may facilitate or 
present barriers to fair housing choice and access to opportunity, and 
to further consider actions that a program participant may take to 
overcome such barriers. HUD is aware that program participants may be 
limited in the actions that they can take to overcome barriers to fair 
housing choice and that the AFH process does not mandate specific 
outcomes. However, that does not mean that no actions can be taken, or 
that program participants should not strive to overcome barriers to 
fair housing choice or disparities in access to opportunity.
    HUD needs to provide more guidance. A commenter stated that HUD has 
provided extremely little technical guidance, the commenter seeks 
technical guidance on the role of HUD's Office of General Counsel in 
the AFH process, and the expectation of HUD's Office of Fair Housing 
and Equal Opportunity in reviewing the assessments, what the impact is 
on the community if the plan is rejected and the community's recourse, 
and best practices. The commenter requested that HUD provides sample 
documents such as request for proposals (RFP) language for those 
seeking consultants and Memorandums of Understandings between 
collaborators.
    HUD Response: HUD will continue to provide guidance relating to the 
AFFH rule and the AFH. HUD recently released a new guidance document 
titled, ``Guidance on HUD's Review of Assessments of Fair Housing 
(AFH),'' and is available at https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5069/guidance-on-huds-review-of-assessments-of-fair-housing-afh/.
    Comment: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/
ECAPs). R/ECAPs. One commenter noted several concerns with HUD's 
definition of R/ECAPs including both the 50 percent minority threshold 
and the alternate poverty threshold (three times the CBSA poverty rate 
when this is lower than 40 percent poverty). As to the 50 percent 
minority threshold, the commenter noted that in majority-minority 
jurisdictions, that tracts that could be considered integrated based on 
an even distribution of the jurisdiction's demographic makeup, would 
still meet the R/ECAP threshold for minority concentration. Regarding 
the alternative poverty rate measure the commenter noted that HUD's 
approach may deviate from the body of evidence on concentrated poverty. 
The commenter also recommended that both minority population and 
poverty rate measures should be considered separately and not combined.
    HUD Response: HUD thanks the commenter for this feedback. While HUD 
is declining to adopt changes to the R/ECAP thresholds and methodology 
at time, it should be noted that program participants are allowed and 
encouraged to provide any useful additional information, explanation or 
analysis in their AFH submissions. For instance, an agency in a 
majority-minority jurisdiction should note this in its analysis of 
segregation and R/ECAPs. Similarly, an agency in a jurisdiction where 
HUD's R/ECAP calculation uses the alternative measure to the 40 percent 
of poverty threshold may make note of this and provide any pertinent 
discussion of its actual local poverty rate and how that affects how 
many tracts reflect either of the poverty rate measures (i.e. how many 
meet 40 percent of poverty compared to the R/ECAPs shown in the HUD 
provided data). R/ECAP analysis should also be accompanied by 
discussion of qualitative factors including local knowledge on 
neighborhood conditions

[[Page 57606]]

that are not apparent from the baseline HUD-provided data. Such 
qualitative discussion may also include consideration of overall market 
and neighborhood conditions in R/ECAPs themselves or in the areas 
surrounding them (e.g. are such areas experiencing economic 
improvements or whether they have access to opportunity assets) or 
whether they may be immigrant communities with assets or social 
networks that may not be apparent from the HUD data alone.

Comments in Response to HUD Specific Issues for Comment

    As noted earlier, HUD solicited comment on 6 specific issues.
    The first five specific issues for which HUD requested public 
feedback related to the HUD-provided data. These questions were:
    1. Should R/ECAPs be amended to exclude college students from the 
calculation of poverty rate?
    2. Should HUD provide additional data on homeownership and rental 
housing, including maps and tables (e.g. data on percent of owner and 
renter occupied housing by area, maps showing patterns of home 
ownership and renter occupied housing together with demographics of 
race/ethnicity, and homeownership/rental rates by protected class 
group)?
    3. Are there changes or improvements that can be made to the 
Opportuniy 1Index measures? For example, should HUD include additional 
national data related to schools and education? Should HUD change the 
variables included in the Labor Market Engagement Index? Are there 
changes to the transportation indices (currently Transit Trips and Low 
Transportation Costs) that can be made to better inform a fair housing 
analysis of transportation access and whether transportation provides 
access to areas of opportunity? Should HUD adjust the Environmental 
Health Index with new variables and/or a revised formula?
    4. Should HUD add Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data to 
inform a fair housing analysis of lending practices and trends? Which 
types of HMDA data would be most useful (e.g., loan origination data, 
data on conventional loans compared to FHA loans, etc.)?
    5. Should HUD distinguish between 9 percent and 4 percent tax 
credits in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) data being 
provided, including in maps of development locations?
    Comments: HUD received numerous comments related to these specific 
questions as well as to more general comments on the HUD-provided data 
overall and to the AFFH Data and Mapping Tool.
    Numerous comments were received on the specific data related 
questions that HUD included in the 60-Day PRA Notice. These included 
numerous comments on the opportunity indices, additional data to 
consider adding to the Data and Mapping Tool, and suggestions for 
improving the methodology used for some of the components on the data 
provided.
    Commenters expressed concern that the analysis of HUD-provided data 
will require a high level of expertise that may not be available to 
localities given their limited budgets. Some commenters expressed 
concerns with the data in terms of being the most current available. 
Numerous comments provided suggestions for improving the Data and 
Mapping Tool's functionality including items such as visual display of 
the maps and providing users with more options in terms of turning on 
and off layers of data. Many comments expressed concerns with the 
complexity of the data being provided and limited ability of program 
participant staff to understand and assess the information.
    HUD Response: HUD appreciates the valuable feedback provided by 
public commenters on the questions relating to the HUD-provided data 
and the HUD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool. At this time, HUD has 
determined that it will be adding additional data on homeownership and 
rental housing. This data will include maps showing the percent (rate) 
of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing by census tract. It will 
also include a table showing rate of owner-occupied and renter occupied 
housing by race/ethnicity group at the jurisdiction and region levels. 
HUD is also considering adding rental housing affordability data for 
the purpose of facilitating analysis in the PHA Assessment Tool. This 
new data will facilitate the AFFH analysis, including for existing 
questions on these topics that were previously included in the 
assessment tool as published on 12/31/2016.
    The comments that were received on the specific questions that HUD 
included in the 60-Day PRA Notice included numerous substantive and 
informed suggestions and recommendations. These comments will prove 
invaluable to helping improve the HUD-provided data, including the 
opportunity indices, the underlying methodology for many elements and 
other potential data sources that may be provided in the future. The 
comments and recommendations will help improve the data being provided 
to better assist program participants and facilitate their assessments 
of fair housing.
    The Department is taking comments into consideration for making 
additional improvements to the AFFH Data and Mapping Tool for the 
benefit of grantees and the public. Many of the comments will prove 
useful in making further refinements and improvements to the Data and 
Mapping Tool over time.
    HUD is also committed to providing data in a readily understandable 
manner for the lay user. HUD does not expect program participants to 
hire statisticians or data experts to utilize the HUD-provided data. 
HUD has provided several resources to assist program participants and 
the public in using the HUD-provided data, including webinars, fact 
sheets, and user guides. HUD has further committed to addressing 
program participant burden by providing data, guidance, and technical 
assistance, and such assistance will occur throughout the AFH process. 
The AFFH Rule Guidebook is available at https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4866/affh-rule-guidebook/.
    With regard to comments on the frequency of HUD updates to the data 
provided, HUD expects to update the data provided in the data and 
mapping tool (AFFHT) on an ongoing basis as is feasible. HUD will 
provide notification to the public and program participants when such 
updates occur on the HUD Exchange.
    In addition, HUD intends to add additional data resources to the 
AFFH Data and Mapping Tool which would be optional for grantees to use 
as supplemental information and would not require a specific response 
within the assessment tool. This will add flexibility for HUD to make 
improvements over time and provide grantees access to additional data 
directly through the AFFH Data and Mapping Tool portal that they may 
choose to consider or adopt as they complete their Assessment of Fair 
Housing.
    With regards to providing LIHTC data distinguishing between 4 
percent and 9 percent tax credits, HUD will consider options for 
providing this data in the future. HUD reiterates its acknowledgement 
of the different policy considerations that should be taken into 
account, particularly as regards the use of 4 percent tax credits for 
rehabilitation and preservation of the existing affordable housing 
stock.
    Comment: Several comments were received on the Environmentally 
Healthy Neighborhoods Index. These comments included suggestions for 
other environmental related issues that

[[Page 57607]]

should be captured in the assessment tool.
    HUD Response: HUD will take all comments on the opportunity indices 
under consideration. HUD also notes that many of the other 
environmental-related issues are captured in the descriptions of the 
various potential contributing factors in the Disparities in Access to 
Opportunity section of the Assessment Tool. For example, ``Lack of 
public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services and 
amenities,'' is described as follows: ``The term ``public investment'' 
refers here to the money government spends on housing and community 
development, including public facilities, infrastructure, and services. 
Services and amenities refer to services and amenities provided by 
local or state governments. These services often include sanitation, 
water, streets, schools, emergency services, social services, parks and 
transportation. Lack of or disparities in the provision of municipal 
and state services and amenities have an impact on housing choice and 
the quality of communities. Inequalities can include, but are not 
limited to disparity in physical infrastructure (such as whether or not 
roads are paved or sidewalks are provided and kept up); differences in 
access to water or sewer lines, trash pickup, or snow plowing. 
Amenities can include, but are not limited to recreational facilities, 
libraries, and parks. Variance in the comparative quality and array of 
municipal and state services across neighborhoods impacts fair housing 
choice.'' HUD also notes in response to the issue of cost of water and 
sanitation services that the data provided for housing cost burden 
includes the cost of utilities.
    In addition to the specific questions relating to data issues, HUD 
also solicited public feedback on the following specific question: 
Should HUD make any other changes to the Local Government Assessment 
Tool to facilitate joint or regional collaboration or facilitate a 
meaningful fair housing analysis and priority and goal setting?
    Comments: A few commenters responded to this question stating no--
that collaboration needs time to form on its own, and that pushing 
grantees towards collaboration is not helpful or useful. The commenters 
stated that, in particular, first round grantees will have little time 
to focus on collaboration, and regionalism is not related to the courts 
disparate impact decision. The commenters stated that regional 
collaboration means more centralized government planning and reduction 
of local government authority. The commenters stated that, at this 
stage, HUD should refrain from pushing grantees to collaborate without 
additional time to absorb the requirements of the tool. The commenters 
stated that HUD has still not provided concrete guidance on what a 
collaboration would look like and how a collaboration would take 
``meaningful actions'' to further its goals identified in the AFH, and 
stated that commenters need this guidance. Another commenter cautioned 
that requirements for collaboration should not result in bias against 
individual plans.
    Other commenters stated that requirement for a regional analysis 
should be made optional, and stated that it will only be important for 
those jurisdictions that choose to collaborate on a regional plan, and 
only increases administrative burden on those who complete their plan 
independently. The commenters suggested that the tool include some 
questions specifically focused on collaboration so that grantees will 
have some idea of HUD's expectations regarding collaboration.
    A commenter stated that for collaborations between PHAs and cities 
dual data sets are sometimes not available. In a similar vein, a 
commenter stated that there will be issues with tracking school age 
children with collaborations between PHAs and cities because each use 
different mechanisms to track such children what with all the different 
schooling options (public, private, charter, etc.). The commenter 
recommended HUD reconsider the approach to overlaying education and 
housing data to facilitate data collection for a meaningful AFH in this 
type of collaboration.
    Another commenter recommended that for jurisdictions coming 
together in a regional collaboration, a supplemental section to be 
completed separately by each jurisdiction in the regional AFH, that 
indicates that jurisdiction's role in the fair housing issues 
identified, and specific goals that each jurisdiction can take to 
contribute to the regional goals identified in the regional AFH.
    Some commenters were concerned about the lists of potential 
contributing factors, stating that by including this list, HUD 
introduces predisposed biases and assumes a Fair Housing Impact that 
may or may not exist. A mere correlation to contributing factors does 
not necessarily cause decreased access to opportunity.
    A commenter stated that the Local Government Assessment Tool should 
be conformed to the PHA Assessment Tool. The commenter stated that if a 
local government takes the lead in a regional consortium, or with its 
local PHA, it will undermine the assessment if detailed PHA analyses 
are omitted from the form. The commenter stated that the Local 
Government Tool should also contain data from the State tool such as 
details on the LIHTC program, and questions on disparities related to 
public health services and public safety.
    HUD Response: The benefits of joint collaboration include a joint 
assessment of their shared issues and potentially for establishing 
shared goals leading to better coordination of program activities for 
the benefit of program recipients and overcoming the effects of fair 
housing issues. In addition, the experience of collaborating on the 
analysis and other parts of the assessment itself can provide ongoing 
benefits over time, as different types of housing and community 
development agencies work together in different contexts. HUD notes 
that it has added ``inserts'' in order to help facilitate 
collaborations among different types of program participants. HUD 
specifically solicits comments below, related to this newly added 
content of the Assessment Tool.
    As HUD has stated in previous notices, HUD had previously announced 
that it would be developing separate assessment tools for certain types 
of program participants, including for States and Insular Areas, and 
for PHAs not submitting an AFH in a joint or regional collaboration 
with a local government. In addition, HUD has stated that the basic 
structure of the Assessment Tool for Local Governments would be 
illustrative of the questions that will be asked of all program 
participants. See 80 FR 42,109 (July 16, 2015).

V. Overview of Information Collection

    Under the PRA, HUD is required to report the following:
    Title of Proposal: Assessment of FairHousing Tool.
    OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2529-0054.
    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The 
purpose of HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final 
rule is to provide HUD program participants with a more effective 
approach to fair housing planning so that they are better able to meet 
their statutory duty to affirmatively further fair housing. In this 
regard, the final rule requires HUD program participants to conduct and 
submit an AFH. In the AFH, program participants must identify and 
evaluate fair housing issues, and factors significantly contributing to 
fair housing issues (contributing factors) in the program participant's 
jurisdiction and region.

[[Page 57608]]

    The Assessment Tool is the standardized document designed to aid 
program participants in conducting the required assessment of fair 
housing issues and contributing factors and priority and goal setting. 
The Assessment Tool asks a series of questions that program 
participants must respond to in carrying out an assessment of fair 
housing issues and contributing factors, and setting meaningful fair 
housing goals and priorities to overcome them.
    Agency form numbers, if applicable: Not applicable.
    Members of affected public: As noted earlier in this document, 
local governments that receive CDBG, HOME, ESG, or HOPWA formula 
funding from HUD when conducting and submitting their own AFH, and any 
PHAs that choose to partner with such local governments.
    Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the 
information collection including number of respondents, frequency of 
response, and hours of response.
    Please see table below.

                                       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.    2,294 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
                                1,100 PHAs) *.                    Plans) **.
Entitlement Jurisdiction.....  1,194...........  ..............  ...............         *** 240         286,560
PHAs.........................  1,100...........  ..............  ...............        **** 120         132,000
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  2,294...........  ..............  ...............  ..............         418,560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This template is primarily designed for local government program participants, of which there are
  approximately 1,194, and PHAs seeking to join with local governments on a jointly submitted AFH. The estimate
  of 1,100 PHA joint partners is a modest decrease from the previous estimate of 1,314 PHAs that was included in
  the 60-Day PRA Notice. This change is discussed in more detail below.
There are 3,942 PHAs, and HUD estimates that approximately 1,100 of PHAs may seek to join with a local
  government and submit a joint AFH. The Total Number of responses for local government entitlement
  jurisdictions includes all 1,194 such agencies. 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 a local government program participant submits its consolidated
  plan every 3 years or every 5 years.
*** The estimate of 240 hours is an average across all local government program participants, with some having
  either higher or lower actual burden.
**** 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.

Comparison of Burden Estimate With Estimate From the 60-Day Notice

    The total estimated burden of 418,560 hours is a reduction from the 
estimate of 444,240 total hours that was included in the 60-Day PRA 
Notice for this assessment tool. All of the reduction is attributable 
to a revision of the estimate of the number of public housing agencies 
that are estimated to enter into joint partnerships using this tool, 
rather than any revision in the estimated burden to be incurred by 
individual agencies using the tool. This revision is discussed in more 
detail below.

Note on Costs for Smaller Agencies

    HUD acknowledges that actual participation in joint and regional 
partnerships may differ from these initial estimates and may vary 
according to a variety of factors such as the availability of local or 
state agency potential joint participants. For more information on the 
range of costs, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis that was issued by 
HUD to accompany the AFFH Proposed Rule. (Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/FR-5173-P-01_Affirmatively_Furthering_Fair_Housing_RIA.pdf).
    Smaller agencies are estimated to have lower costs, based on both 
the required scope of analysis and scope of their responsibilities and 
program resources. All agencies however will have some fixed costs, 
including for training for staff and conducting community 
participation. HUD will continue to provide additional assistance 
including training materials, resources and opportunities. HUD's goal 
is to help agencies in meeting the goal of affirmatively furthering 
fair housing.
    HUD reiterates the commitment it made in the December 31, 2015 
Notice announcing the initial one-year implementation period for the 
local government assessment tool, to: ``[Further address] program 
participant burden by providing data, guidance, and technical 
assistance, and such assistance will occur throughout the AFH 
process.''
    HUD has also added a significant new option that is intended to 
reduce burden for smaller consolidated planning agencies while 
assisting them in affirmatively furthering fair housing. This is the 
streamlined assessment ``insert'' for local government agencies that 
choose to partner with another local government acting as a lead entity 
for a joint or regional partnership. For purposes of estimating burden 
hours, all local government agencies, including those that might use 
this new streamlined ``insert'' assessment, are included in the overall 
average burden estimate applied to all 1,194 consolidated planning 
agencies. Smaller local governments are already estimated to have lower 
costs within that average to complete an assessment.

Joint and Regional Cooperation

    As mission-dedicated public agencies, all types of housing and 
community development agencies share a common purpose in providing 
affordable housing to families and individuals most in need and 
improving neighborhoods and communities. While HUD recognizes that 
there may be some benefit to agencies in terms of cost sharing to 
complete planning requirements, HUD acknowledges that the primary 
benefits of joint participation may likely not be directly related to 
such administrative considerations. Indeed, cross-agency collaboration 
entails its own costs,

[[Page 57609]]

including additional staff time for communication and coordination. 
Rather, the benefits are more likely to result from identifying common 
shared issues, contributing factors, concerns, obstacles, goals, and 
strategies and actions, in order to better meet their shared mission 
and improve program outcomes. Some objectives may also be better met 
through coordinating program activities and impact across 
jurisdictional boundaries. There may also be other indirect benefits 
from interagency coordination and communication and information sharing 
that are not easily quantified.

Explanation of Revision in PHA Participation Estimates

    HUD is including the following information in the 30-Day PRA 
Notices for all three of the assessment tools that are currently 
undergoing public notice and comment. The information is intended to 
facilitate public review of HUD's burden estimates. HUD is revising its 
burden estimates for PHAs, including how many agencies will join with 
other entities (i.e. with State agencies, local governments, or with 
other PHAs), from the initial estimates included in the 60-Day PRA 
Notices for the three assessment tools. These revisions are based on 
several key changes and considerations:
    (1) HUD has added new option for QPHAs, to match the approach 
already presented in the State Assessment Tool as issued for the 60-Day 
PRA Notice, to facilitate joint partnerships with Local Governments or 
other PHAs using a streamlined ``insert'' assessment. Using this 
option, it is expected that the analysis of the QPHA's region would be 
met by the overall AFH submission, provided the QPHA's service area is 
within the jurisdictional and regional scope of the local government's 
Assessment of Fair Housing, with the QPHA responsible for answering the 
specific questions for its own programs and service area included in 
the insert.
    (2) HUD's commitment to issuing a separate assessment tool 
specifically for QPHAs that will be issued using a separate public 
notice and comment Paperwork Reduction Act process. This QPHA 
assessment tool would be available as an option for these agencies to 
submit an AFH rather than using one of the other assessment tools. HUD 
assumes that many QPHAs would take advantage of this option, 
particularly those QPHAs that may not be able to enter into a joint or 
regional collaboration with another partner. HUD is committing to 
working with QPHAs in the implementation of the AFFH Rule. This 
additional assessment tool to be developed by HUD with public input 
will be for use by QPHAs opting to submit an AFH on their own or with 
other QPHAs in a joint collaboration.
    (3) Public feedback received on all three assessment tools combined 
with refinements to the HUD burden estimate.
    Based on these considerations, HUD has refined the estimate of PHAs 
that would be likely to enter into joint collaborations with potential 
lead entities. In general, PHAs are estimated to be most likely to 
partner with a local government, next most likely to join with another 
PHA and least likely to join with a State agency.
    While all PHAs, regardless of size or location are able and 
encouraged to join with State agencies, for purposes of estimating 
burden hours, the PHAs that are assumed to be most likely to partner 
with States are QPHAs that are located outside of CBSAs.
    Under these assumptions, approximately one-third of QPHAs are 
estimated to use the QHPA template that will be developed by HUD 
specifically for their use (as lead entities and/or as joint 
participants), and approximately two-thirds are estimated to enter into 
joint partnerships using one of the QPHA streamlined assessment 
``inserts'' available under the three existing tools. These estimates 
are outlined in the following table:

                  Overview of Estimated PHA Lead Entities and Joint Participant Collaborations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   QPHA Outside     QPHA Inside
                                                       CBSA            CBSA         PHA (non-Q)        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHA Assessment Tool                               ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    (PHA acting as lead entity).................               x               x             814             814
    joint partner using PHA template............               x             300             100             400
Local Government Assessment Tool (# of PHA joint               x             900             200           1,100
 collaborations)................................
State Assessment Tool (# of PHA joint                        665               x               x             665
 collaborations)................................
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
    subtotal....................................             665           1,200           1,114  ..............
QPHA template...................................             358             605  ..............             963
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           1,023           1,805  ..............           3,942
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solicitation of Specific Comment on the Local Government Assessment 
Tool

    HUD specifically requests comment on the following subject:
    HUD has added the following new question (noted in underline)
    ``Are certain racial/ethnic groups more likely to be residing in 
one category of publicly supported housing than other categories 
(public housing, project-based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily 
Assisted developments, and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)) in the 
jurisdiction? Compare the racial/ethnic demographics of each category 
of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction to the demographics 
of the same category in the region.''
    The proposed new question is designed to assist program 
participants in conducting a regional analysis of fair housing issues 
and contributing factors related to publicly supported housing to 
inform goal setting and fair housing planning. As a reminder, fair 
housing issues include segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated 
areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and 
disproportionate housing needs. Questions are intended to help program 
participants analyze fair housing issues and the factors that play a 
significant role in contributing to them.
    HUD seeks feedback on the utility of the proposed new question as 
well as any alternative proposals for analyzing fair housing issues and 
contributing factors using assisted housing tenant characteristics at a 
regional level.
    HUD seeks to provide questions that will help program participants 
conduct a meaningful analysis of fair housing issues from a regional 
perspective to inform goal setting and effective fair housing planning. 
Commenters should bear in mind the HUD provided data for regional 
analysis are provided at the CBSA level.

[[Page 57610]]

Solicitation of Comment Required by the PRA

    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; and
    (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.
    (6) Whether the inclusion of the ``inserts'' for Qualified PHAs 
(QPHAs) and small program participants will facilitate collaboration 
between local governments and these program participants and whether 
these entities anticipate collaborating to conduct and submit a joint 
or regional AFH. Please note any changes to these inserts that (a) 
would better facilitate collaboration; (b) provide for a more robust 
and meaningful fair housing analysis; and (c) encourage collaboration 
among these program participants that do not anticipate collaborating 
at this time.
    (7) Whether HUD's change to the structure and content of the 
questions in the Disparities in Access to Opportunity section with 
respect to the protected class groups that program participants must 
analyze is sufficiently clear and will yield a meaningful fair housing 
analysis. Additionally, HUD specifically solicits comment on whether an 
appropriate fair housing analysis can and will be conducted if the 
other protected class groups are assessed only in the ``Additional 
Information'' question at the end of the section, as opposed to in each 
subsection and question in the larger Disparities in Access to 
Opportunity section. HUD also requests comment on whether it would be 
most efficient for program participants to have the protected class 
groups specified in each question in this section. If so, please 
provide an explanation. Alternatively, HUD requests comment on whether 
each subsection within the Disparities in Access to Opportunity section 
should include an additional question related to disparities in access 
to the particular opportunity assessed based on all of the protected 
classes under the Fair Housing Act.
    (8) Whether HUD should include any other contributing factors or 
amend any of the descriptions of the contributing factors to more 
accurately assess fair housing issues affecting program participants' 
jurisdictions and regions. 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 
September 22, 2016 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-10-A).
    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to 
these questions.

    Dated: August 17, 2016.
Inez C. Downs,
Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-20125 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4210-67-P