Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 1997 for the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)
Federal RegisterMay 1, 1997
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-4186-N-01]
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 1997 for
the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice informs Public Housing Agencies and Indian Housing
Authorities (herein referred to as HAs) that own or operate fewer than
250 public housing units and, therefore, are eligible to apply and
compete for CIAP funds, of the requirements and application deadline
date for FY 1997 CIAP funding and the availability of CIAP funds. HAs
with 250 or more public housing units are entitled to receive a formula
grant under the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) and are not eligible
to apply for CIAP funds. Entities other than HAs are not eligible to
apply for CIAP funds.
DATES: The CIAP Application is due on or before 3 pm local time on June
30, 1997 at the HUD Field Office with jurisdiction over the HA,
Attention: Director, Office of Public Housing (OPH), or Administrator,
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP). The term ``Field Office''
includes both the OPH and the ONAP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: William J. Flood, Director, Office of
Capital Improvements, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, S.W., Room 4134, Washington, D.C. 20410. Telephone
(202) 708-1640. (This is not a toll free number.)
IHAs may contact Deborah M. LaLancette, Director, Housing
Management Division, Office of Native American Programs (ONAP),
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3390,
Denver, CO 80202. Telephone (303) 675-1600. (This is not a toll free
number.)
Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call HUD's TTY number
(202) 708-4595. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-3520) and have been
assigned OMB control number 2577-0044. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless the collection displays a valid control number.
Promoting Comprehensive Approaches to Housing and Community
Development
HUD is interested in promoting comprehensive, coordinated
approaches to housing and community development. Economic development,
community development, public housing revitalization, homeownership,
assisted housing for special needs populations, supportive services,
and welfare-to-work initiatives can work better if linked at the local
level. Toward this end, the Department in recent years has developed
the Consolidated Planning process designed to help communities
undertake such approaches.
In this spirit, it may be helpful for applicants under this NOFA to
be aware of other related HUD NOFAs that have recently been published
or are expected to be published in the near future. By reviewing these
NOFAs with respect to their program purposes and the eligibility of
applicants and activities, applicants may be able to relate the
activities proposed for funding under this NOFA to the recent and
upcoming NOFAs and to the community's Consolidated Plan.
A NOFA related to housing revitalization that the Department has
published is the NOFA for Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public
Housing (HOPE VI). This NOFA was published on April 14, 1997 (61 FR
18242). Other NOFAs related to housing revitalization that the
Department expects to publish in the Federal Register within the next
few weeks include: the Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction NOFA; the
Public Housing Demolition NOFA; and the NOFA for the Section 8 Rental
Certificate and Voucher Programs.
To foster comprehensive, coordinated approaches by communities, the
Department intends for the remainder of FY 1997 to continue to alert
applicants to upcoming and recent NOFAs as each NOFA is published. In
addition, a complete schedule of NOFAs to be published during the
fiscal year and those already published appears under the HUD Homepage
on the Internet, which can be accessed at http://www.hud.gov/
nofas.html. Additional steps on NOFA coordination may be considered for
FY 1998.
For help in obtaining a copy of your community's Consolidated Plan,
please contact the community development office of your municipal
government.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Allocation Amounts
(a) In FY 1997, $2,427,314,900 is available for the Modernization
Program (CIAP and CGP).
(1) Modernization funds are allocated between CIAP and CGP agencies
based on the relative shares of backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and
accrual needs (weighted at 50%), as determined by the field inspections
conducted for the HUD-funded ABT study of modernization needs. This
allocation results in CIAP agencies receiving approximately 12.15% or
$305,361,070 and CGP agencies receiving approximately 87.85% or
$2,121,953,830 of the total funds available.
(i) Backlog needs are needed repairs and replacements of existing
physical systems, items that must be added to meet the HUD
modernization and energy conservation standards and State or local/
tribal codes, and items that are necessary for the long-term viability
of a specific housing development.
(ii) Accrual needs are needs that arise over time and include
needed repairs and replacements of existing physical systems and items
that must be added to meet the HUD modernization and energy
conservation standards and State or local/tribal codes.
(2) The modernization funds available to CIAP agencies are
allocated between Public Housing at approximately 91.8505% or
$280,475,670 and Indian Housing at approximately 8.1495% or
$24,885,400. This allocation also is based on the relative shares of
backlog needs (weighted at 50%) and accrual needs (weighted at 50%).
(b) Assignment of Funds to Field Offices of Public Housing (OPH).
In past years, the distribution of Public Housing CIAP funds for each
Field OPH has been based solely on the relative shares of backlog and
accrual needs for CIAP PHAs. In order to obtain a more equitable
distribution of available funds relative to historical demand within
each FO jurisdiction, Headquarters has determined that the FY 1997
distribution of Public Housing CIAP funds for each Field OPH will be
based on the relative shares of backlog and accrual needs for CIAP PHAs
(weighted at 50%) and the relative demand for CIAP funds, as evidenced
by the CIAP funds requested in FY 1996 (weighted at 50%). However, to
ensure that the relative demand side of the allocation
[[Page 23929]]
formula does not give undue weight to FOs that were able to fund a
higher percentage of funds requested in a prior year, each Field OPH
will be capped by Headquarters, before FY 1997 funds are assigned, to
an allocation amount which will fund no more than 30% of funds
requested in FY 1996.
(1) The Field OPH Director shall have authority to make Joint
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions. However, the Secretary's
Representative is responsible for scoring the technical review factor
related to the degree of local/tribal government support for the
proposed modernization (see section IV(c)(5) of this NOFA). The Field
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is responsible for
scoring the technical review factor related to affirmatively furthering
fair housing, which applies only to Public Housing.
(2) If additional funds for Public Housing CIAP become available,
Headquarters will allocate the funds to each Field OPH based on the
table below.
(3) If a Field OPH does not receive sufficient fundable
applications to use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the
remaining funds to one or more Field OPHs that have the highest
unfunded demand, as evidenced by approvable applications.
The following table shows the percentage distribution of CIAP funds
for PHAs, excluding IHAs, assigned by Headquarters to each Field OPH.
The percentage distributions for the Texas State and Houston Area
Offices have been further broken down to indicate what percentage of
their distribution will be allocated to HAs involved in the East Texas
civil rights case (i.e., Young v. Cuomo) to meet the requirements of
the settlement agreement, which is subject to judicial oversight, along
with other modernization needs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Public
Office of Public Housing (OPH) Housing
funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New England:
Massachusetts State Office................................ 2.4560
Connecticut State Office.................................. .8107
New Hampshire State Office................................ 1.5676
Rhode Island State Office................................. .4361
New York/New Jersey:
Buffalo Area Office....................................... 2.0783
New Jersey State Office................................... 2.3160
New York State Office..................................... 1.4892
Mid-Atlantic:
Maryland State Office..................................... .4214
West Virginia State Office................................ 1.3081
Pennsylvania State Office................................. .6837
Pittsburgh Area Office.................................... .9155
Virginia State Office..................................... .4234
District of Columbia Office............................... .1672
Southeast:
Georgia State Office...................................... 8.2709
Alabama State Office...................................... 5.0915
South Carolina State Office............................... 1.2749
North Carolina State Office............................... 2.9244
Mississippi State Office.................................. 1.6542
Jacksonville Area Office.................................. 2.5183
Knoxville Area Office..................................... 1.0628
Kentucky State Office..................................... 4.7477
Tennessee State Office.................................... 2.7438
Florida State Office...................................... 1.0793
Midwest:
Illinois State Office..................................... 3.9655
Cincinnati Area Office.................................... .4645
Cleveland Area Office..................................... .5422
Ohio State Office......................................... 1.1608
Michigan State Office..................................... 1.8521
Grand Rapids Area Office.................................. 2.6617
Indiana State Office...................................... 1.1643
Wisconsin State Office.................................... 2.5429
Minnesota State Office.................................... 3.7183
Southwest:
New Mexico State Office................................... 1.3046
Texas State Office........................................ 7.2209
East Texas HAs.......................................... (1)
Non-East Texas HAs...................................... (2)
Houston Area Office....................................... 1.7024
East Texas HAs.......................................... (3)
Non-East Texas HAs...................................... (4)
Arkansas State Office..................................... 2.1839
Louisiana State Office.................................... 3.9607
Oklahoma State Office..................................... 2.3203
San Antonio Area Office................................... 3.1643
Great Plains:
Iowa State Office......................................... .5858
Kansas/Missouri State Office.............................. 2.7413
Nebraska State Office..................................... 1.0943
St. Louis Area Office.................................... 1.0715
Rocky Mountain:
Colorado State Office..................................... 3.1227
Pacific/Hawaii:
Los Angeles Area Office................................... .2670
Arizona State Office...................................... .9903
Sacramento Area Office.................................... .0808
California State Office................................... 1.7445
Northwest/Alaska:
Oregon State Office....................................... .6706
Washington State Office................................... 1.2608
-----------
Total................................................. 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (0.361045 or 5% of 7.2209)
\2\ (6.859855 or 95% of 7.2209)
\3\ (0.817152 or 48% of 1.7024)
\4\ (0.885248 or 52% of 1.7024)
(c) Assignment of Funds to Offices of Native American Programs
(ONAP). Headquarters has determined the distribution of Indian Housing
CIAP funds for each ONAP, based on the relative shares of backlog and
accrual needs for CIAP IHAs, adjusted as necessary. The fund assignment
will cover Indian Housing and any Public Housing owned and operated by
IHAs.
(1) The ONAP Administrator shall have authority to make Joint
Review selections and CIAP funding decisions. However, the Secretary's
Representative for the geographic area in which the IHA is located is
responsible for scoring the technical review factor related to the
degree of local/tribal government support for the proposed
modernization (see section IV(c)(5) of this NOFA).
(2) If additional funds for Indian Housing CIAP become available,
Headquarters will allocate the funds to each ONAP based on the table
below.
(3) If an ONAP does not receive sufficient fundable applications to
use its allocation, Headquarters will reallocate the remaining funds to
one or more ONAPs that have the highest unfunded demand, as evidenced
by approvable applications.
The following table shows the percentage distribution of CIAP funds
for IHAs, assigned by Headquarters to each ONAP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Indian
Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) Housing
funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern/Woodlands........................................... 14.8444
Southern Plains............................................. 12.3324
Northern Plains............................................. 13.3174
Southwest................................................... 29.9263
Northwest................................................... 24.4868
Alaska...................................................... 5.0927
-----------
Total................................................... 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Purpose and Substantive Description
(a) Authority. Section 14, United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 14371); Section 7(d) Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). The CIAP regulation, 24 CFR part 968, subparts
A and B, for PHAs and 24 CFR part 950, subpart I, for IHAs.
(b) Program Highlights.
(1) Departmental Priority. Improving Public and Indian Housing is
one of the Department's major priorities. Accordingly, a review has
been made of the entire Public and Indian Housing Program.
Specifically, the Department is very concerned about several aspects of
the Modernization Program, as follows:
(i) Design. When identifying physical improvement needs to meet the
modernization standards, HAs are encouraged to consider design which
supports the integration of public housing into the broader community.
Although high priority needs, such as those related to health and
safety, vacant, substandard units, structural or system integrity, and
compliance with statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines, will
receive funding priority, HAs should plan their modernization in a way
which promotes good design, but maintains the modest nature of public
housing. The HA should pay particular attention to design, which is
sensitive to traditional cultural values, and be
[[Page 23930]]
receptive to creative, but cost-effective approaches suggested by
architects, residents, HA staff, and other local entities. Such
approaches may complement the planning for basic rehabilitation needs.
It should be noted that there will be no increase in operating subsidy
as a result of any modernization activities.
(ii) Physical Accessibility and Visitability. In addition to the
design considerations set forth in paragraph (b)(i) of this section,
HAs must comply with accessibility requirements and are encouraged to
provide units that are ``visitable'' by persons with mobility
impairments. Visitability gets the person into the home, but does not
require that all features be made accessible throughout the home.
(A) Accessibility. An accessible home means that the home is
located on an accessible route (36'' clear passage) and, when designed,
constructed, altered or adapted, can be approached, entered, and used
by an individual with physical disabilities.
(B) Visitability. Visitability restricts itself to two areas of a
home; i.e., at least one entrance is at grade (no-step); and all doors
inside provide a 32'' clear passage. A visitable home serves not only
persons with disabilities, but also persons without disabilities. (For
example, a mother pushing a stroller; person delivering large
appliances; person using a walker, etc.). One difference between
``visitability'' and ``accessibility'' is that accessibility requires
that all features of a dwelling unit be made accessible for mobility
impaired persons. A visitable home provides less accessibility than an
accessible home. Examples of actions that HAs may take to support
visitability include:
(1) When conducting a ``needs assessment,'' the HA may identify 25
single family scattered site homes and make those units visitable.
(2) When undertaking substantial alterations as defined in 24 CFR
8.23(a), the HA may identify 50 units in an elderly development not
subject to the new construction requirements of 24 CFR 8.22 and make
those units visitable.
(3) The HA may target the first floor of an existing 3-story family
apartment complex and make those units visitable.
(C) Requirements. In carrying out modernization work, HAs are
required to comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 8.23(a) regarding
substantial alterations and 24 CFR 8.23(b) regarding other alterations,
as well as with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28
CFR part 35. Title II is applicable to HAs established under State law.
Also, the HA shall comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 8.22 and 24
CFR 100.205 (the Fair Housing Act) regarding new construction.
(iii) Provision of Community Space for Welfare-to-Work Initiatives.
HAs are encouraged to provide community space for Welfare-to-Work
initiatives, which include, but are not limited to services
coordination/case management, training, child care, health care,
transportation, and economic development. Where community space is not
otherwise available, CIAP funds may be used to convert existing
dwelling space, renovate existing nondwelling space, or construct or
acquire nondwelling space for this purpose. Where CIAP funds will be
used to provide community space, HAs are required to submit written
evidence from a qualified local agency or provider that the agency or
provider agrees to furnish, equip, operate and maintain the community
space, as well as provide insurance coverage. Where HAs themselves
intend to operate the community space, they must submit written
evidence of the continuing funding sources to furnish, equip, operate,
maintain and insure the community space.
(iv) Resident Involvement and Economic Uplift. HAs are required to
explore and implement through all feasible means the involvement of
residents, including duly-elected resident councils, regardless of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial
status, in every aspect of the CIAP, from planning through
implementation. HAs shall use the provisions of Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to the maximum feasible
extent. HAs are encouraged to seek ways to employ Section 3 residents
in all aspects of the CIAP's operation and to develop means to promote
contracting opportunities for businesses in Section 3 areas. Refer to
24 CFR 85.36(e) regarding the provision of such opportunities.
(v) Elimination of Vacant Units. HAs are encouraged to apply for
CIAP funds to address vacant units where the work does not involve
routine maintenance, but will result in reoccupancy.
(vi) Expediting the Program. HAs are reminded that they are
expected to obligate all funds within two years and to expend all funds
within three years of program approval (Annual Contributions Contract
(ACC) Amendment execution) unless a longer implementation schedule
(Part III of the CIAP Budget) is approved by the Field Office due to
the size or complexity of the program. Failure to obligate funds in a
timely manner may result in the termination of the program and
recapture of the funds.
(2) Relationship to Technical Review Factors. The Departmental goal
of improving Public and Indian Housing is reflected in the technical
review factors, set forth in section IV(c)(5) of this NOFA, on which
the Field Office scores each HA's CIAP Application. Based on the HA's
total score, the Field Office then ranks each HA to determine selection
for Joint Review. The technical review factors emphasize the following
Departmental initiatives to improve Public and Indian Housing:
(i) Restoration of vacant units to occupancy;
(ii) Resident capacity-building and resident involvement in HA
operations, including opportunities for resident management and
homeownership;
(iii) Job training and employment opportunities for residents,
including Step-Up employment and training programs, and contracting
opportunities for Section 3 businesses;
(iv) Drug elimination initiatives;
(v) Partnership with local government; and
(vi) Provision of appropriate replacement housing, as described in
paragraph (c) below.
(c) Expansion of Eligible Activities. The FY 1997 Appropriations
Act continued the expanded eligible activities that, with prior HUD
approval, may be funded from FY 1997 and prior FY CIAP or CGP funds.
These activities include: new construction or acquisition of additional
public housing units, including replacement units (refer to Notice PIH
96-56 (HA), dated July 29, 1996); modernization activities related to
the public housing portion of housing developments held in partnership
or cooperation with non-public housing entities; other activities
related to public housing, including activities eligible under the
Urban Revitalization Demonstration (HOPE VI), such as community
services; and operating subsidy purposes (not to exceed 10 percent of
the grant amount).
III. Application Preparation and Submission by HA.
(a) Planning. In preparing its CIAP Application, the HA is
encouraged to assess all its physical and management improvement needs.
Physical improvement needs should be reviewed against the modernization
standards as set forth in HUD Handbook 7485.2, as revised, physical
accessibility requirements as set forth in 24 CFR part 8, and 28 CFR
part 35, and any cost-effective energy conservation measures,
identified in updated energy audits. The modernization standards
include
[[Page 23931]]
development specific work to ensure the long-term viability of the
developments, such as amenities and design changes to promote the
integration of low-income housing into the broader community. See
section II(b)(1)(i) of this NOFA. In addition, the HA is strongly
encouraged to contact the Field Office to discuss its modernization
needs and obtain information.
(b) Resident Involvement and Local/Tribal Official Consultation
Requirements.
(1) Residents/Homebuyers. The CIAP regulations at Secs. 968.215 or
950.632 require the HA to establish a Partnership Process to ensure
full resident participation in the planning, implementation and
monitoring of the modernization program, as follows:
(i) Before submission of the CIAP Application, consultation with
the residents, resident organization, and resident management
corporation (herein referred to as residents) of the development(s)
being proposed for modernization regarding its intent to submit an
application and to solicit resident comments;
(ii) Reasonable opportunity for residents to present their views on
the proposed modernization and alternatives to it, and full and serious
consideration of resident recommendations;
(iii) Written response to residents indicating acceptance or
rejection of resident recommendations, consistent with HUD requirements
and the HA's own determination of efficiency, economy and need, with a
copy to the Field Office at Joint Review. If the Joint Review is
conducted off-site, a copy is mailed to the Field Office;
(iv) After HUD funding decisions, notification to residents of the
approval or disapproval and, where requested, provision to residents of
a copy of the HUD-approved CIAP Budget; and
(v) During implementation, periodic notification to residents of
work status and progress and maximum feasible employment of residents
in the modernization effort.
(2) Local/Tribal Officials. Before submission of the CIAP
Application, consultation with appropriate local/tribal officials
regarding how the proposed modernization may be coordinated with any
local plans for neighborhood revitalization, economic development, drug
elimination and expenditure of local funds, such as Community
Development Block Grant funds.
(c) Contents of CIAP Application. Within the established deadline
date, the HA shall submit the CIAP Application to the Field Office,
with a copy to appropriate local/tribal officials. The HA may obtain
the necessary forms from the Field Office. The CIAP Application is
comprised of the following documents:
(1) Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, in an original and two
copies, which includes:
(i) A general description of HA development(s), in priority order,
(including the current physical condition, for each development for
which the HA is requesting funds, or for all developments in the HA's
inventory) and physical and management improvement needs to meet the
Secretary's standards in Sec. 968.115 or Sec. 950.610; description of
work items required to correct identified deficiencies, including
accessibility work; and the estimated cost. Where the HA has not
included some of its developments in the CIAP Application, the Field
Office may not consider funding any non-emergency work at excluded
developments or subsequently approve use of leftover funds at excluded
developments. Therefore, to provide maximum flexibility, the HA may
wish to include all of its developments in the CIAP Application, even
though there are no known current needs. Following is an example of the
general description:
Development 1-1: 50 units of low-rent; 25 years old; physical needs
are: new roofs; storm windows and doors; and electrical upgrading at
estimated cost of $150,000.
Development 1-2: 40 units of low-rent; 20 years old; physical needs
are: physical accessibility for kitchens, bathrooms and doors in 2
units and common laundry room; visitability in 4 ground floor units;
kitchen floors; shower/bathtub surrounds; fencing; and exterior
lighting at estimated cost of $130,000.
Development 1-3: 35 units of Turnkey III; 15 years old; physical
needs are: physical accessibility in 3 units; and roof insulation at
estimated cost of $50,000.
Development 1-4: 20 units of low-rent; 5 years old; no physical
needs; no funding requested.
(ii) Where funding is being requested for management improvements,
an identification of the deficiency, a description of the work required
for correction, and estimated cost. Examples of management improvements
include, but are not limited to the following areas:
(A) The management, financial, and accounting control systems of
the HA;
(B) The adequacy and qualifications of personnel employed by the HA
in the management and operation of its developments by category of
employment; and
(C) The adequacy and efficacy of resident programs and services,
resident and development security, resident selection and eviction,
occupancy and vacant unit turnaround, rent collection, routine and
preventive maintenance, equal opportunity, and other HA policies and
procedures.
(iii) A certification that the HA has met the requirements for
consultation with local/tribal officials and residents/homebuyers and
that all developments included in the application have long-term
physical and social viability, including prospects for full occupancy.
If the HA cannot make this certification with respect to long-term
viability, the HA shall attach a narrative, explaining its viability
concerns.
(2) A narrative statement, in an original and two copies,
addressing each of the technical review factors in section IV(c)(5) of
this NOFA and, where applicable, the bonus points in section IV(c)(6)
of this NOFA. The affirmatively furthering fair housing technical
review factor in section IV(c)(5) of this NOFA applies only to Public
Housing; therefore, IHAs are not required to address this factor. In
addressing the affirmatively furthering fair housing technical review
factor, actions that the PHA has taken, or plans to take, to accomplish
this objective may include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Actions that contribute toward the reduction of concentration
of low-income-persons who are protected under the Fair Housing Act.
Such actions may include housing programs/activities that provide
information regarding housing opportunities outside of minority
concentrated areas within the PHA's jurisdictional boundaries, or
efforts that encourage landlords/owners to make available housing
opportunities outside of minority concentrated areas. For example, the
PHA may refer applicants to other available housing as part of an
established housing counseling service or assist applicants in getting
on other waiting lists.
(ii) Actions that overcome the consequences of prior discriminatory
practices or usage which may have tended to exclude persons of a
particular race, color or national origin; or that overcome the effects
of past discrimination against persons with disabilities. Such actions
may include those actions taken without any kind of legally binding
order, but which have changed previous discriminatory management,
tenant selection and assignment or maintenance practices.
(3) Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and
[[Page 23932]]
Cooperative Agreements, in an original only, required of HAs
established under State law, applying for grants exceeding $100,000.
(4) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in an original only,
required of HAs established under State law, only where any funds,
other than federally appropriated funds, will be or have been used to
influence Federal workers, Members of Congress and their staff
regarding specific grants or contracts. The HA determines if the
submission of the SF-LLL form is applicable.
(5) Form HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Update/Disclosure Report, in
an original only, required of HAs established under State law.
(6) At the option of the HA, photographs or video cassettes showing
the physical condition of the developments.
IV. Application Processing by Field Office
(a) Completeness Review (Corrections to Deficient Applications). To
be eligible for processing, the CIAP Application must be physically
received by the Field Office by the time and date specified in this
NOFA. A facsimile application will not be accepted. The Field Office
shall immediately perform a completeness review to determine whether an
application is complete, responsive to the NOFA, and acceptable for
technical processing.
(1) If either Form HUD-52822, CIAP Application, or the narrative
statement on the technical review factors ismissing, the HA's
application will be considered substantially incomplete and, therefore,
ineligible for further processing. The Field Office shall immediately
notify the HA in writing.
(2) If Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans,
and Cooperative Agreements, or SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities, are required, but missing, or Form HUD-2880, Applicant/
Recipient Update/Disclosure Form, is missing, or there is a technical
mistake, such as no signature or no original signature on a submitted
form or the HA failed to address all of the technical review factors,
the Field Office shall immediately notify the HA in writing to submit
or correct the deficiency within 14 calendar days from the date of
HUD's written notification. This is not additional time to
substantially revise the application. Deficiencies which may be
corrected at this time are inadvertently omitted documents, as
specified in this subparagraph, or clarifications of previously
submitted material and other changes which are not of such a nature as
to improve the competitive position of the application.
(3) If the HA fails to submit or correct the items within the
required time period, the HA's application will be ineligible for
further processing. The Field Office shall immediately notify the HA in
writing after this occurs.
(4) The HA may submit a CIAP Application for Emergency
Modernization whenever needed. See section IV(j) of this NOFA.
(b) Eligibility Review. After the HA's CIAP Application is
determined to be complete and accepted for review, the Field Office
eligibility review shall determine if the application is eligible for
full processing or processing on a reduced scope.
(1) Eligibility for Full Processing. To be eligible for full
processing:
(i) Each eligible development for which work is proposed has
reached the Date of Full Availability (DOFA) and is under ACC at the
time of CIAP Application submission; and
(ii) Where funded under Major Reconstruction of Obsolete Projects
(MROP) after FY 1988, the development/building has reached DOFA or,
where funded during FYs 1986-1988, all MROP funds for the development/
building have been expended.
(2) Eligibility for Processing on Reduced Scope. When the following
conditions exist, the HA's application will be reviewed on a reduced
scope:
(i) Section 504 Compliance. Where the HA has not completed all
required structural changes to meet the need for accessible units and
nondwelling facilities, as identified in the HA's Section 504 needs
assessment, the HA is eligible for processing only for Emergency
Modernization or physical work needed to meet the requirements of
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
(ii) Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Testing Compliance. Where the HA has
not complied with the statutory requirement to complete LBP testing on
all pre-1978 family units, the HA is eligible for processing only for
Emergency Modernization or work needed to complete the testing.
(iii) Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Compliance. Where
the HA has not complied with FHEO requirements as evidenced by an
enforcement action, finding or determination, the HA is eligible for
processing only for Emergency Modernization or work needed to remedy
civil rights deficiencies--unless the HA is implementing a voluntary
compliance agreement or settlement agreement designed to correct the
area(s) of noncompliance. The enforcement actions, findings or
determinations that trigger limited eligibility are described in
paragraphs (A) through (E) below:
(A) A pending proceeding against the HA based upon a Charge of
Discrimination issued under the Fair Housing Act. A Charge of
Discrimination is a charge under section 810(g)(2) of the Fair Housing
Act, issued by the Department's Assistant Secretary for FHEO or legally
authorized designee;
(B) A pending civil rights suit against the HA, referred by the
Department's Assistant Secretary for FHEO and instituted by the
Department of Justice;
(C) Outstanding HUD findings of HA noncompliance with civil rights
statutes and executive orders under 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR 968.110 or
24 CFR 950.115, or implementing regulations, as a result of formal
administrative proceedings;
(D) A deferral of the processing of applications from the HA
imposed by HUD under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and HUD
implementing regulations (24 CFR 1.8), the Attorney General's
Guidelines (28 CFR 50.3), and procedures (HUD Handbook 8040.1), or
under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and HUD
implementing regulations (24 CFR 8.57); or
(E) An adjudication of a violation under any of the authorities
specified in 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR 968.110 or 24 CFR 950.115 in a
civil action filed against the HA by a private individual.
(c) Selection Criteria and Ranking Factors. After all CIAP
Applications are reviewed for eligibility, the Field Office shall
categorize the eligible HAs and their developments into two processing
groups, as defined in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph: Group 1 for
Emergency Modernization; and Group 2 for Other Modernization. HA
developments may be included in both groups and the same development
may be in each group. However, the HA is only required to submit one
CIAP Application.
(1) Grouping Modernization Types.
(i) Group 1, Emergency Modernization. This is a type of
modernization program for a development that is limited to physical
work items of an emergency nature to correct conditions that pose an
immediate threat to the health or safety of residents or are related to
fire safety, and that must be corrected within one year of CIAP funding
approval. Funding may not be used for management improvements.
Emergency Modernization includes all LBP testing and abatement of units
housing children under six years old with elevated blood
[[Page 23933]]
lead levels (EBLs) and all LBP testing and abatement of HA-owned day
care facilities used by children under six years old with EBLs. Group 1
developments are not subject to the technical review rating and ranking
in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this paragraph and the long-term
viability and reasonable cost determinations in section V(a) of this
NOFA.
(ii) Group 2, Other Modernization. This is a type of modernization
program for a development that includes one or more physical work
items, where the Field Office determines that the physical improvements
are necessary and sufficient to extend substantially the useful life of
the development, and/or one or more development specific or HA-wide
management work items (including planning costs), and/or LBP testing,
professional risk assessment, interim containment, and abatement.
Therefore, eligibility of work under Other Modernization ranges from a
single work item to the complete rehabilitation of a development. Refer
to section II(b)(1)(i) of this NOFA regarding modest amenities and
improved design. Group 2 developments are subject to the technical
review rating and ranking in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this
paragraph and the long-term viability and reasonable cost
determinations in section V(a) of this NOFA.
(2) Assessment of HA's Management Capability. As part of its
technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall
evaluate the HA's management capability. Particular attention shall be
given to the adequacy of the HA's maintenance in determining the HA's
management capability. This assessment shall be based on the compliance
aspects of on-site monitoring, such as audits, reviews or surveys which
are currently available within the Field Office, and on performance
reviews, as follows:
(i) Public Housing. A PHA has management capability if it is (A)
not designated as Troubled under 24 CFR part 901, Public Housing
Management Assessment Program (PHMAP), or (B) designated as Troubled,
but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring management capability
through CIAP-funded management improvements and administrative support.
A Troubled PHA is eligible for Emergency Modernization only, unless it
is making reasonable progress toward meeting the performance targets
established in its memorandum of agreement or equivalent under 24 CFR
901.140 or has obtained alternative oversight of its management
functions.
(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has management capability if it is (A)
not designated as High Risk under 24 CFR 950.135 or (B) designated as
High Risk, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring management
capability through CIAP-funded management improvements and
administrative support. A High Risk IHA is eligible for Emergency
Modernization only, unless it is making reasonable progress toward
meeting the performance targets established in its management
improvement plan under 24 CFR 950.135 or has obtained alternative
oversight of its management functions.
(3) Assessment of HA's Modernization Capability. As part of its
technical review of the CIAP Application, the Field Office shall
evaluate the HA's modernization capability, including the progress of
previously approved modernization and the status of any outstanding
findings from CIAP monitoring visits, as follows:
(i) Public Housing. A PHA has modernization capability if it is (A)
not designated as Modernization Troubled under 24 CFR part 901, PHMAP,
or (B) designated as Modernization Troubled, but has a reasonable
prospect of acquiring modernization capability through CIAP-funded
management improvements and administrative support, such as hiring
staff or contracting for assistance. A Modernization Troubled PHA is
eligible for Emergency Modernization only, unless it is making
reasonable progress toward meeting the performance targets established
in its memorandum of agreement or equivalent under 24 CFR 901.140 or
has obtained alternative oversight of its modernization functions.
Where a PHA does not have a funded modernization program in progress,
the Field Office shall determine whether the PHA has a reasonable
prospect of acquiring modernization capability through hiring staff or
contracting for assistance.
(ii) Indian Housing. An IHA has modernization capability if it is
(A) not designated as High Risk under 24 CFR 950.135, or (B) designated
as High Risk, but has a reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization
capability through CIAP-funded management improvements and
administrative support, such as hiring staff or contracting for
assistance. An IHA that has been classified High Risk with regard to
modernization is eligible for Emergency Modernization only, unless it
is making reasonable progress toward meeting the performance targets
established in its management improvement plan under 24 CFR
950.135(f)(2) or has obtained alternative oversight of its
modernization functions. Where an IHA does not have a funded
modernization program in progress, the ONAP shall determine whether the
IHA has a reasonable prospect of acquiring modernization capability
through hiring staff or contracting for assistance.
(4) Technical Processing. After categorizing the eligible HAs and
their developments into Group 1 and Group 2, the Field Office shall
forward a list of all HAs in Group 2 to the Secretary's Representative
for scoring the technical review factor related to local/tribal
government support of the proposed modernization, within an established
time frame; the Field Office shall provide the Secretary's
Representative with the portion of each HA's narrative statement,
included in the CIAP Application, related to the technical review
factor on local/tribal government support. In addition, the Field OPH
shall forward a list of all PHAs in Group 2 to the Field Office of FHEO
for scoring the technical review factor related to affirmatively
furthering fair housing, within an established time frame; the Field
OPH shall provide the Office of FHEO with the portion of each PHA's
narrative statement, included in the CIAP Application, related to the
technical review factor on affirmatively furthering fair housing. The
Field OPH shall review and rate each Group 2 HA on each of the
remaining technical review factors in subparagraph (5) of this
paragraph. With the exception of the technical review factor of
``extent and urgency of need,'' a Group 2 HA is rated on its overall HA
application and not on each development. For the technical review
factor of ``extent and urgency of need,'' each development for which
funding is requested in the CIAP Application by a Group 2 HA is scored;
the development with the highest priority needs is scored the highest
number of points, which are then used for the overall HA score on that
factor.
(5) Technical Review Factors. The technical review factors for
assistance are:
[[Page 23934]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Technical review factors points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extent and urgency of need, based on high priority needs
(non-emergency health and safety; vacant, substandard
units; structural or system integrity; or compliance with
statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines), need to
complete previously funded modernization work, or need to
provide appropriate replacement housing for HUD-approved
demolition/disposition.................................... 40
HA's modernization capability based on, for Public Housing,
its PHMAP score on the Modernization Indicator, and for
Indian Housing, its assessment under 24 CFR 950.135....... 15
HA's management capability based on, for Public Housing,
its overall PHMAP score, and for Indian Housing, its
assessment under 24 CFR 950.135........................... 15
Extent of vacancies based on the HA-wide vacancy rate,
where the vacancies are not due to insufficient demand.... 5
Degree of resident involvement in HA operations based on FO
file evidence............................................. 2
Degree of HA activity in coordinating/providing resident
services related to Welfare-to-Work initiatives in
community facilities at or near HA developments based on
FO file evidence. Such services include, but are not
limited to services coordination/case management,
training, child care, health care, transportation, and
economic development...................................... 4
Degree of HA activity in resident initiatives, including
resident management, economic development, homeownership,
and drug elimination efforts or other resident initiatives
for non-elderly based on FO file evidence, including, for
Public Housing, its PHMAP score on the Resident
Initiatives Indicator..................................... 2
Degree of non-elderly resident employment through direct
hiring or contracting/subcontracting or job training
initiatives based on FO file evidence..................... 2
Local/tribal government support for proposed modernization,
through either funding or in-kind contributions, over and
above what is required under the Cooperation Agreement for
municipal services, such as police and fire protection and
refuse collection, within the last 12 months, that will
directly benefit the Public/Indian housing or the
neighborhood surrounding the Public/Indian housing........ 5
Extent of actions that HA has taken, or plans to take to
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (only applicable to
Public Housing)........................................... 10
------------
Total Maximum Score for Public Housing................. 100
Total Maximum Score for Indian Housing................. 90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Bonus points. The Field Office shall provide up to 5 bonus
points for any HA that can demonstrate that it has, over the past 12
months, displayed creative approaches for providing ``visitability''
throughout its housing inventory.
(7) Rating and Ranking. After rating all Group 2 HAs/developments
on each of the technical review factors and providing any bonus points
as set forth in subparagraph (6) of this paragraph, the Field Office
shall then rank each Group 2 HA based on its total score, list Group 2
HAs in descending order, subject to confirmation of need and cost at
Joint Review, and identify for Joint Review selection the highest
ranking applications in Group 2 and other Group 2 HAs with lower
ranking applications, but with high priority needs. High priority needs
are non-emergency needs, but related to: health or safety; vacant,
substandard units; structural or system integrity; or compliance with
statutory, regulatory or court-ordered deadlines. All Group 1
applications are automatically selected for Joint Review. The Field
Office shall consult with Headquarters regarding any identified FHEO
noncompliance.
(d) Joint Review. The purpose of the Joint Review is for the Field
Office to discuss with the HA the proposed modernization program, as
set forth in the CIAP Application, review long-term viability and cost
reasonableness determinations, and determine the size of the grant, if
any, to be awarded.
(1) The Field Office shall select HAs, including all Group 1 HAs,
for Joint Review so that the total dollar value of all proposed
modernization recommended for funding exceeds the Field Office's
estimated funding amount by at least 15 percent. This preserves the
Field Office's ability to adjust cost estimates and work items as a
result of Joint Review.
(2) The Field Office shall notify each HA whose application has
been selected for further processing as to whether Joint Review will be
conducted on-site or off-site (e.g., by telephone or in-office
meeting).
(3) The HA shall prepare for Joint Review by preparing a draft CIAP
Budget and reviewing the other items to be covered during Joint Review,
as prescribed by HUD, such as the need for professional services,
method of accomplishment of physical work (contract or force account
labor), HA compliance with various Federal statutes and regulations,
etc. If conducted on-site, Joint Review will include an inspection of
the proposed physical work.
(4) The Field Office shall advise in writing each HA not selected
for Joint Review of the reasons for non-selection.
(e) Funding Decisions. After all Joint Reviews are completed, the
Field Office shall adjust the HAs, developments, and work items to be
funded and the amounts to be awarded, on the basis of information
obtained from Joint Reviews, FHEO review, and environmental reviews
(refer to paragraph (h) of this section) and make the funding
decisions. Such adjustments are necessary where the Field Office
determines that actual Group 1 emergencies and Group 2 high priority
needs, HA priorities, or cost estimates vary from the HA's application.
Such adjustments may preclude the Field Office from funding all of the
applications selected for Joint Review in order to accommodate the
funding of high priority needs. However, where the information obtained
from Joint Reviews, FHEO review, and environmental reviews confirms the
information used to establish the rankings before Joint Review, the
Field Office shall make funding decisions in accordance with its
rankings. Even if the information obtained from Joint Reviews, FHEO
review, and environmental reviews does not confirm the information used
to establish the rankings before Joint Review, only the funding awarded
will be adjusted accordingly; the scores will not be affected. An HA
will not be selected for Joint Review if there is a duplication of
funding (refer to section V(c) of this NOFA). After Congressional
notifications, the Field Office shall notify the HAs of their funding
approval, subject to submission of the CIAP Budget, including an
implementation schedule, and other required documents.
(f) HA Submission of Additional Documents
After Field Office funding decisions, the HA shall submit the
following documents within the time frame prescribed by the Field
Office:
(1) Form HUD-52825, CIAP Budget/Progress Report, which includes the
[[Page 23935]]
implementation schedule(s), in an original and two copies.
(2) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace, in an
original only.
(3) Form HUD-52820, HA Board Resolution Approving CIAP Budget, in
an original only.
(g) ACC Amendment
After HUD approval of the CIAP Budget, the Field Office and the HA
shall enter into an ACC amendment in order for the HA to draw down
modernization funds. The ACC amendment shall require low-income use of
the housing for not less than 20 years from the date of the ACC
amendment (subject to sale of homeownership units in accordance with
the terms of the ACC). The HA Executive Director, where authorized by
the Board of Commissioners and permitted by State/tribal law, may sign
the ACC amendment on behalf of the HA. HUD has the authority to
condition an ACC amendment (e.g., to require an HA to hire a
modernization coordinator or contract administrator to administer its
modernization program).
(h) Environmental review
Under 24 CFR part 58, the responsible entity, as defined in
Sec. 58.2(a)(7), must assume the environmental responsibilities for
projects being funded under the CIAP. If the HA objects to the
responsible entity conducting the environmental review, on the basis of
performance, timing or compatibility of objectives, the Field OPH
Director/ONAP Administrator will review the facts to determine who will
perform the environmental review. At any time, the Field OPH Director/
ONAP Administrator may reject the use of a responsible entity to
conduct the environmental review in a particular case on the basis of
performance, timing or compatibility of objectives, or in accordance
with Sec. 58.77(d)(1). If a responsible entity objects to performing an
environmental review, or if the Field OPH Director/ONAP Administrator
determines that the responsible entity should not perform the
environmental review, the Field OPH Director/ONAP Administrator may
designate another responsible entity to conduct the review or may
itself conduct the environmental review in accordance with the
provisions of 24 CFR part 50. After selection by the Field Office for
Joint Review, the HA shall provide any documentation to the responsible
entity (or Field Office, where applicable) that is needed to perform
the environmental review.
(1) Where the environmental review is completed before Field Office
approval of the CIAP budget and the HA has submitted its request for
release of funds (RROF), the budget approval letter shall state any
conditions, modifications, prohibitions, etc. as a result of the
environmental review.
(2) Where the environmental review is not completed and/or the HA
has not submitted the RROF before Field Office approval of the CIAP
budget, the budget approval letter shall instruct the HA to refrain
from undertaking, or obligating or expending funds on, physical
activities or other choice-limiting actions, until the Field PH
Director/ONAP Administrator approves the HA's RROF and the related
certification of the responsible entity (or the Field Office has
completed the environmental review). The budget approval letter also
shall advise the HA that the approved budget may be modified on the
basis of the results of the environmental review.
(i) Declaration of Trust
Where the Field Office determines that a Declaration of Trust is
not in place or is not current, the HA shall execute and file for
record a Declaration of Trust, as provided under the ACC, to protect
the rights and interests of HUD throughout the 20-year period during
which the HA is obligated to operate its developments in accordance
with the ACC, the Act, and HUD regulations and requirements. HUD has
determined that its interest in Mutual Help units is sufficiently
protected without the further requirement of a Declaration of Trust;
therefore, a Declaration of Trust is not required for Mutual Help
units.
(j) ``Fast Tracking'' Emergency Applications. Emergency
applications do not have to be processed within the normal processing
time allowed for other applications. Where an immediate hazard must be
addressed, HA emergency applications may be submitted and processed at
any time during the year when funds are available. The Field Office
shall ``fast track'' the processing of these emergency applications so
that fund reservation may occur as soon as possible. An emergency
application is comprised of the following documents:
(1) Form HUD-52825, CIAP Budget/Progress Report, which includes the
implementation schedule(s), in an original and two copies.
(2) Form HUD-52820, HA Board Resolution Approving CIAP Budget, in
an original only.
(3) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace, in an
original only.
(4) Form HUD-50071, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and
Cooperative Agreements, in an original only.
(5) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, in an original only,
where determined by the HA to be applicable.
(6) Form HUD-2880, Applicant/Recipient Update/Disclosure Report, in
an original only.
(7) At the option of the HA, photographs or video cassettes showing
the physical condition of the developments.
V. Other Program Items
(a) Long-Term Viability and Reasonable Cost. On Form HUD-52822,
CIAP Application, the HA certifies whether the developments proposed
for modernization have long-term physical and social viability,
including prospects for full occupancy. During Joint Review, the Field
Office will review with the HA the determination of reasonable cost for
the proposed modernization to ensure that unfunded hard costs do not
exceed 90 percent of the computed total development cost (TDC) for a
new development with the same structure type and number and size of
units in the market area. The Field Office shall make a final viability
determination. Where the estimated per unit unfunded hard cost is equal
to or less than the per unit TDC for the smallest bedroom size at the
development, no further computation of the TDC limit is required.
(1) If the Field Office determines that completion of the
improvements and replacements will not reasonably ensure the long-term
physical and social viability of the development at a reasonable cost,
the Field Office shall only approve Emergency Modernization or non-
emergency funding for essential non-routine maintenance needed to keep
the property habitable until the demolition or disposition application
is approved and residents are relocated.
(2) Where the Field Office wishes to fund a development with hard
costs exceeding 90 percent of computed TDC, the Field Office shall
submit written justification to Headquarters for final decision. Such
justification shall include:
(i) Any special or unusual conditions have been adequately
explained, all work has been justified as necessary to meet the
modernization and energy conservation standards, including development
specific work necessary to provide a modest, non-luxury development;
and
(ii) Reasonable cost estimates have been provided, and every effort
has been made to reduce costs; and
(iii) Rehabilitation of the existing development is more cost-
effective in the long-term than construction or acquisition of
replacement housing; or
[[Page 23936]]
(iv) There are no practical alternatives for replacement housing.
(b) Use of Dwelling Units for Economic Self-Sufficiency Services
and/or Drug Elimination Activities. CIAP funds may be used to convert
dwelling units for purposes related to economic self-sufficiency
services and/or drug elimination activities. Regarding the eligibility
for funding under the Performance Funding System of dwelling units used
for these purposes, refer to Sec. 990.108(b)(2) or Sec. 950.720(b)(2).
(c) Duplication of Funding. The HA shall not receive duplicate
funding for the same work item or activity under any circumstance and
shall establish controls to assure that an activity, program, or
project that is funded under any other HUD program shall not be funded
by CIAP.
VI. Application Deadline Date and Summary of FY 1997 CIAP
Processing Steps
The deadline date for submission of the FY 1997 CIAP Application is
[insert 60 calendar days after date of publication]. Dates for other
processing steps will be established by each Field Office to reflect
local workload issues.
Summary of Processing Steps
1. HA submits CIAP Application.
2. Field Office conducts completeness review and requests
corrections to deficient applications or notifies HAs of ineligible
applications.
3. HA submits corrections to deficient applications within 14
calendar days of notification from Field Office.
4. Field Office conducts eligibility review and technical review
(rating and ranking) and makes Joint Review selections.
5. Field Office completes Joint Reviews and FHEO review; Field
Office or responsible entity completes environmental reviews.
6. Field Office makes funding decisions and forwards Congressional
notifications to Headquarters.
7. Congressional notification is completed and Field Office
notifies HA of funding decisions.
8. HA submits additional documents as required in section IV(f) of
this NOFA.
9. Field Office completes fund reservations and forwards ACC
amendment to HA for signature and return.
10. Field Office executes ACC amendment and HA begins
implementation.
VII. Other Matters
(a) Environmental Impact. A Finding of No Significant Impact with
respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR part 50 implementing section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4332). The Finding of
No Significant Impact is available for public inspection and copying
between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 pm weekdays at the Office of the Rules
Docket Clerk, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410.
(b) Federalism Impact. The General Counsel, as the Designated
Official under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has
determined that the policies and procedures contained in this NOFA will
not have substantial direct effects on States or their political
subdivisions, or the relationship between the federal government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. As a result, the NOFA is not subject
to review under the Order.
(c) Impact on the Family. The General Counsel, as the Designated
Official for Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that
this NOFA does not have the potential for significant impact on family
formation, maintenance, and general well-being, and thus, is not
subject to review under the order. No significant change in existing
HUD policies or programs would result from promulgation of this rule,
as those policies and programs relate to family concerns.
Accountability in the Provision of HUD Assistance
Section 102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Reform Act of 1989 (42 USC 3545) (HUD Reform Act) and the final rule
codified at 24 CFR part 4, subpart A, published on April 1, 1996 (61 FR
1448), contain a number of provisions that are designed to ensure
greater accountability and integrity in the provision of certain types
of assistance administered by HUD. On January 14, 1992, HUD published,
at 57 FR 1942, a notice that also provides information on the
implementation of section 102. The documentation, public access, and
disclosure requirements of section 102 are applicable to assistance
awarded under this NOFA as follows:
Documentation and public access requirements. HUD will ensure that
documentation and other information regarding each application
submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to indicate the basis
upon which assistance was provided or denied. This material, including
any letters of support, will be made available for public inspection
for a five-year period beginning not less than 30 days after the award
of the assistance. Material will be made available in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) and HUD's implementing
regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will include the
recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its Federal Register
notice of all recipients of HUD assistance awarded on a competitive
basis.
Disclosures. HUD will make available to the public for five years
all applicant disclosure reports (HUD Form 2880) submitted in
connection with this NOFA. Update reports (also Form 2880) will be made
available along with the applicant disclosure reports, but in no case
for a period less than three years. All reports--both applicant
disclosures and updates--will be made available in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) and HUD's implementing
regulations at 24 CFR part 15.
(e) Prohibition Against Advance Information on Funding Decisions.
HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, codified as 24 CFR part 4,
applies to the funding competition announced today. The requirements of
the rule continue to apply until the announcement of the selection of
successful applicants. HUD employees involved in the review of
applications and in the making of funding decisions are limited by part
4 from providing advance information to any person (other than an
authorized employee of HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from
otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons
who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their
inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.
Applicants or employees who have ethics related questions should
contact the HUD Ethics Law Division (202) 708-3815. (This is not a
toll-free number.) For HUD employees who have specific program
questions, the employee should contact the appropriate Field Office
Counsel, or Headquarters counsel for the program to which the question
pertains.
(f) Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities. The use of funds
awarded under this NOFA is subject to the disclosure requirements and
prohibitions of Section 319 of the Department of Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (31 USC 1352) and the
HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 87. These authorities
prohibit recipients of federal contracts, grants or loans from using
appropriated funds for lobbying
[[Page 23937]]
the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in
connection with a specific contract, grant or loan. The prohibition
also covers the awarding of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements
or loans unless the recipient has made an acceptable certification
regarding lobbying. Under 24 CFR part 87, applicants, recipients and
subrecipients of assistance exceeding $100,000 must certify that no
federal funds have been or will be spent on lobbying activities in
connection with the assistance.
IHAs established by an Indian tribe as a result of the exercise of
the tribe's sovereign power are excluded from coverage of the Byrd
Amendment, but IHAs established under State law are not excluded from
the statute's coverage.
If the amount applied for is greater than $100,000, the
certification is required at the time application for funds is made
that federally appropriated funds are not being or have not been used
in violation of the Byrd Amendment. If the amount applied for is
greater than $100,000 and the HA has made or has agreed to make any
payment using nonappropriated funds for lobbying activity, as described
in 24 CFR part 87 (Byrd Amendment), the submission also must include
the SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. The HA determines if the
submission of the SF-LLL is applicable.
VIII. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number is
14.852.
Dated: April 23, 1997.
Kevin Emanuel Marchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 97-11272 Filed 4-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.