[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23922-23927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5173-N-17]


Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Withdrawal of the 
Assessment Tool for Local Governments

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the withdrawal of the Local Government 
Assessment Tool developed by HUD for use by local governments that 
receive Community Development Block Grants, HOME Investment 
Partnerships Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, or Housing 
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS formula funding from HUD when 
conducting and submitting their own Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) 
under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulations. 
Through Federal Register notice published on January 13, 2017, HUD 
announced the Office of Management and Budget's renewed approval of the 
Assessment Tool under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Since that time, HUD 
has become aware of significant deficiencies in the Tool impeding 
completion of meaningful assessments by program participants. HUD 
therefore is withdrawing the Local Government Assessment Tool because 
it is inadequate to accomplish its purpose of guiding program 
participants to produce meaningful AFHs. Following this withdrawal of 
the Local Government Assessment Tool, HUD will review the Assessment 
Tool and its function under the AFFH regulations to make it less 
burdensome and more helpful in creating impactful fair housing goals. 
Accordingly, this withdrawal notice also solicits comments and 
suggestions geared to creating a less burdensome and more helpful AFH 
Tool for local governments.

DATES: 
    Applicability Date: May 23, 2018.
    Comment Due Date: Comments on improvement to the AFH Tool for Local 
Governments are due on or before July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments to the 
Office of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10276, 
Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above 
docket number and title and should contain the information specified in 
the ``Request for Comments'' section. There are two methods for 
submitting public comments.
    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. Due to security measures at all federal 
agencies, however, submission of comments by mail often results in 
delayed delivery. To ensure timely receipt of comments, HUD recommends 
that comments submitted by mail be submitted at least two weeks in 
advance of the public comment deadline.
    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit 
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to 
submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments 
allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, 
ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make comments 
immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically 
through the http://www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other 
commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should 
follow 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 
notice.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.
    Public Inspection of Comments. All 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). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection 
and

[[Page 23923]]

downloading at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Mills, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Policy, Legislative Initiatives, and Outreach, 
Office Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 5246, Washington, DC 20410; 
telephone number 202-402-6577. 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 July 16, 2015, HUD published in the Federal Register its 
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule.\1\ The AFFH 
final rule provided HUD program participants with a revised planning 
approach to assist them in meeting their legal obligation to 
affirmatively further fair housing. The AFFH regulations are codified 
in 24 CFR part 5, subpart A.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 42357.
    \2\ Sec. Sec.  5.150-5.168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist program participants, the revised approach involves an 
``Assessment Tool'' for use in completing the regulatory requirement to 
conduct an assessment of fair housing (AFH), as set out in the AFFH 
rule. Because of the variations in the HUD program participants subject 
to the AFFH rule, HUD has been developing separate Assessment Tools for 
use by different types of program participants. In addition to 
Assessment Tools for use by public housing agencies (PHAs) and States 
and Insular Areas, there is one for local governments, which is the 
subject of this notice. It is called the Local Government Assessment 
Tool. All the Assessments Tools, because they are information 
collection documents, are subject to approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Local Government Assessment Tool was developed by HUD for use 
by local governments that receive Community Development Block Grants, 
HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, or 
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS formula funding from HUD, 
when conducting and submitting their AFH. OMB granted PRA approval of 
the initial iteration of the Local Government Assessment Tool in 
December 2015, and HUD announced the approval and the availability of 
the Tool's use by notice published in the Federal Register on December 
31, 2015.\4\ The initial iteration of the Local Government Assessment 
Tool (known as ``LG2015'') was approved by OMB for a period of one 
year. In 2016, HUD began the process for renewed approval of that 
information collection device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 81840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRA establishes a notice and comment process for information 
collection approvals, involving the publication of two Federal Register 
notices, one for 60 days of public comments and another for a 30-day 
comment period.\5\ HUD's 60-day notice for renewed approval of the 
Local Government Assessment Tool was published on March 23, 2016.\6\ 
The 30-day notice was published on August 23, 2016, and addressed the 
significant issues raised by the comments received on the 60-day 
notice.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3506-07
    \6\ 81 FR 15546.
    \7\ 81 FR 57602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD announced the renewed PRA approval by OMB of a Local Government 
Assessment Tool through Federal Register notice published on January 
13, 2017.\8\ In addition to announcing the PRA approval of the Tool, 
the January 13, 2017, notice addressed the significant issues raised by 
the comments received in response to the 30-day notice. This current 
version of the Tool, which is the subject of this notice, is known as 
``LG2017.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 83 FR 4368.
    \9\ Both the original iteration (LG2015) and current version 
(LG2017) of the Local Government Assessment Tool are available at 
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5216/assessment-of-fair-housing-tool-for-local-governments/. Program participants with a due 
date of October 13, 2017 or earlier were required to use the LG2015 
version of the Assessment Tool. Program participants with a due date 
of October 14, 2017, or later must use the LG2017 version of the 
Assessment Tool. This notice pertains to the current (LG2017) 
version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. This Notice--Withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment Tool

    Through this notice, HUD announces its withdrawal of the current 
version of the Local Government Assessment Tool (OMB Control No: 2529-
0054). As noted above, the PRA establishes a notice-and-comment process 
for information collection approvals, but not for withdrawals. 
Accordingly, this withdrawal is effective immediately.
    In the January 13, 2017, Federal Register notice announcing the 
availability of that Assessment Tool, HUD noted its agreement with 
commenters that ``a more accurate estimate of the time and cost 
involved in preparing the AFH may not be known until program 
participants submit their AFHs.'' \10\ Accordingly, that notice stated 
that ``HUD intends to also continue to monitor and assess the impact 
and burden of implementation of the AFH process on program 
participants, including on the range of fair housing outcomes.'' \11\ 
Consistent with this response to comments, since the publication of 
this notice on January 13, 2017, HUD has become aware of significant 
deficiencies in the Tool that have made it unduly burdensome for 
program participants to use the Tool to create acceptable and 
meaningful AFHs with impactful fair housing goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 82 FR 4391.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HUD's decision is, in part, informed by its review of the initial 
round of AFH submissions that were developed using the Local Government 
Assessment Tool. This review led HUD to conclude that the Tool is 
unworkable based upon: (1) The high failure rate from the initial round 
of submissions; and (2) the level of technical assistance HUD provided 
to this initial round of 49 AFHs, which cannot be scaled up to 
accommodate the increase in the number of local government program 
participants with AFH submission deadlines in 2018 and 2019.

1. Experience With the Initial Group of AFH Submissions Demonstrates 
That the Tool Is Unduly Burdensome and Ineffective at Assisting Program 
Participants With the Creation of Acceptable AFHs

    Between October 2016 and December 2017, HUD received, reviewed, and 
issued initial decisions on 49 AFHs submitted by local government 
program participants. In 2018, the Department conducted an evaluation 
of these submissions and found that, among this initial group of 49 AFH 
submissions, a significant proportion of program participants had 
difficulty completing or understanding how to use the Tool to complete 
acceptable AFHs. Indeed, the proportion of submissions determined to be 
unacceptable indicates that the Tool was unduly burdensome and not 
working as an effective device to assist program participants with the 
creation of acceptable and meaningful AFHs with impactful fair housing 
goals.
    For instance, only 37% of the initial 49 submissions (18/49) had 
been determined to be acceptable on initial submission. HUD returned 
35% of these (17/49) as unacceptable. Many other AFH submissions (28% 
or 14/49) were accepted only after the program participants submitted 
revisions and additional information in the form of addendums in 
response to HUD's

[[Page 23924]]

technical assistance. Taken together, 63% of the 49 AFHs submitted were 
either: (a) Returned as unacceptable and have not been successfully 
resubmitted, or (b) accepted only after the program participant 
supplied necessary additional information and revisions.
    Tellingly, despite the fact that joint and regional submissions 
benefit from the sharing of resources by program participants, enabling 
them to address fair housing issues from the broader perspective 
provided by collaboration, joint and regional collaborations 
nonetheless suffered from the same defects as individual AFH 
submissions. For example, the largest regional AFH submitted to HUD 
involved a total of 19 program participants. In its review of the AFH, 
HUD determined that each of the 19 program participants would have met 
the regulatory standards for nonacceptance.
    Additionally, many jurisdictions found it necessary to incur 
additional expense to hire consultants to complete their AFHs. 
Particularly in light of the high initial fail rates, this fact further 
demonstrates that the Assessment Tool is unduly burdensome as an 
information collection device and must be improved to reduce the burden 
upon respondents.
    HUD's analysis shows that the excessively high rate of unacceptable 
AFHs was due, in large measure, to problems with the Local Government 
Assessment Tool, and that efficiency gains over time from experience 
working with the Tool would be unlikely to address HUD's concerns about 
both the inadequacy of the Tool and the burden to program participants 
in using the Tool to complete acceptable AFHs. Specifically, HUD's 
analysis found a pattern of problems with the initial 49 AFH 
submissions, indicating at least seven different categories of critical 
problems with the Local Government Assessment Tool: (a) Inadequate 
community participation; (b) insufficient use of local data and 
knowledge; (c) lack of regional analysis; (d) problems with 
identification of contributing factors; (e) prioritization of 
contributing factors; (f) problems with setting goals; and (g) 
inadequate responses due to duplication of questions. While there may 
have been myriad issues that caused an individual AFH submission to 
have been non-accepted, in the aggregate, this summary of issues 
describes the basis for HUD's determination that the Assessment Tool is 
ineffective and unduly burdensome on program participants.
    (a) Inadequate Community Participation. A significant cause of the 
high non-acceptance rate was inadequate community participation. The 
AFFH regulations require program participants to ``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.'' \12\ However, the 
questions in the Local Government Assessment Tool regarding community 
participation have resulted in confusion. The questions vaguely 
incorporate by reference the existing community participation 
requirements in HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations \13\ and the 
comparable requirements in HUD's Public Housing regulations.\14\ The 
questions do not explicitly state the specific requirements or ask that 
program participants explain how they met these specific requirements. 
As a result, many of the initial AFH submissions did not fulfill these 
requirements and/or did not explain in their responses how they 
fulfilled the requirements. For example, the regulation at 24 CFR 
91.105(b)(4) requires a period of not less than 30 calendar days for 
comment by the community; however, one community posted a draft AFH for 
public comment on a Friday and submitted the final AFH to HUD the 
following Monday, after providing only three days for public 
comment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 24 CFR 5.158(a).
    \13\ 24 CFR part 91.
    \14\ 24 CFR part 903.
    \15\ See, e.g., Section III, Questions 1-4 of LG2015 and LG2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Insufficient Use of Local Data and Knowledge. The Assessment 
Tool requires local governments to utilize their local data and local 
knowledge to supplement the HUD-provided data, or, when appropriate, to 
replace HUD-provided data. HUD requires the use of local data only if 
the program participants can find and use such data at little or no 
cost. While many program participants utilized local data and local 
knowledge exactly as intended, a substantial number did not. The 
absence of local data, or failure to use it, resulted in an inability 
to address issues in a community that have not manifested themselves in 
the HUD-provided data. For example, when discussing environmental 
health issues, one program participant did not identify multiple 
Superfund locations in their jurisdiction. While this is information 
that a local government would know, specific Superfund locations are 
not noted on HUD maps. The questions in the Tool thus are inadequate to 
inform the program participants when to use local data and 
knowledge.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Section V, Questions B.3.1.a.3/B.3.1.b.3/
B.3.1.c.3/B.3.1.d.3/B.3.1.e.3 (LG2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Lack of Regional Analysis. Questions throughout the Assessment 
Tool require program participants to undertake both a jurisdictional 
and a regional analysis of fair housing issues. Many of the 49 AFH 
submissions did not complete or adequately complete the regional 
component of the analysis of fair housing issues. Others may have 
completed the analysis but did so in a way that did not compare the 
jurisdiction to the region. The regional analysis is often a critical 
component of the AFH because fair housing issues may cross 
jurisdictional boundaries and demographic trends may extend across 
entire regions. HUD provides both jurisdictional and regional data 
through the AFFH data and mapping tool for each program participant. 
However, the Assessment Tool inadequately guides program participants 
in the use of such data to perform the type of regional analysis of 
fair housing issues that would be necessary for an acceptable AFH.
    (d) Identification of Contributing Factors. Throughout the analysis 
of fair housing issues, the Assessment Tool requires that the program 
participant identify the contributing factors that create, contribute 
to, or perpetuate fair housing issues in their community. However, the 
Assessment Tool does not explicitly require the program participant to 
connect the identified contributing factors to the fair housing issues 
they will address until the final section where the program participant 
determines goals to overcome those contributing factors.
    Because the Assessment Tool fails to instruct the program 
participants to connect these concepts, many of the 49 AFH submissions 
identified contributing factors which did not logically connect to the 
analysis of fair housing issues undertaken. In addition, factors which 
the program participants themselves identified in other portions of the 
Assessment Tool were not identified in the responses to these 
questions. For example, one AFH included 3 pages of detailed analysis 
of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) information outlining the 
lending discrimination occurring, yet the program participants did not 
identify lending discrimination as a contributing factor.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Section V, Questions B.1.3/B.2.3/B.3.3/B.4.3/
C.3/D.7 (LG2015 and LG2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Prioritization of Contributing Factors. The final section of 
the

[[Page 23925]]

Assessment Tool requires that the program participant(s) prioritize the 
contributing factors identified for each fair housing issue analyzed in 
the fair housing analysis sections. The program participant(s) must 
then justify the prioritization of the contributing factors. Finally, 
the program participant(s) set goals designed to overcome the 
contributing factors identified as significant. Jurisdictions must 
reasonably exercise their discretion to prioritize contributing 
factors. The justification provides an opportunity to explain the 
prioritization method selected. Many of the 49 submissions either 
included in this question contributing factors not identified in the 
analysis of fair housing issues or did not include the contributing 
factors that were identified. Many program participants also did not 
explain their prioritization method. Without this critical link, the 
analysis of fair housing issues and the goals do not connect, making 
the AFH unacceptable. The Assessment Tool thus fails to provide 
adequate guidance for the prioritization of contributing factors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Section VI, Question 1 (LG2015 and LG2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Goals Section was Highly Problematic. The goals section was an 
issue in or the sole reason for the majority of initially non-accepted 
AFHs. In several submissions, the goals were not likely to result in 
meaningful actions, lacked metrics and milestones, were not linked to 
contributing factors and fair housing issues, and generally lacked 
adequate discussion.
    Program participants are responsible for identifying their own fair 
housing goals. However, the goals set by the program participant must 
connect to the analysis of fair housing issues and result in meaningful 
actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
    These goals will then be incorporated into Consolidated Plans and 
Public Housing Plans. Along with extensive guidance, HUD provides the 
following chart in the assessment tool to assist program participants 
in completing this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Metrics, milestones,
         Goal           Contributing factors   Fair housing issues     and timeframe for     Responsible program
                                                                          achievement          participant(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the 49 AFHs reviewed were deficient in this section, which 
is the culmination of the AFH. Goals were frequently overbroad or would 
not result in meaningful actions, for example, to ``increase housing 
choice,'' or ``partner with . . . .'' Program participants frequently 
failed to connect their fair housing goals to the AFH analysis, or to 
the contributing factors or fair housing issues identified in the AFH.
    Metrics and milestones for evaluating the accomplishment of fair 
housing goals were the most frequent source of deficiency in this 
section. However, frequently those established in the AFHs were neither 
time-bound nor measurable. The discussion section of the chart is a 
program participant's opportunity to explain the goal to ensure that 
HUD understands its intention and can often counter-balance 
deficiencies in or confusion caused by other sections of the chart. 
Many of the program participants did not complete this section or 
provided only a vague discussion. HUD is therefore concerned that the 
roadmap provided in the Assessment Tool is inadequate to lead to the 
development of effective goals.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Section VI, Question 2 (LG2015 and LG2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Inadequate Responses Due to Duplication. The Local Government 
Assessment Tool contains several questions that have elicited 
inadequate responses which merely duplicate previous responses to other 
questions within the Tool without responding fully to the specific 
question asked. The lack of clarity in the questions led to responses 
that merely assumed a question was being asked twice and thus failed to 
respond fully to the question at hand. Similarities in the sentence 
structure and terminology used in the questions may have caused program 
participants to overlook slight or nuanced differences between 
questions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Section III, Question 3; Section IV, Question 1; 
Section V, Questions B.1.1.b/B.3/B.4/C.1.2/D.2.a (LG2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. HUD Does Not Have the Resources To Provide a Similar Level of 
Technical Assistance to Expanding Numbers of Program Participants in 
2018 and 2019

    Because of these significant problems with the Tool, HUD has 
provided substantial technical assistance to this initial round of 
program participants, even for the AFHs that have been accepted. HUD 
does not have the resources to continue to provide program participants 
with the level of technical assistance that they would need to submit 
acceptable AFHs using the current version of the Local Government 
Assessment Tool. Despite the fact that many jurisdictions reportedly 
have found it necessary to engage consultants to complete the 
Assessment Tool, HUD estimates that it has spent over $3.5 million on 
technical assistance for the initial round of 49 AFH submissions. In 
addition to contract technical assistance services, significant HUD 
staff resources are required to review an AFH for acceptability and to 
communicate with program participants regarding HUD's determination to 
accept or non-accept an AFH.
    Although HUD anticipated providing technical assistance to program 
participants to assist them in submitting acceptable assessments, the 
amount of assistance that has proved to be required with the current 
version of the Local Government Assessment Tool is not sustainable 
particularly in light of the significant increase in AFH submissions 
scheduled to occur in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, for example, 104 local 
government program participants are scheduled to submit AFHs to HUD. In 
2019, the number of local governments originally scheduled to submit 
their AFHs rises to 752. The level of technical assistance provided to 
the initial 49 participants could not be extended to these numbers of 
AFHs due in 2018 and 2019.
    And due to the deficiencies in the Local Government Assessment 
Tool, HUD believes that, without the withdrawal and revision of the 
Tool, a high percentage of AFHs in future rounds of submissions would 
not be initially acceptable. Because the problems with the Tool have 
created the above-described patterns of deficiencies in AFH submissions 
even from collaborative groups leveraging the resources of multiple 
jurisdictions, HUD

[[Page 23926]]

does not believe that the level of technical assistance it has been 
required to provide to the initial 49 AFHs would decrease meaningfully 
as result of expanded usage of the Tool. As a result, in 2018 and 2019, 
HUD would not be able to provide all program participants with the 
extent of assistance provided to those in the initial round of AFHs, 
meaning that these participants would not have the help they would need 
to correct their assessments. This would lead to a great deal of 
uncertainty for program participants as to how to submit an acceptable 
AFH. Such uncertainty would, in turn, lead to uncertainty regarding the 
status of their HUD-funded programs so long as they do not have an 
accepted AFH in place.

3. In Light of HUD and Local Government Program Participants' Resource 
Limitations, Temporary Withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment 
Tool Is Necessary as the Most Efficient Way To Resolve the Tool's 
Significant Deficiencies

    HUD is withdrawing the Tool to produce a more effective and less 
burdensome Assessment Tool. These improvements to the Tool will make it 
more effective in assisting program participants with the creation of 
meaningful assessments with impactful fair housing goals to help them 
plan to fulfill their legal obligation to affirmatively further fair 
housing. Withdrawal and revision of the Assessment Tool will also 
conserve HUD's limited resources, allowing HUD to use those limited 
resources more effectively to help program participants produce 
meaningful improvements in the communities they serve. HUD also 
believes that investing additional time to improve its Data and Mapping 
Tool (AFFH-T) and the User Interface (AFFH-UI) will result in more 
substantive assessments with greater fair housing impact.

III. Effects of Withdrawal of Assessment Tool

    The AFFH regulations at 24 CFR 5.160(a)(1)(ii) provide that if the 
specified AFH submission deadline results in a submission date that is 
less than 9 months after the Assessment Tool designed for the relevant 
type of program participant is available for use, ``the 
participants(s)' submission deadline will be extended . . . to a date 
that will be not less than 9 months from the date of publication of the 
Assessment Tool.'' For example, in the case of the Assessment Tool for 
use by PHAs, HUD published a notice in January 2017, advising that the 
Assessment Tool had been approved pursuant to the PRA process, but was 
not yet available for use by PHAs because the HUD data needed to make 
the Assessment Tool workable was not yet available.\21\ Accordingly, 
under 24 CFR 5.160(a)(1)(ii), the deadline for first AFH submissions by 
PHAs was extended until a workable Assessment Tool becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 82 FR 4373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in the case of the Local Government Assessment Tool, HUD 
has determined that the current iteration of the Tool, although 
published after PRA procedures, is substantively deficient and unduly 
burdensome because it has resulted in great expense to program 
participants and HUD, yet it is not adequately guiding participants 
through the creation of acceptable AFHs. Accordingly, HUD is 
immediately withdrawing the Local Government Assessment Tool. As a 
result, local jurisdictions do not have an approved Assessment Tool 
that is published and available for use in completing the AFHs. 
Pursuant to 24 CFR 5.160(a)(1)(ii), the deadline for local government 
program participants to submit a first AFH is thus extended to a date 
not less than 9 months following the future publication of a revised 
and approved Local Government Assessment Tool. HUD is immediately 
seeking comment on ways to make the Local Government Assessment Tool 
workable and effective. Pursuant to 24 CFR 5.160(a)(1)(ii), the future 
published notice announcing that a revised and approved Local 
Government Assessment Tool is available will also provide program 
participants with the revised due date for first AFH submissions.
    Consolidated plan program participants that have not yet submitted 
their first AFHs must nonetheless continue to comply with existing, 
ongoing legal obligations to affirmatively further fair housing (legal 
obligations which AFHs were merely intended to help participants plan 
to fulfill). Pursuant to 24 CFR 5.160(a)(3), until a consolidated plan 
program participant submits its first AFH, it will continue to provide 
the AFFH certification with its Consolidated Plan, in accordance with 
the requirements that existed prior to August 17, 2015. Those 
requirements obligate a program participant to certify that it will 
affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an 
analysis of impediments (AI) to fair housing choice within the 
jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any 
impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records 
reflecting the analysis and actions.
    For Consolidated plan program participants that are starting a new 
3-5-year Consolidated plan cycle that begins before their due date for 
an AFH, the AI should continue to be updated in accordance with the 
HUD, Fair Housing Planning Guide (1996), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/FHPG.PDF. The data HUD has developed in 
order to implement the AFFH rule will remain available for program 
participants to use in conducting their AIs. HUD encourages program 
participants to collaborate to develop a regional AI, as regional 
collaborations provide an opportunity for program participants to share 
resources and address fair housing issues that cross jurisdictional 
boundaries.\22\
    Program participants that have already submitted an AFH which has 
been accepted by HUD must continue to execute the goals of that 
accepted AFH and are not required to conduct a separate AI. HUD will 
discontinue the review of AFHs submitted by local governments that are 
currently under review and will not render a decision to accept or not 
accept. In cases where HUD denied acceptance of an AFH submission that 
used the withdrawn Local Government Assessment Tool and the program 
participant(s) were preparing to re-submit an AFH, the participant(s) 
should not submit a revised AFH. Finally, local governments prepared to 
submit their first AFH should not submit an AFH to HUD. Local 
governments that have not received an accept or non-accept 
determination from HUD, or that have received a non-accept but will no 
longer be required to resubmit their AFH, are still required to prepare 
an AI, as described above in this notice. Program participants must 
continue to fulfill their legal obligations to affirmatively further 
fair housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Please refer to HUD's 2017 interim guidance for additional 
information on collaboration, specifically the Q&A captioned: ``How 
can States Collaborate with Local Governments or PHAs?''. The 
guidance is available at: https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Interim-Guidance-for-Program-Participants-on-Status-of-Assessment-Tools-and-Submission-Options.pdf. This guidance is 
generally applicable to all types of program participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Request for Public Comment on Improvements to the Local Government 
Assessment Tool

    This notice offers the opportunity for the public to provide 
information and recommendations on revisions to the Local Government 
Assessment Tool. HUD welcomes and will consider all

[[Page 23927]]

responses to this notice when reconsidering the Assessment Tool

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Anna Maria Far[iacute]as,
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
[FR Doc. 2018-11146 Filed 5-21-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4210-67-P