[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2041-2061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00234]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2041]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, 903, and 905
[Docket No. FR 6123-P-02]
RIN 2577-AA97
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: HUD recognizes that its program participants have a duty to
affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), which HUD finds essential to
the appropriate administration of its grant programs. Program
participants must certify that they AFFH and maintain documentation to
support that certification. This rule proposes changes to HUD's
regulations regarding the reporting on program participants' actions to
AFFH so that HUD can effectively evaluate participants' compliance with
their AFFH obligations. This proposed rule would establish a uniform
reporting process that respects the unique needs and difficulties faced
by individual jurisdictions by assessing program participants on the
concrete actions they take to AFFH and by leveraging objective metrics
for fair housing choice to assist HUD's evaluation of such actions. The
proposed regulation would revise the definition of AFFH, develop
metrics to allow comparison of jurisdictions, and require jurisdictions
to certify that they will AFFH by identifying concrete steps the
jurisdiction will take over the next 5 years. Jurisdictions would need
to report on their progress toward the commitments in their AFFH
certification through the regular consolidated plan reporting and
review processes. Public housing agencies would demonstrate their
efforts to AFFH through their participation in the consolidated plan
process.
DATES: Comment Due Date: March 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule. Copies of all comments submitted are available for
inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov. To receive
consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through
one of two methods, specified below. All submissions must refer to the
above docket number and title.
1. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit
comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the
commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to
the public. Comments submitted electronically through the
www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
2. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Enzel, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th
Street SW, Room 5204; telephone number 202-402-5557 (this is not a
toll-free number). This number may be accessed via TTY by calling the
toll-free Federal Relay Service during working hours at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. History
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of
housing based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status,
or national origin.\1\ Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3608(e)(5)) requires that the HUD Secretary
``administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban
development in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of [the
Fair Housing Act].'' In addition, recipients of HUD funding are
required by other statutes to certify they will AFFH:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 42 U.S.C. 3604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Community Development Act. Jurisdictions
directly receiving Community Development Block Grants must certify that
they will AFFH (Sec. 104(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 5304(b)(2)). Local
governments receiving grants from a state must also certify they will
AFFH (Sec. 106(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. 5306(d)(7)(B)).
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. States
and local governments receiving certain grants must certify they will
AFFH as part of their 5-year comprehensive housing affordability
strategy identifying needs for affordable and supportive housing for
the following 5 years (Sec. 105(b)(15), 42 U.S.C. 12705(b)(15)).
United States Housing Act of 1937. Public housing agencies
must include a certification they will AFFH as part of their annual
plan (Sec. 5A(d)(16), 42 U.S.C. 1437c-1(d)(16)).
Recipients of HUD funding, therefore, are required to affirmatively
further the Fair Housing Act's goal of promoting fair housing and equal
opportunity. The Fair Housing Act and subsequent acts requiring
certifications do not specify how HUD, or recipients of funding, are to
AFFH, granting the Secretary broad discretion to define the precise
scope of the AFFH obligation for HUD's program participants, including
the AFFH certification.\2\ Further, in Inclusive Communities, the
Supreme Court warned that the Fair Housing Act ``is not an instrument
to force housing authorities to reorder their priorities'' \3\ and is
not meant to remedy mere
[[Page 2042]]
statistical imbalances in housing for protected class members.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., United States v. Winthrop Towers, 628 F.2d 1028,
1036 (7th Cir. 1980) (``HUD has broad discretion `to choose between
alternative methods of achieving the national housing objectives set
forth in the several applicable statutes.' '') (quoting Shannon v.
U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 436 F.2d 809, 819 (3d Cir. 1970));
see also Nat'l Fair Hous. Alliance, 330 F. Supp. 3d at 62 (D.D.C.
Aug. 2018) (``HUD has `broad discretion to choose between
alternative methods of achieving the national housing objectives set
forth in the several applicable statutes,' . . . and the Court may
not substitute its judgment for HUD's in determining the best way of
doing so.'') (quoting Shannon 436 F.2d at 819).
\3\ Tex. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys.
Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2522-23 (2015).
\4\ See, e.g., id. at 2522 (``But disparate-impact liability has
always been properly limited in key respects that avoid the serious
constitutional questions that might arise under the [Fair Housing
Act], FHA, for instance, if such liability were imposed based solely
on a showing of a statistical disparity.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD satisfies its own AFFH obligations in various ways, including
by imposing site and neighborhood standards for HUD-funded
development,\5\ requiring affirmative marketing of housing units to
promote integrated neighborhoods,\6\ and designing its programs to be
consistent with its AFFH obligation. HUD also uses the disparate impact
theory as a method of addressing violations of the Fair Housing Act
where there is not clear evidence of intent to discriminate. HUD's
grantee compliance monitoring advances the same goal--by requiring that
grantees maintain records to support their AFFH certifications, HUD can
use the information gathered to address violations of the Fair Housing
Act that are not immediately apparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., 24 CFR 891.125; 983.57.
\6\ 24 CFR part 200, subpart M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, HUD issued a final rule \7\ revising the AFFH reporting
regulations for program participants. That rule required program
participants to use a computer assessment tool to complete an
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) by answering 92 questions on fair
housing issues, priorities, and goals. Topics included segregation,
racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant
disparities in access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing
needs. The rule contemplated separate assessment tools for public
housing agencies (PHAs), States and Insular Areas, and local
governments. HUD released a tool for local governments \8\ but never
released a tool for States and Insular Areas, and the tool for PHAs
never became operational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; Final Rule,''
published July 16, 2015, at 80 FR 42272.
\8\ ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Announcement of
Renewal of Approval of the Assessment Tool for Local Governments,''
published January 13, 2017, at 82 FR 4391; ``Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool: Announcement of Final
Approved Document,'' published December 31, 2015, at 80 FR 81840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Justification for Change
While the statutory obligation to AFFH has not changed, HUD has,
over time, required program participants to document their efforts and
plans to AFFH in several different ways. Since the issuance of the 2015
final rule, HUD has determined that the current regulations are overly
burdensome to both HUD and grantees and are ineffective in helping
program participants meet their reporting obligations for multiple
reasons. While some of the burdens are a result of the assessment tools
themselves, the tools are closely tied to the regulatory language,
which HUD believes is too prescriptive in outcomes for jurisdictions.
Therefore, HUD believes it is necessary to revise the codified
regulation, not just the assessment tools.
First, the AFH required significant resources from program
participants, and its complexity and demands resulted in a high failure
rate for jurisdictions to gain approval for their AFH in the first year
of AFH submission. HUD became aware of significant deficiencies in the
Local Government assessment tool that impeded completion and HUD
acceptance of meaningful assessments by program participants. The
number of questions, the open-ended nature of many questions, and the
lack of prioritization between questions made the planning process both
inflexible and difficult to complete.
On May 15, 2017, HUD issued a notice inviting public comments to
assist HUD in identifying existing regulations that may be outdated,
ineffective, or excessively burdensome.\9\ Many commenters specifically
indicated that, as program participants, they found the rule's
requirements to be (or likely to be) extremely resource-intensive and
complicated, placing a strain on limited budgets. A representative of
PHAs wrote that compliance with the ``overly burdensome and
impractical'' rule \10\ would be expensive, with particular concern for
PHAs with small housing portfolios, while other commenters stated that
the rule did not provide enough consideration to the fact that
jurisdictions are limited geographically in what they can do, even when
a jurisdiction is in a regional partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Reducing Regulatory Burden; Enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda Under Executive Order 13777,'' published June 14,
2017, at 82 FR 22344.
\10\ See Lisa Stevens, Idaho Chapter of NAHRO letter to HUD
Notice FR-6030-N-01 Reducing Regulatory Burden; Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda Under Executive Order 13777, June 14, 2017,
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2017-0029-0109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 49 jurisdictions that were in the first group to submit an
AFH between October 2016 and December 2017, 31 (63 percent) were either
never accepted or were only accepted after HUD required revisions.\11\
While regional AFHs allowed program participants to pool knowledge and
resources, the joint AFHs had the same defects as individual AFHs.\12\
Program participants attempted to prepare successful AFHs by hiring
outside consultants, redirecting resources that could have been used to
support affordable housing directly.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Withdrawal of the
Assessment Tool for Local Governments,'' published May 23, 2018, at
83 FR 23922.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sheer volume of data and variety of expertise required under
the 2015 rule placed an undue burden on jurisdictions. While the
assessment tool for PHAs was not finally implemented, under a published
draft, PHAs would have been responsible for reporting on factors such
as segregation levels and patterns dating back to 1990, community
attitudes leading to observed patterns, and the presence or lack of
private or public investment for the jurisdiction's protected
classes.\14\ The tool would also require PHAs to analyze and consider
data and policies beyond their jurisdictional control and typical
subject-matter expertise. For example, the rule required identifying
disparities in ``. . . access to public transportation, quality schools
and jobs . . . [and] environmental health hazards'' and ``programs,
policies, or funding mechanisms that affect disparities'' to such
access.\15\ A commenter on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
AFFH regulations issued in 2018 noted that this jurisdictional analysis
was simply too complex to be effectively completed by staff without
specific statistical and mapping knowledge, as housing providers
generally have staff with skills that lie in providing affordable
housing services, but not in providing complex statistical data
analysis.\16\ The same is likely true for many smaller jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ PHA Assessment of Fair Housing Tool (https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Assessment-of-Fair-Housing-Tool-For-Public-Housing-Agencies-2017-01.pdf).
\15\ AFFH Rule, 80 FR at 42282.
\16\ Jim Hobbs, Housing Authority of Pikeville comment letter to
FR-6123-A-01 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and
Enhancements, p. 1, October 12, 2018, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2018-0060-0150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 rule also had public participation requirements that were
similar to the consolidated plan citizen participation requirements,
but it created a separate process for the AFH that duplicated the
existing requirements for citizen participation and consultation with
outside organizations that were already required for the consolidated
plan. Jurisdictions were required to hold at least one public
[[Page 2043]]
hearing specifically on their proposed AFFH strategies prior to
publishing the AFH for comment. According to some commenters, these
AFFH-specific hearings created high additional costs for
jurisdictions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Tiffany King, The Michigan State Housing
Development Authority (MSHDA), comment letter to FR-6123-A-01
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and
Enhancements, p. 1, October 16, 2018, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2018-0060-0369; Jennifer Eby
comment letter to HUD Notice FR-6030-N-01 Reducing Regulatory
Burden; Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda Under Executive Order
13777, p. 2, June 14, 2017, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2017-0029-0222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the administration of the rule was burdensome to HUD. While
implementing the 2015 rule, HUD spent over $3.5 million to provide
technical assistance to the initial 49 jurisdictions. A workforce
management plan, written by a contractor prior to the initial AFH
submissions, estimated that HUD would need 538 full-time employees to
conduct reviews of the AFHs submitted in 2019, given the increased
number of jurisdictions originally scheduled to submit AFHs in 2019 (up
to 682).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ AFFH Workforce Management Plan, April 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the 2015 rule's scope was particularly burdensome because
HUD did not tailor the rule depending on the program participant, other
than through creating broad categories. Every jurisdiction, regardless
of their size, civil rights record, or current housing conditions, had
to go through the same AFH process, without the flexibility to identify
their locality's most relevant issues or to adapt their process to the
unique conditions of the jurisdiction. Commenters expressed concerns
that they lacked the capacity to analyze the several contributing
factors prescribed by HUD and requested that HUD allow grantees
flexibility in identifying issues and developing a course of
action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., The City of Winston-Salem, NC comment letter to
FR-6123-A-01 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and
Enhancements, p. 2, October 16, 2018, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2018-0060-0357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, HUD determined that the 2015 rule focused too much on
planning and process, and not enough on either the jurisdiction or HUD
evaluating fair housing results. Jurisdictions were required to
consider and provide extensive documentation for every question,
regardless of whether the question or the expected answer advanced the
jurisdiction's duty to AFFH or was relevant to the needs of the
jurisdiction. This uniform, process-based approach discouraged
innovation, allowed the process to substitute for actual results, and
made it difficult to evaluate and compare jurisdictions over time.
Jurisdictions can advance fair housing in ways that HUD officials
cannot predict because HUD lacks the extensive localized knowledge of
State or local officials. The inherent nature of fitting jurisdictions
into pre-determined categories and methods rather than evaluating
jurisdictions based on results and achievements could discourage
innovation and inhibit HUD's ability to evaluate a jurisdiction's
improvement.
Finally, the completion of the AFH required grantees to use
specific data sets and HUD-provided tools, including extensive mapping
data, locally available data, and data from various interest groups.
The goal behind the assessment tools was to assist in compiling this
information, but the scope of the task of providing quality tools
proved difficult for HUD, given the wide variety of circumstances to
which they applied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the absence
of a discrete statutory objective. For local jurisdictions, the tool
was difficult to learn and operate and did not include all factors that
jurisdictions deemed relevant, such as low-income housing tax credit
supported projects. For PHAs and states, no tools were ever provided
because of the challenge in developing appropriate data sets for both
relatively large and small geographies, i.e., states and particular
housing developments.
While the 2015 rule was not fully implemented, HUD determined that
the results from the limited roll-out (summarized above) were
sufficient to cease further implementation. HUD therefore concluded
that a new approach was required.\20\ On August 16, 2018, HUD published
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 83 FR 40713, asking for the
public's input on changes that would: (1) Minimize regulatory burden
while more effectively aiding program participants to meet their legal
obligations; (2) create a process that is focused primarily on
accomplishing positive results, rather than on performing analysis of
community characteristics; (3) provide for greater local control and
innovation; (4) seek to encourage actions that increase fair housing
choice, including through greater housing supply; and (5) more
efficiently utilize HUD resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Additional information was included in the Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, ``Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
Streamlining and Enhancements,'' published October 15, 2018, at 83
FR 40713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD received over 700 public comments in response. Many expressed
support for the 2015 final rule and urged HUD to continue to implement
its requirements. These commenters cited the need for a way to enforce
the AFFH requirement and cited the significant use of resources and
public input that went into the creation of the 2015 rule. These
commenters found the early results of the rule ``promising'' and
believed that improving the tools would ease the burdens and improve
the process.
However, a large number of commenters opposed the 2015 rule. Some
objected to the idea entirely, citing concerns for local control of
zoning. Others felt that the requirements of the rule were too onerous,
specifically the level of public participation needed and the scope of
data that program participants were required to address. Commenters
asked that program participants and PHAs be given broader discretion in
their planning. Multiple commenters suggested that instead of the 2015
rule's approach, HUD should find ways to use the AFFH process to
provide incentives to increase housing supply and remove restrictive
zoning regulations.
HUD has considered these comments and suggestions in the
development of this proposed rule.
III. Goals of Proposed Rule
HUD seeks to further both the spirit and the letter of the Fair
Housing Act. Housing discrimination still takes place, and many
jurisdictions continue to allow known barriers to fair housing--such as
burdensome governmental processes, the concentration of substandard
housing stock in specific areas, or restrictions based on the source of
a tenant's income--to exist.
HUD intends this regulation to promote and provide incentives for
innovations in the areas of affordable housing supply, access to
housing, and improved housing conditions. This is part of HUD's ongoing
effort to improve regulations to allow and encourage innovative
solutions to the housing problems facing America today. For example,
there have been significant improvements in housing design and
production products, as demonstrated in new designs for manufactured
housing and reduced-size housing. Jurisdictions have also chosen to
adopt changes in zoning laws that promote housing for the local
workforce. Jurisdictions have amended historic preservation laws to
permit redesign of buildings that are ill-suited for its community
members with disabilities. Jurisdictions are promoting the provision of
housing adjacent to transportation centers. As jurisdictions examine
and discuss obstacles to fair housing, HUD anticipates such obstacles
[[Page 2044]]
can, in part, be addressed through innovative approaches to design and
building codes and the elimination of unnecessary fees and other
regulatory barriers. HUD will spotlight jurisdictions achieving such
new solutions, but will not mandate or prescribe specific actions.
Therefore, HUD is proposing a new process to evaluate each
jurisdiction's efforts to AFFH that not only allows HUD to enforce
civil rights requirements effectively but also empowers individual
jurisdictions to develop new approaches to AFFH and share with their
peer jurisdictions what has worked and what has not. This approach will
allow HUD to target its resources where they are most needed while
enabling jurisdictions to measure their progress, understand their
successes or failures, and continue to improve their efforts, without a
mandate from HUD on exactly what steps to take. This approach would
allow HUD to highlight best practices and create a repository of ideas
by drawing out the diffuse knowledge about fair housing held by local
actors and encouraging policy experimentation. HUD hopes to leverage
this knowledge by studying the best housing opportunity results across
the country and encouraging jurisdictions to adopt best practices.
This approach allows and provides incentives to local actors who
know best the fair housing needs of their communities to take steps to
further their particularized goals. As the Supreme Court stated in
Inclusive Communities, while discussing the purpose of the Fair Housing
Act, HUD should not ``second-guess which of two reasonable approaches''
should be taken or ``force housing authorities to reorder their
priorities'' unnecessarily.\21\ The Fair Housing Act ``does not decree
a particular vision of urban development.'' \22\ HUD aims to take this
into account and allow for the flexibility and innovation necessary to
best further fair housing nationwide, recognizing that fair housing is
an especially difficult and complex policy area because of the
competing considerations that go into promoting fair housing and other
valid governmental priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Inclusive Communities, 135 S. Ct. at 2522.
\22\ Id. at 2523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By proposing to reward jurisdictions that are performing well in
their AFFH efforts and improving in ways that will benefit entire
communities, HUD will provide incentives to both jurisdictions and the
general public to find ways to help local jurisdictions improve their
AFFH efforts. By increasing the number of people who benefit from an
expansion of fair and affordable housing, HUD expects that a larger
share of the local community will be motivated to participate in local
discussions on how to AFFH and what strategies are best suited for the
locality. Such incentives may encourage citizens and local businesses
to participate in important local housing debates when they otherwise
may have sat on the sidelines. HUD believes that having buy-in from a
broad range of citizens and businesses in a community will result in a
stronger AFFH effort and help reduce housing discrimination.
HUD also recognizes that government policies, even when well-
intentioned, can have negative results. This proposed policy of
encouraging local experimentation is a recognition of the difficulties
of crafting a top-down approach. HUD does not expect this proposed rule
to be the final word on how recipients of HUD funding can AFFH. Rather,
HUD anticipates that this will be the beginning of a flexible approach,
consistent with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements, as
HUD and jurisdictions gain additional evidence about what works and
does not work to facilitate the advancement of fair housing.
IV. Summary of Proposed Rule
HUD believes that fair housing choice exists when a jurisdiction
can foster the broad availability of affordable housing that is decent,
safe, and sanitary and does so without housing discrimination. To that
end, HUD is proposing to evaluate how program participants are carrying
out their AFFH obligation as a threshold matter by using a series of
data-based measures to determine whether a jurisdiction (1) is free of
adjudicated fair housing claims; (2) has an adequate supply of
affordable housing throughout the jurisdiction; and (3) has an adequate
supply of quality affordable housing. Jurisdictions that score highly
using these metrics (or through improvements over a 5-year cycle) would
be eligible for various incentives in HUD programs. HUD would focus
remedial resources and potential regulatory enforcement actions on the
lowest performers.
All program participants included in the consolidated plan process
would be required to examine their own circumstances to determine how
best to address their AFFH performance. HUD is proposing to modify the
regulatory requirements of jurisdictions' certifications that they will
AFFH by requiring the jurisdictions to commit, in the certification, to
taking specific steps to address obstacles to fair housing choice. As a
result of HUD's proposal to include these commitments as part of the
consolidated plan, jurisdictions would consult with all relevant
stakeholders to develop AFFH commitments tailored to the needs and
situations of the jurisdiction. HUD expects that jurisdictions would
then be able to share with others, through HUD and otherwise, what
worked and what did not work, allowing jurisdictions to learn from one
another as they develop new approaches. PHAs would be required to
participate in the development of this certification through their
participation in the consolidated plan process; this participation and
their own accompanying AFFH certification would be how PHAs fulfill
their AFFH responsibilities.
The previous AFFH process--which required lengthy submissions that
averaged 204 pages but stretched as long as 832 pages \23\--risked
violating the organizational management maxim that if everything is a
priority, nothing is a priority. In contrast, HUD believes that
simplifying AFFH requirements would aid program participants in meeting
their statutory civil rights obligations. It would also help HUD target
its enforcement and technical assistance for jurisdictions receiving
CDBG funds so that HUD's efforts are directed where they are needed
most. This would allow jurisdictions to focus on their most important
fair housing goals so that the jurisdiction could achieve more of their
aims, instead of trying to execute too many goals to be successful. By
having jurisdictions focus on fewer elements, it would be easier for
the public to provide relevant information and feedback, better
enabling jurisdictions to take those contributions from the public into
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See December 23, 2016, AFH of the City of Philadelphia and
the Philadelphia Housing Authority, available at http://ohcdphila.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/afh-2016-for-web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and its
potential impacts. However, there are areas where HUD is seeking very
specific feedback on the proposal. These specific requests for comments
are embedded in the preamble discussion.
A. Definition of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The current regulation defines AFFH as ``taking meaningful actions
that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs
and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with
truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially
and ethnically
[[Page 2045]]
concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering
and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.''
\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 24 CFR 5.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD proposes changing the definition of AFFH to ``advancing fair
housing choice within the program participant's control or influence.''
HUD is proposing a definition of ``fair housing choice'' to be allowing
``individuals and families [to] have the opportunity and options to
live where they choose, within their means, without unlawful
discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, familial status,
national origin, or disability.'' \25\ Fair housing choice would
consist of three components:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Fair Housing Act uses the term ``handicap.'' See 42
U.S.C. 3604. However, the term ``disability'' is more commonly used
and accepted today to refer to a physical or mental impairment that
is protected under federal civil rights laws, the record of that
impairment, or being perceived as having an impairment. Therefore,
except when quoting from the Fair Housing Act, this preamble and
proposed rule use the term ``disability.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Protected choice, meaning the absence of discrimination.
(2) Actual choice, meaning not only that affordable housing options
exist (as defined by the jurisdiction based on the needs and resources
of that jurisdiction), but that the information and resources are
available to enable informed choices. This is intended to encourage
jurisdictions to provide public education about fair housing, the
protected classes, and the resources available to protected class
members to protect their right to fair housing.
(3) Quality choice, meaning that the available and affordable
housing is decent, safe, and sanitary, and, for persons with
disabilities, accessible as required under civil rights laws.
This revised definition of AFFH would avoid a federal government
directive for local action that does not align with the statutory
directive or that goes go beyond the authority of subject
jurisdictions. It would also alleviate the unintended consequences of
discouraging the use of federal assistance in communities that need
additional help instead of restrictions. It would provide a more
tailored approach that would take into account local issues and
concerns by allowing local jurisdictions to create custom approaches
based on their unique circumstances.
In addition, the revised definition would make it clear that fair
housing is based on fair housing choice. Fair housing involves
combatting discrimination across all the classes protected by the Fair
Housing Act: color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and
national origin. Finally, the revised AFFH definition would emphasize
that a jurisdiction can AFFH in a variety of ways, according to the
needs and means of the local community.
The revised definition does not affect the responsibility of
jurisdictions to comply with other relevant federal requirements and
civil rights law.
B. AFFH Certifications
Each jurisdiction that submits a consolidated plan must submit a
certification that it will AFFH. Currently, the certification consists
of a statement that the jurisdiction will AFFH, but it does not specify
the exact way the jurisdiction intends to AFFH. HUD is proposing to
expand the certification so that the jurisdiction would commit to
addressing at least three fair housing choice obstacles or goals over
the next five years. By including AFFH planning as part of the
consolidated plan process, HUD proposes to incorporate the public
participation requirements of the consolidated plan, without imposing
an additional burden on jurisdictions. PHAs, already required to
participate in the consolidated plan process, would be required to
certify, in every applicable annual plan, that they have consulted with
the jurisdiction on how to satisfy their obligations to AFFH. This
participation and certification would fulfill their AFFH
responsibilities.
Each jurisdiction would be required to submit at least three
measurable, concrete goals it plans on reaching in the upcoming years
or obstacles to fair housing choice it plans to address, within its
scope of influence, to increase fair housing choice. HUD would expect
these submissions to provide a brief and direct explanation of how
pursuing each goal or alleviating each obstacle would further fair
housing choice in their jurisdiction. HUD would review these goals or
obstacles for completeness and verify they use concrete and measurable
standards, but HUD would not require that the goals cover specific
areas or reach certain thresholds. Jurisdictions may consider
additional data other than what was used for the comparison metrics in
deciding what steps to take, but they would be required to provide a
narrative justification for the decisions and goals. The certification
would not have to address all fair housing obstacles or identify every
effort the jurisdiction would take, but it should identify crucial or
material efforts that the jurisdiction would reasonably expect to
undertake over the next five years.
Question for Comment 1: Is three the appropriate number of goals a
jurisdiction should submit? If not, what would be a more suitable
number? Would a higher number more appropriately hold jurisdictions
accountable to AFFH without imposing an undue burden?
Question for Comment 2: How should HUD balance requiring overly
prescriptive standards with ensuring integrity for data sources that
support such goals?
The certification would be informed by the nature of the program
participant, its geographic scope, its size, and its financial,
technical and managerial resources. The goals or obstacles identified
in the certification would not need to be based on any HUD-prescribed
mode of analysis, such as examining a statistical analysis of housing
patterns, using any specified data set, or reflecting original research
or commissioned expert opinions, but they should reflect the practical
experience and local insights of the program participant in conducting
its ordinary housing-related operations, both with HUD funding and
other programmatic efforts.
HUD recognizes that jurisdictions may find many ways to advance
fair housing that HUD officials cannot predict. Developing approaches
to AFFH is a particularly difficult policy area, because a jurisdiction
must consider competing factors within the jurisdiction that affect how
best to AFFH, and State or local officials have the localized knowledge
to balance those considerations. Therefore, HUD is not proposing to
require that jurisdictions carry out specific steps to AFFH. This
approach would allow jurisdictions to act as they deem necessary to
achieve their results while allowing HUD to avoid micromanaging
localities, ``decree[ing] a particular vision of urban development,''
\26\ or ``second-guess[ing] which of two reasonable approaches'' a
jurisdiction should take.\27\ It would preserve flexibility for
jurisdictions to take action based on the needs, interests, and means
of the local community, and respects the proper role and expertise of
state and local authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Inclusive Communities, 135 S. Ct. at 2522-23.
\27\ Id. at 2512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Comment 3: What, if any, aspects of the proposed rule
and other policies not in the proposed rule, would motivate
jurisdictions to more meaningfully engage in the AFFH planning process
and make progress on the goals of the local AFFH plan?
[[Page 2046]]
However, HUD anticipates that jurisdictions may look to common ways
to increase fair housing choice in their jurisdictions. HUD proposes
including a non-exhaustive list in the regulation of conditions that
HUD considers to be common barriers to fair housing choice. HUD would
consider a goal to take concrete steps toward alleviating or improving
one of these listed conditions as a justified method of affirmatively
furthering fair housing, and therefore jurisdictions would not need to
include an explanation of why the jurisdiction is pursuing solutions to
these barriers. While the proposed list would serve as a resource for
jurisdictions in identifying potential obstacles or goals, HUD is not
requiring jurisdictions to choose from these barriers when developing
their certifications. HUD seeks input on what specific barriers may be
categorized as ``common'' and thus should be included in the list.
HUD recognizes the broad sweep of the AFFH obligation, its nature
which defies easy quantification, and its susceptibility to widely
diverging but reasonable interpretations. In analyzing the statutory
direction within the context of the Fair Housing Act and other
applicable laws as a whole, HUD does not expect that program
participants would be able to immediately and completely address each
impediment which they identify. Further, the purpose of these goals
would not be to bind the jurisdiction to a certain course of action.
Rather, these goals would be intended to provide HUD with an
explanation of how the jurisdictions plans to AFFH so that HUD can
review the jurisdiction's actions to determine whether, in HUD's
assessment, the jurisdiction is making a sufficient effort to AFFH.
Although not expressly included on HUD's proposed examples of
common barriers (because they are generally legitimate and widely
vary), jurisdictions should feel free to examine their State or local
zoning laws and may determine that modifying these provisions is how
they can best AFFH. HUD anticipates that program participants may
undertake these types of actions because commenters stated that,
outside of market forces, there are a number of structural barriers
that could reduce the availability of housing overall, keeping housing
prices high. For instance, cities may have zoning laws that restrict
the ability of owners to build higher-density housing, or they may have
elaborate housing production processes that result in would-be
developers not getting the best use out of their land. One commenter
noted that parties who would like to build more housing might face
multiple layers of bureaucracy, each with their own interests and
levels of expertise, such as city planning departments, citizen zoning
boards, historical commissions, public hearings, state environmental
review boards, and city rental licensing departments.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Salim Furth, Mercatus Center at George Mason University
letter to ANPR FR-6123-A-01 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
Streamlining and Enhancements, October 16, 2018, p. 4, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2018-0060-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD considers changes to zoning laws to be a useful and appropriate
tool to further fair housing choice. Jurisdictions are free to choose
to undertake changes to zoning or land-use policies as one method of
complying with the AFFH obligation; however, no jurisdiction may have
their certification questioned because they do not choose to undertake
zoning changes. HUD believes this is consistent with section 105(c)(1)
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act,\29\ which
prohibits HUD from disapproving consolidated plans because a
jurisdiction adopts or continues zoning ordinances or land-use
policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 42 U.S.C. 12705(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter cited data that found that the ``overall cost of
housing in the United States is at least $3.4 trillion higher than it
would be absent zoning regulations'' and US GDP is about $2 trillion
below its potential due to restrictive land-use regulations.\30\
According to one study cited by a commenter, ``regulation imposed by
all levels of government (whether local, state or federal) accounts for
32.1 percent of the cost of an average multifamily development.'' \31\
Numerous research studies provide supporting evidence of the
commenters' statements concerning the adverse impacts of restrictions
on affordability and availability. A HUD report (2005) describes
evidence from multiple studies indicating that regulating development
increases the cost of housing. The estimated impact on prices varies by
type of regulation studied and the context of the real estate market,
and ranges from 10 to 50 percent.\32\ A more extensive and critical
review of published research (Quigley and Rosenthal, 2005) finds that
``a number of credible papers seem to bear out theoretical
expectations'' that reducing the supply of developable land will raise
housing prices.\33\ Sophisticated empirical research in the last decade
has produced more convincing evidence that there is a direct link
between regulation and housing affordability (Gyourko and Molloy,
2015).\34\ The impact of constraining development reaches beyond local
housing and land markets. There is a macroeconomic cost of limiting
housing production in the most productive cities. One study (Hsieh and
Moretti, 2019) found that the misallocation of labor due to restrictive
housing regulations lowered US economic growth by 36 percent from 1964
to 2009.\35\ Jurisdictions may examine their State or local laws,
regulations, and government structure and determine that modifying
these structural barriers to affordable housing is how they can best
AFFH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Joshua Gottlieb comment letter to to FR-6123-A-01
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and
Enhancements, October 16, 2018, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2018-0060-0655.
\31\ National Association of Home Builders comment letter to
ANPR FR-6123-A-01 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
Streamlining and Enhancements, October 16, 2018, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2018-0060-0489, citing
Emrath, P. & Walter, C. Multifamily Cost of Regulation (2018),
available at https://www.nahbclassic.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentTypeID=3&contentID=262391&subContentID=712894.
\32\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2005
``Why Not In Our Community?, Removing Barriers to Affordable
Housing, An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on
Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing.''
\33\ Quigley, John M., and Larry A. Rosenthal. 2005. ``The
Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We
Know? What Can We Learn?'' Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research 8 (1): 69-137.
\34\ Gyourko, J. and Molloy, R., 2015. Regulation and housing
supply. In Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp.
1289-1337). Elsevier.
\35\ Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Enrico Moretti, 2019. ``Housing
Constraints and Spatial Misallocation.''American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics 11 (2): 1-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdictions with high levels of deteriorated or low-quality
housing may decide that they wish to focus on improving those measures.
The jurisdiction could work to convince the local PHA to prioritize the
rehabilitation of its units, or it could decide that the best way to
spend flexible funds is to improve local housing conditions.
Question for Comment 4: Are there other factors, in addition to the
ones listed in this proposed regulation, which are generally considered
to be inherent barriers to fair housing?
Question for Comment 5: Should any of the factors listed as
inherent barriers to fair housing be revised or removed? Should there
be different inherent barriers for States than for other jurisdictions?
Question for Comment 6: What process should HUD undertake for
updating the list in regulations, and how frequently should these
updates occur?
[[Page 2047]]
Finally, under the proposed rule, documentation used in the
preparation of the AFFH certification would not need to be provided to
HUD. However, such information would have to be retained and available
for inspection by HUD according to the record retention requirements of
the consolidated plan.
C. Comparison Metrics
To provide a way for jurisdictions to measure their progress in
affirmatively furthering fair housing over time, and to allow HUD to
verify that jurisdictions are taking actions and not just making plans,
HUD is proposing a system that would use publicly available metrics to
score and rank the CDBG-receiving jurisdictions that submit a
consolidated plan that year. By using public data, HUD intends to
create a ``dashboard'' that would allow jurisdictions to anticipate
where they would rank and therefore plan ahead accordingly. This
dashboard will further encourage engagement by allowing a jurisdiction
to know exactly where it stands. These rankings would allow HUD to
objectively determine a jurisdiction's success in providing quality
affordable housing without adjudicated adverse fair housing findings.
This ranking system, while useful in helping HUD evaluating compliance
with the jurisdiction's requirement to AFFH, would not reflect a
determination that the jurisdiction has complied with the Fair Housing
Act.
The proposed rule recognizes that jurisdictions face different
challenges including tight or slack housing supply, job growth or
decline, and shifts in population growth or decline. These different
indicators would influence jurisdictions' choices in promoting fair
housing choice. A jurisdiction with high job growth and a tight housing
market would have different priorities and abilities than a
jurisdiction with job declines and a very open housing market. Both
would also be different from a jurisdiction with high job growth but a
commensurate growth in the availability of housing that keeps housing
prices more affordable.
HUD's proposed regulation would compare jurisdictions receiving
CDBG funds and submitting a consolidated plan with other similarly
situated jurisdictions, taking into account the factors discussed
above, to be developed for the final rule. HUD is also considering
using different data sets for different categories of jurisdictions.
The regulatory text is intended to be a broad outline of the
specific data measures included in the comparison metric. HUD plans to
publish a notice for public comment identifying the specific sources of
data and the method for creating a jurisdiction's metric score when
this rule is finalized.
Question for Comment 7: What are the appropriate economic and
population size/growth/decline market conditions categories of local
CDBG-receiving jurisdictions that submit consolidated plans? Should
there be different categories of States, as well? How many categories
should there be?
Question for Comment 8: Given the intentions of HUD for specific
types of data discussed more fully below, are there specific data that
HUD should use for certain categories and not for others?
Question for Comment 9: What process should HUD undertake for
updating the metrics, scoring, weighting, and other components, and how
frequently should these updates occur?
1. Scope
Under the proposed rule, HUD would only determine and compare
metrics for jurisdictions that submit consolidated plans because they
receive CDBG funds. This would allow HUD to rely on the geographic
boundaries used by the CDBG program and to focus its resources on the
jurisdictions that are likely receiving the most funding from HUD.
Question for Comment 10: Should HUD also rank non-CDBG
jurisdictions that still submit consolidated plans? What are the
potential obstacles or problems with those rankings?
2. Data
To determine each jurisdiction's success at furthering fair housing
choice, HUD would develop a scoring system based on quantitative data
generated by publicly available datasets, such as data from the United
States Census Bureau, including the American Community Survey, the
United States Post Office, and HUD-generated data. These data would
seek to represent how well a jurisdiction is providing affordable,
quality housing free of violations of the Fair Housing Act and related
statutes. HUD would create the scoring system using data related to
affordable housing availability, the jurisdiction's housing quality,
and adjudicated complaints of violations of the Fair Housing Act or
related statutes. HUD would re-evaluate the data set periodically and
adjust them through further notice and comment.
a. Lack of Adjudicated Fair Housing Violations
One of the key ways HUD would confirm that program participants
fulfill their AFFH responsibilities would be to reward only
jurisdictions that are free of material civil rights violations. HUD
recognizes that jurisdictions have multiple layers of civil rights
enforcement, including state Attorneys General, Fair Housing Initiative
Programs, the United States Department of Justice (``DOJ''), and HUD.
HUD proposes to take all these methods of enforcement into account in
determining a jurisdiction's civil rights record.
HUD proposes to include a yes or no indicator of whether the
jurisdiction has an adversely adjudicated fair housing complaint
brought by or on behalf of HUD or by the DOJ against the jurisdiction
in the previous 5 years. By limiting this indicator to adverse
determinations following adjudication, HUD would protect jurisdictions
by only penalizing them on this indicator after they have had an
opportunity for a hearing and full finding of facts. Jurisdictions with
any such adjudicated violations within the previous 5 years would not
be eligible for any benefits otherwise available to high-performing
jurisdictions.
Question for Comment 11: Are there other methods (aside from a yes
or no indicator) for incorporating the complaints into the dashboard?
Are there other data points HUD should include in this measure?
Question for Comment 12: HUD is concerned that taking into account
adversely adjudicated civil rights cases that were not brought by HUD
or DOJ will encourage jurisdictions to settle civil rights claims
rather than risk an adverse ruling that would affect the jurisdiction's
standing with HUD. HUD seeks comment on whether, and if so how, it
could take these cases into account without unduly influencing civil
rights litigation.
Question for Comment 13: Are there circumstances in which a
jurisdiction should not be held accountable for a negatively
adjudicated complaint against a PHA? Are there ways to take
adjudications against a PHA into account without penalizing the entire
jurisdiction?
b. Affordable Housing
Fair housing choice requires not only the absence of discrimination
but the existence of realistic housing options.\36\ As stated by
Senator Walter Mondale in support of the Fair Housing Act, protection
against discrimination does not itself ``overcome the economic
[[Page 2048]]
problem of those who could not afford to purchase the house of their
choice.'' \37\ Ultimately, he continued, ``the laws of supply and
demand will take care of who moves into what house in which
neighborhood.'' \38\ Members of protected classes often find their
access to fair housing choice limited by economic factors brought on by
a lack of affordable housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See AFFH Rule Guidebook at 4, available at https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AFFH-Rule-Guidebook.pdf,
quoting 24 CFR 5.152.
\37\ Speech by Senator Mondale on floor of the Senate, February
20, 1968, 114 Cong. Rec. 3421-22, 3421.
\38\ Id. at 3422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affordable housing can advance the goal of providing members of
protected classes with access to the neighborhoods of their choice.
Some protected class members may want to stay in their neighborhood to
maintain access to deep community support systems or proximity to their
job. Others who want to leave their neighborhood would benefit from
reduced housing costs that make it easier for them to move. Encouraging
policies that increase overall access to affordable housing allows
residents to gain from improvements to housing conditions in their own
neighborhood while providing flexibility to jurisdictions on how to
achieve that affordability.
Increasing the availability of affordable housing in a community
would help low-income families. However, studies have demonstrated that
single-parent households, elderly households, and households of color
are more likely to be cost-burdened by housing.\39\ Increasing overall
affordability will, therefore, help members of protected classes
maximize their ability to live where they choose. Having a supply of
affordable housing that is sufficient to meet the needs of a
jurisdiction's population is crucial to enabling families to live
throughout the jurisdiction and promoting fair housing for all
protected classes, so HUD is proposing to include data in the
comparison metrics to evaluate a jurisdiction based on its availability
of affordable housing. To do this, HUD is considering using metrics
such as housing prices, fair market rents, the burden housing costs
place on very-low- to moderate-income families, the ability of tenants
with housing choice vouchers to access housing throughout the
jurisdiction, and the existence of excess housing choice voucher
reserves showing a failure to fully take advantage of voucher funding
available to the jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The State of the Nation's Housing 2018, Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2018, 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Comment 14: Are there other data points HUD should use
to measure affordability as it relates to fair housing choice? If so,
what considerations are needed in using this data to ensure an accurate
measure?
Question for Comment 15: What data sources may enable HUD to
measure the extent to which residents are living in neighborhoods of
their choice, consistent with their means?
Question for Comment 16: With any of the data mentioned above, are
there any factors, such as disparities in average income or job growth,
for which HUD should control, to ensure that analysis of the data set
is an accurate measure of access to fair and affordable housing?
Question for Comment 17: Another idea HUD is considering is ranking
jurisdictions based on ``by right'' land use or the amount of
additional burden local regulations place on the housing market by
unduly increasing housing costs. Do such measures exist? How could HUD
work to create one?
Question for Comment 18: Are there other measures that HUD could
use or create to encourage the creation of additional housing that is
affordable throughout a jurisdiction?
c. Housing Quality and Physical Conditions
Gains generated by widespread affordable housing are not meaningful
unless that affordable housing is decent, safe, and sanitary. Without
quality affordable housing, members of protected classes will face
practical limitations in their housing choices.
Individuals living in poor quality housing experience an increase
in chronic illness,\40\ respiratory diseases,\41\ and injuries.\42\
Overcrowding can increase the transmissions of disease and
psychological distress.\43\ These negative effects can be particularly
harmful and long-lasting to children.\44\ Dilapidated or abandoned
housing stock may also foster crime.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Evans, J., Hyndman, S., Stewart-Brown, S., Smith, D., &
Petersen, S., An epidemiological study of the relative importance of
damp housing in relation to adult heath, J Epidemiol Community
Health, pp. 677-686 (2000), available at https://jech.bmj.com/content/54/9/677.long.
\41\ Institute of Medicine. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor
Air Exposures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
\42\ Tinetti ME, Speechley M, & Ginter SF., Risk factors for
falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med.
1988; 319:1701-1707.
\43\ Solari, Claudia D, and Robert D Mare, ``Housing crowding
effects on children's wellbeing.'' Social science research vol. 41,2
(2011): 464-76, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805127/.
\44\ Coley, R.L., Leventhal, T., Lynch, A.D., & Kull, M. (2013).
Relations Between Housing Characteristics and the Well-Being of Low-
Income Children and Adolescents. Developmental Psychology. Vol
49(9). Pages 1775-1789, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3766502/.
\45\ See, e.g., Freedman, Matthew, and Emily G. Owens. ``Low-
income housing development and crime.'' Journal of Urban Economics
70.2-3 (2011): 115-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persistent health problems can also make it difficult for
individuals to obtain and maintain employment, threatening their
ability to maintain self-sufficiency. This can be particularly acute
for individuals with physical disabilities and older adults, for whom
deteriorating or inaccessible housing creates a much higher risk of
injury.
HUD is considering using worst-case housing needs data, which
documents lack of kitchen facilities and adequate plumbing and
overcrowding, to determine how well a jurisdiction is encouraging a
supply of housing that is of sufficient quality. HUD would also like to
consider the prevalence of housing with lead-based paint hazards that
cause health issues and the quality of housing in jurisdictions
according to HUD REAC inspection scores.
Question for Comment 19: Are there other data points HUD should
include to measure housing conditions as they relate to fair housing?
If so, are there any additional considerations in using those data
points necessary to ensure an accurate measure?
Question for Comment 20: With any of the data mentioned above,
should there be additional considerations to ensure that the data set
is an accurate measure?
3. Rewards and Other Compliance Incentives
HUD believes that the best way to further fair housing is to
encourage collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders within a
jurisdiction, including government, PHAs, nonprofits, and private
owners. This rule proposes to provide benefits to both jurisdictions
and the entities within jurisdictions that, as demonstrated by
comparison metrics, are successful with their AFFH efforts. In
addition, this rule would empower HUD to concentrate its assistance and
regulatory enforcement resources on the lowest AFFH performers.
a. Rewards
Within each category, HUD proposes to determine the jurisdictions
that are outstanding AFFH performers, and grantees and applicants for
funding located within those jurisdictions would be eligible for
various benefits for the following 2 years. As more fully described
below, HUD proposes that the benefits vary according to the program
involved, but may include preference
[[Page 2049]]
points on Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) or eligibility to
receive additional program funds due to reallocations of recaptured
appropriated funds and other forms of regulatory relief.
Beginning with the second consolidated plan cycle after the
effective date of the rule, HUD also proposes to determine which
jurisdictions had the greatest improvement in their metrics over the
past five years. The most improved jurisdictions would also be eligible
for benefits given to outstanding AFFH performers (if not otherwise
already an outstanding AFFH performer).
Question for Comment 21: How should HUD determine ranking of high
and low AFFH performers? Should a baseline percentage be used (for
example, the top 20 percent and bottom 20 percent), or should some
other ranking be used (for example, a ``natural break'' in the
distribution where there is a material distinction between
jurisdictions)? If a percentage, what is the appropriate percentage,
and why? Would it be appropriate to set a percentage and then allow the
Secretary to deviate from that baseline when the data warrants it? What
would be the effects of using each type of approach?
Question for Comment 22: Should there be two tiers of rewards for
high performing jurisdictions, such as ``outstanding'' and ``high
pass,'' where ``outstanding'' performers received regulatory relief and
extra funding, while ``high pass'' performers received just one
category of relief, such as extra funding? What would be the effects of
such an approach?
Question for Comment 23: Should HUD reward improvement in a
jurisdiction before the first 5-year cycle is complete? If so, how
should HUD determine progress between consolidated plan submissions,
and what possible benefits should be available?
HUD is interested in determining which jurisdictions are the most
effective at meeting their AFFH obligations. HUD believes that, by
identifying top performers, other similarly situated jurisdictions can
learn from these top performers and may be able to replicate successful
practices. By identifying such top performers, HUD would be able to
reward and provide incentives to jurisdictions that make significant
efforts to address housing discrimination. This jurisdiction-driven
approach would also allow the top performers to serve as a model for
HUD in designing future programs and fair housing efforts.
HUD is proposing to reward outstanding AFFH performers through
advantages in grant competitions. While many funding programs are based
on a statutory formula, there are numerous grant programs, including
Choice Neighborhood Planning and Implementation Grants, Jobs-Plus,
lead-based paint reduction programs, ROSS and FSS programs, and the
Fair Housing Initiative Program, where it may be appropriate to award
points in the competition to applicants that are within outstanding
AFFH jurisdictions. In the development of each competitive NOFA, HUD
proposes to consider whether it is appropriate to use the grant funding
to provide a benefit to potential recipients in an outstanding AFFH
jurisdiction.
In addition to potential NOFA bonuses, HUD would, in the
development of future demonstration programs, consider whether the
demonstration should prioritize participants in outstanding AFFH
jurisdictions. Programs that may fall into this category include new
designations of PHAs as Moving to Work (MTW) agencies, priorities for
conversions of assistance under the Rental Assistance Demonstration
(RAD) program, or selection for participation in mobility
demonstrations.
HUD is also considering whether outstanding AFFH jurisdictions
should be eligible for various forms of regulatory relief, either from
the AFFH process itself or as part of the larger programmatic
regulatory requirements. HUD is also open to seeking additional
statutory flexibility to reward outstanding AFFH jurisdictions.
Question for Comment 24: Are there other rewards that HUD should
consider for outstanding AFFH performers? Are there statutory or
regulatory changes that HUD should pursue to increase the availability
of such rewards?
Question for Comment 25: Are there specific forms of regulatory
relief that HUD should consider for outstanding AFFH performers?
b. Compliance Incentives
If a jurisdiction falls in the bottom ranking, HUD proposes to
consider the accuracy of the jurisdiction's AFFH certification under 24
CFR 91.5. The jurisdiction would have the opportunity to respond in
writing to provide additional information to demonstrate that they are
affirmatively furthering fair housing to the best of their ability.
This demonstration may include evidence that the jurisdiction has taken
concrete and measurable steps for improvement, additional information
about specific obstacles faced in achieving AFFH goals, structural and
systematic reasons for lack of movement in the comparison metrics, or
other information the jurisdiction believes relevant.
If HUD, following existing procedures, were to determine that the
additional information provided by the jurisdiction is sufficient, HUD
proposes to accept the certification. However, if the additional
information was deemed insufficient, HUD proposes to reject the AFFH
certification of the jurisdiction and to follow the procedures under 24
CFR 91.500 to provide the jurisdiction with the specific steps the
jurisdiction must follow for HUD to accept the certification. Such
steps may include additional public participation requirements for the
development of the next AFFH certification or specific remedies for
deficiencies HUD has discovered as part of the review process. If a
jurisdiction continues to be unable to provide adequate assurances that
it will AFFH, HUD proposes that the grant may be withheld.
Question for Comment 26: Are there other remedies HUD should
consider requiring of jurisdictions who are not improving in their
comparison metrics?
Just as with outstanding or improved AFFH performers, HUD is also
very interested in identifying which jurisdictions may need further
assistance in meeting their AFFH obligations. HUD believes that a
jurisdiction that is struggling to improve on the neutral metrics, or
falls significantly below its peers, may be a jurisdiction that needs
help in other areas of compliance, as well. Therefore, HUD proposes to
use the identification of the lowest performers in AFFH to target its
resources in many areas, such as grant administration and regulatory
oversight, not just in civil rights enforcement.
HUD's intent is not to punish pioneering jurisdictions for creative
AFFH strategies that turn out not to be effective. HUD recognizes that
sometimes unsuccessful efforts are just as important to learning as
successful efforts. HUD would encourage jurisdictions to share lessons
learned from unsuccessful efforts and successful efforts alike. HUD
also expects that the annual report process would encourage
jurisdictions to regularly consider whether their action plans are
promoting change in the right direction and, if not, proposes to allow
the jurisdictions a chance to recalibrate and change course. This would
help create a cycle of accountability that allows jurisdictions to
highlight successes, analyze failures, and course-correct, if
necessary.
[[Page 2050]]
Question for Comment 27: HUD is seeking input on possible
mechanisms for sharing information across jurisdictions regarding the
success of efforts to AFFH, and the extent to which any such mechanisms
should become requirements of the regulation.
4. Appeals
If a jurisdiction were to believe that an error, such as a failure
to consider a relevant factor or a statistical anomaly, has resulted in
the jurisdiction being improperly ranked, the jurisdiction would be
able to respond to HUD by identifying the error and requesting a
recalculation of the comparison metrics, or consideration of a factor
which was not adequately accounted for in the comparison metrics. HUD
would review the jurisdiction's response and, if HUD determines it
necessary, recalculate the jurisdiction's ranking without impacting the
rankings of others.
D. Annual Performance Reports and Amendments
HUD recognizes that AFFH efforts may take time to realize results,
but jurisdictions are encouraged to still work to AFFH on a consistent
basis throughout their consolidated plan cycles. In the years between
5-year plans, jurisdictions would need to submit, in their annual
performance reports under 24 CFR 91.520, annual progress updates to the
goals or obstacles they submitted in their most recent AFFH
certification. HUD is also proposing to add an AFFH component to the
annual performance review conducted by HUD. This review would not be
intended to substitute HUD's judgment for the judgment of the
jurisdiction. Instead, under HUD's rational basis review, HUD would
accept performance reports under 24 CFR 92.520, where the steps taken
are each rationally related to the goal and obstacles identified in the
jurisdiction's AFFH certification. This language is intended to follow
the judicial definition of rational basis review closely.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See, e.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-26 (1961)
(Under the rational basis standard, the constitutional safeguard of
equal protection ``is offended only if the classification rests on
grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's
objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within
their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their
laws result in some inequality. A statutory determination will not
be set aside if any statement of facts reasonably may be conceived
to justify it.''); see also James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 140-42
(1972) (holding that rational basis review under the Equal
Protection Clause ``imposes a requirement of some rationality in the
nature of the class singled out'' and that treating one class of
debtors differently from another without reason did not meet
rational basis scrutiny).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD believes that this level of review would provide the proper
level of oversight without undue interference. HUD recognizes that
affirmatively furthering fair housing is a necessarily complicated area
implicating various policy concerns. Unlike enforcement actions for
discrimination, HUD is seeking only to confirm that jurisdictions are
fulfilling their statutory duty and will trust, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, that a jurisdiction's preferred method of
affirmatively furthering fair housing is a valid method of fulfilling
its statutory duty. The Fair Housing Act does not mandate that
jurisdictions be second-guessed for the reasonable choices they make.
The Supreme Court in Inclusive Communities said that the Fair Housing
Act is not a means of second-guessing the reasonable choices of
jurisdictions.\47\ A higher level of scrutiny would invite second-
guessing. This level of scrutiny also encourages experimentation and
prevents HUD from substituting its judgment for that of local
jurisdictions. HUD recognizes that some jurisdictions will pioneer
methods of advancing fair housing, which may not always succeed but
nevertheless should not be punished for their ingenuity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Inclusive Communities, 135 S. Ct. at 2522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdictions would not be expected to address every goal or
obstacle every year. However, under the proposed rule, HUD would expect
that jurisdictions would, over the course of a 5-year period, follow
through on all their commitments in their AFFH certification by taking
some steps towards each of the goals in the AFFH certification.
Following the same procedures as amendments to the consolidated
plan, jurisdictions would be able to amend or change their goals if
they discover a material barrier to achieving the goal or a reason why
that goal is no longer the best means to AFFH. HUD would review these
reports for completion and to verify that jurisdictions used concrete
and measurable standards. HUD would not make a qualitative assessment
of such reports.
E. PHAs
This rule seeks to tailor AFFH requirements applicable to PHAs
while still verifying that PHAs are fulfilling their AFFH obligations.
PHAs are already required to participate in the development of the
consolidated plan actively. This rule would emphasize this requirement
and establish that a PHA is generally required to AFFH only in its
programs and in the areas under its direct control, and to certify that
it will AFFH. A PHA would not be required to submit a certification
detailing AFFH goals and obstacles. However, a PHA would be required to
certify that it has consulted with the local jurisdiction on AFFH and
would AFFH in its programs and in areas under its direct control. If a
PHA has been subject to a HUD letter of finding or an adjudicated
negative finding in a complaint brought by HUD or DOJ, finding a
violation of the Fair Housing Act in the last two years, then HUD
proposes that the PHA must include with its certification an
explanation of what steps the PHA has taken and is taking to resolve
the violation.
Question for Comment 28: As discussed above concerning
jurisdictions, HUD is concerned that taking into account adversely
adjudicated civil rights cases which were not brought by HUD or DOJ
will unduly encourage PHAs to settle civil rights claims rather than
risk an adverse ruling affecting the PHA's standing with HUD. HUD seeks
comment on whether, and if so how, it could take these cases into
account without unduly influencing civil rights litigation.
Question for Comment 29: What should cooperation between PHAs and
consolidated plan jurisdictions look like?
Question for Comment 30: How should this rule balance the need for
PHA engagement and contribution to an area's AFFH requirements while
not creating requirements that may be overly burdensome?
V. Findings and Certifications
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, Regulatory Planning and Review
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant
and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Executive Order.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review)
directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are ``outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been
learned.'' Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent
permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and
[[Page 2051]]
maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. HUD believes
that this proposed rule would empower local jurisdictions to determine
how to AFFH rather than mandating that jurisdictions act on specific
policies, and thus create a regulatory process that empowers individual
jurisdictions to act on local determinations of need and within local
budgetary and resource constraints.
The proposed rule has been determined to be a ``significant
regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, but not economically significant. The docket file is available
for public inspection online at www.regulations.gov.
Executive Order 13771, Regulatory Costs
Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' was issued on January 30, 2017. This
proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
While the burden in creating a consolidated plan is expected to
increase slightly as the jurisdiction prepares a Fair Housing Report,
the overall burden on the jurisdiction is greatly lessened because the
lengthy Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), with its separate community
engagement and reporting requirements, would be eliminated under this
proposal. Jurisdictions would be able to determine their actions to
AFFH based on their capacity and needs, allowing jurisdictions to avoid
burdensome requirements beyond their abilities.
The previously approved information collections for the AFFH Local
Government and PHA and Assessment Tools (2529-0054 and 2529-0055,
respectively) had a total, combined 665,862 burden hours for all
respondents. This was due to the extensive nature of the tools and the
additional public meeting requirements to complete an AFH. HUD has
already temporarily withdrawn the Local Government Assessment Tool, and
this proposed rule would make that removal permanent. By fully
incorporating the proposed AFFH process into the existing consolidated
plan process, HUD expects that the AFFH process will result in only 10
hours per response, or a total of 12,660 total hours, a significant
reduction from the previous process requirements.
The proposed rule significantly reduces the reporting burden for
jurisdictions in the formulation of AFFH strategies, reducing costs by
an estimated $23.7 million per year. Under the proposed rule, HUD would
measure jurisdictions' progress toward their identified AFFH goals
through publicly available data focused on the availability and quality
of affordable housing, reward high performing jurisdictions with
unspecified incentives, and provide technical assistance to low
performing jurisdictions. Qualitatively, if the metrics and incentives
are effective in influencing jurisdictions' behavior, availability, and
quality of affordable housing options should increase as Federal and
local resources are devoted to such activities.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of Section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule would not have
federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law
within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Environmental Impact
This proposed rule is a policy document that sets out fair housing
and nondiscrimination standards. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3),
this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The undersigned
certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule proposes to strengthen the way in which HUD and its
program participants meet the requirement under the Fair Housing Act to
take affirmative steps to further fair housing. The preamble identifies
the statutes and executive orders that address this requirement and
that place responsibility directly on certain HUD program participants,
specifically, local governments, states, and PHAs, underscoring that
the use of federal funds must promote housing choice and open
communities. Although local governments, states, and PHAs must
affirmatively further fair housing independent of any regulatory
requirement imposed by HUD, HUD recognizes its responsibility to
provide leadership and direction in this area, while preserving local
determination of fair housing needs and strategies.
This rule primarily focuses on establishing a regulatory framework
by which program participants may more effectively report how they meet
their statutory obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. This
rule builds on the statutory requirements to affirmatively further fair
housing in conjunction with the development of consolidated plans for
state and local governments and PHA Plans for PHAs and, in doing so,
provides for all program participants to comply with their statutory
requirements in a cost-efficient and effective manner.
Jurisdictions submitting consolidated plans do so usually because
they receive State or Entitlement CDBG funds. In order to be an
entitlement jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must be a principal city of
a metropolitan statistical area, be a metropolitan city with a
population of at least 50,000, or be a qualified urban county with a
population of at least 200,000. This rule would change the
certification requirements for PHAs in their annual plans to require
that PHAs certify they will participate in the development of the
consolidated plan. This participation will naturally be shaped by the
needs and resources of the PHA.
As discussed more fully in the ``Executive Order 13771, Regulatory
Costs'' section, above, and in the proposed regulatory impact analysis
(RIA), the rule proposes to reduce the administrative burden on program
participants in preparing and submitting an AFFH certification to HUD
as compared to the current AFH process. The proposed rule would do this
by fully incorporating the AFFH process into the consolidated plan
process and allowing jurisdictions to determine how to AFFH based on
their unique combination of resources, economic situations, and local
needs.
Nevertheless, HUD is sensitive to the fact that the uniform
application of requirements on entities of differing sizes may place a
disproportionate burden on small entities. HUD, therefore, is
soliciting alternatives for compliance from small entities as to how
these small entities might comply in a way less burdensome to them.
[[Page 2052]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), 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 currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained
in this proposed rule have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act and assigned OMB control number 2506-0117 (Consolidated
Plan, Annual Action Plan & Annual Performance Report). The collection
requirement will be amended to reflect the altered burden contained in
this proposed rule.
HUD anticipates that the impact of this rule on document
preparation time is reduced from the burden that it may otherwise be
because the rule integrates the AFFH requirements with the consolidated
and PHA planning processes. Additionally, states, local governments,
and PHAs are already required to prepare written AFFH plans, undertake
activities to overcome identified barriers to fair housing choice, and
maintain records of the activities and their impacts. The principal
differences imposed by this proposed rule would be that the program
participants are no longer required to create plans based on specified
data but would instead be permitted to determine how to AFFH based on
their local needs and available resources. In addition, because the
AFFH process is wholly incorporated into the existing consolidated and
PHA planning processes, local governments, states, and PHAs would not
have to establish additional AFFH procedures.
HUD published a notice on May 23, 2018, temporarily withdrawing the
information collection in OMB Control Number 2529-0054, the Assessment
Tool for Local Governments. This proposed rule makes that removal
permanent, along with the removal of the Assessment Tool for PHAs, OMB
Control Number 2529-0055.
The burden of the information collections in this proposed rule is
estimated as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of responses Total annual burden hours Total Annual Cost
Information collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hourly cost * -------------------------------
Current New Current New Current New
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Plan for Localities and ** 1,266 1,266 393,338 405,998 $34 $13,373,492 $13,803,932
States.................................
Assessment Tool for Local Governments 1,266 0 230,993 0 34 7,853,762 0
***....................................
Assessment Tool for PHAs................ 3,942 0 247,302 0 34 8,408,268 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................. .............. .............. 871,633 405,998 .............. 29,635,522 13,803,932
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimates assume a blended hourly rate that is equivalent to a GS-12, Step 5, Federal Government Employee.
** Total localities of 1,266 includes 1,209 entitlements + 3 non-entitlements (Hawaii, Kauai, Maui), 4 Insular Areas (Guam, Mariana Islands, Samoa,
Virgin Islands), and 50 states.
*** This tool was temporarily taken down on May 23, 2018, by notice published at 83 FR 23922.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the
information collection requirements in the proposed rule regarding:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information;
(3) Whether the proposed collection of information enhances the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Whether the proposed information collection minimizes the
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond;
including through the use of appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the
information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions
of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after the publication
date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment
within 30 days of the publication. This time frame does not affect the
deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule, however.
Comments must refer to the proposed rule by name and docket number (FR-
6123) and must be sent to:
HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 202-395-6947
and
Colette Pollard, HUD Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 2204, Washington, DC
20410
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information
collection requirements 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 them
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 the instructions provided on that site to submit comments
electronically.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4; approved March 22, 1995) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state,
local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule
does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal
government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 5
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime,
[[Page 2053]]
Government contracts, Grant programs-housing and community development,
Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Loan
programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate income
housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent
subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security,
Unemployment compensation, Wages.
24 CFR Part 91
Aged; Grant programs-housing and community development; Homeless;
Individuals with disabilities; Low and moderate income housing;
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 92
Administrative practice and procedure; Low and moderate income
housing; Manufactured homes; Rent subsidies; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 570
Administrative practice and procedure; American Samoa; Community
development block grants; Grant programs-education; Grant programs-
housing and community development; Guam; Indians; Loan programs-housing
and community development; Low and moderate income housing; Northern
Mariana Islands; Pacific Islands Trust Territory; Puerto Rico;
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Student aid; Virgin Islands.
24 CFR Part 574
Community facilities; Grant programs-housing and community
development; Grant programs-social programs; HIV/AIDS; Low and moderate
income housing; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 576
Community facilities; Grant programs-housing and community
development; Grant programs-social programs; Homeless; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 903
Administrative practice and procedure; Public housing; Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 905
Grant programs-housing and community development; Public housing;
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD
proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, 903, 905 as
follows:
PART 5--GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 5, subpart A, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794, 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437c-1(d),
1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 3535(d), and Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119
Stat. 2936; 42 U.S.C. 3600-3620; 42 U.S.C. 5304(b); 42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 12704-12708; E.O. 11063, 27 FR 11527, 3 CFR,
1958-1963 Comp., p. 652; E.O. 12892, 59 FR 2939, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp.,
p. 849.
0
2. Revise Sec. 5.150 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.150 Obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
(a)(1) Every recipient of HUD funding must affirmatively further
fair housing by acting in a manner consistent with reducing obstacles
within the participant's sphere of influence to providing fair housing
choice. HUD may consider a failure to meet the duty to affirmatively
fair housing a violation of program requirements.
(2) Fair housing choice means, within a HUD program participant's
sphere of influence, that individuals and families have the opportunity
and options to live where they choose, within their means, without
unlawful discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, familial
status, national origin, or disability. Fair housing choice
encompasses:
(i) Protected choice, which means access to housing without
discrimination;
(ii) Actual choice, which means not only that affordable housing
options exist, but that information and resources are available to
enable informed choice; and
(iii) Quality choice, which means access to affordable housing
options that are decent, safe, and sanitary, and, for persons with
disabilities, access to accessible housing as required under civil
rights laws.
(b) Affirmatively furthering fair housing requires an effort that
is in addition to, and not a substitute for, compliance with the
specific requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
(c) For the purposes of affirmatively furthering fair housing, HUD
does not expect that recipients of funding will be able to immediately,
completely, or to the satisfaction of all persons, address each
impediment to fair housing choice, whether identified, known but not
prioritized, or alleged by others. Nothing in this paragraph relieves
jurisdictions of their obligations under other civil rights and fair
housing statutes and regulations.
Sec. 5.151 through Sec. 5.154 [Removed and Reserved]
0
3. Remove Sec. 5.151 through Sec. 5.154.
0
4. Add Sec. 5.155 to read as follows:
Sec. 5.155 Jurisdictional risk analyses.
(a) Purpose. HUD will conduct an analysis and ranking of
jurisdictions to determine which jurisdictions are especially
succeeding at affirmatively furthering fair housing and which should be
subject to an enhanced review and may need additional assistance to
affirmatively further fair housing. This ranking is not a determination
that the jurisdiction has complied with the Fair Housing Act.
(b) Frequency. HUD will conduct the analysis and ranking every
year.
(c) Method. (1) HUD will, using publicly available data and
databases, establish a base score for each jurisdiction regarding the
extent to which there is an adequate supply of affordable and available
quality housing for rent and for sale to support fair housing choice.
The following are non-exclusive examples of the type of data for each
jurisdiction:
(i) Median home value and contract rent.
(ii) Household cost burden.
(iii) Percentage of dwellings lacking complete plumbing or kitchen
facilities.
(iv) Vacancy rates.
(v) Rates of lead-based paint poisoning.
(vi) Rates of subpar Public Housing conditions.
(vii) Availability of housing accepting housing choice vouchers
throughout the jurisdiction.
(viii) The existence of excess housing choice voucher reserves.
(ix) Availability of housing accessible to persons with
disabilities.
(2) HUD will initially establish and periodically evaluate the data
used in paragraph (1) of this section through a Federal Register notice
after opportunity for public comment.
(3) HUD will create a ranking score for each jurisdiction, using a
method to be specified in a Federal Register notice after opportunity
for public comment, ranking jurisdictions more favorably for high
relative performance in the objective measures set forth in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section. HUD will then rank the jurisdictions based on
this score, divided into the following categories:
(i) Jurisdictions with population growth and tight housing markets.
(ii) Jurisdictions with population growth and loose housing
markets.
(iii) Jurisdictions with population decline and tight housing
markets.
(iv) Jurisdictions with population decline and loose housing
markets.
[[Page 2054]]
(v) States with significant population growth.
(vi) States without significant population growth.
(d) Results. (1) After ranking the jurisdictions as described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, HUD will designate the top ranking
jurisdictions submitting a consolidated plan that year in each category
as ``outstanding AFFH performers'' and the bottom ranking jurisdictions
in each category as ``low-ranking jurisdictions.'' Outstanding
jurisdictions will, for the 24-month period following the approval of
the jurisdiction's consolidated plan, be eligible for potential
benefits, including additional points in funding competitions and
eligibility for additional program funds due to reallocations of
recaptured funds as may be provided in NOFAs. Low-ranking jurisdictions
may have their AFFH certifications questioned under 24 CFR part 91.
(2) Beginning with the second submission of AFFH certifications
under 24 CFR part 91 after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], HUD will
determine how much each jurisdiction has improved according to the
factors in paragraph (c) of this section. HUD will also designate as
``outstanding AFFH performers'' jurisdictions that have shown the most
improvement since their last strategic plan submission. These
jurisdictions will be eligible for the benefits of that designation for
the 24-month period following the approval of the jurisdiction's
consolidated plan.
(3)(i) No jurisdiction may be considered an outstanding AFFH
performer if the jurisdiction or, for a local government, any PHA
operating within the jurisdiction, has in the past five years been
found by a court or administrative law judge in a case brought by or on
behalf of HUD or by the United States Department of Justice to be in
violation of civil rights law unless, at the time of the submission of
the AFFH certification, the finding has been successfully appealed or
otherwise set aside.
(ii) No jurisdiction may be considered an outstanding AFFH
performer if HUD has disapproved the previous certification to
affirmatively further fair housing submitted for a consolidated plan or
declared an annual performance report unsatisfactory under 24 CFR
91.520(i)(2) in the previous 5 years.
(e) Appeals. (1) If a jurisdiction believes that an error has
resulted in the jurisdiction being improperly designated a low-
performing jurisdiction or not designated an outstanding AFFH
performer, the jurisdiction may send a written notification to HUD,
identifying the error and requesting the recalculation of the
comparison metrics or consideration of an additional factor.
(2) HUD will review the request within 45 business days and either
recalculate the jurisdiction's ranking without affecting the rankings
of other jurisdictions or send a written denial of the request to the
jurisdiction explaining why the request was denied.
Sec. 5.156 through Sec. 5.168 [Removed]
0
5. Remove Sec. 5.156 through Sec. 5.168.
PART 91--CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
0
6. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388,
12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.
0
7. In Sec. 91.5 revise the undesignated introductory text to read as
follows.
Sec. 91.5 Definitions.
The terms Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, elderly person,
and HUD are defined in 24 CFR part 5.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 91.100 revise paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), and (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.100 Consultation; local governments.
(a) * * *
(1) When preparing the consolidated plan, the jurisdiction shall
consult with other public and private agencies that provide assisted
housing, health services, and social services (including those focusing
on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities,
persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, homeless persons), community-
based and regionally-based organizations that represent protected class
members, and organizations that enforce fair housing laws. When
preparing the consolidated plan, the jurisdiction shall also consult
with public and private organizations. Commencing with consolidated
plans submitted on or after January 1, 2018, such consultations shall
include broadband internet service providers, organizations engaged in
narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities
include the management of flood prone areas, public land or water
resources, and emergency management agencies.
* * * * *
(c) * * * (1) The jurisdiction shall consult with local PHAs
operating in the jurisdiction regarding consideration of public housing
needs, planned programs and activities, strategies for affirmatively
furthering fair housing, and proposed actions to affirmatively further
fair housing in the consolidated plan. This consultation will help
provide a better basis for the certification by the authorized official
that the PHA Plan is consistent with the consolidated plan and the
local government's description of its strategy for affirmatively
furthering fair housing and the manner in which it will address the
needs of public housing and, where necessary, the manner in which it
will provide financial or other assistance to a troubled PHA to improve
the PHA's operations and remove the designation of troubled, as well as
obtaining PHA input on addressing fair housing issues in the Public
Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The jurisdiction shall consult with community-based and
regionally based organizations that represent protected class members,
and organizations that enforce fair housing laws, such as State or
local fair housing enforcement agencies (including participants in the
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP)), fair housing organizations and
other nonprofit organizations that receive funding under the Fair
Housing Initiative Program (FHIP), and other public and private fair
housing service agencies, to the extent that such entities operate
within its jurisdiction. This consultation will help provide a better
basis for the jurisdiction's certification to affirmatively further
fair housing and other portions of the consolidated plan concerning
affirmatively furthering fair housing. Consultation must specifically
seek input on how the goals identified in the jurisdiction's
certification to affirmatively further fair housing will inform the
priorities and objectives of the consolidated plan.
(2) This consultation must occur with any organizations that have
relevant knowledge or data to inform the certification to affirmatively
further fair housing and that are sufficiently independent and
representative to provide meaningful feedback to a jurisdiction on the
consolidated plan and its implementation.
0
9. In Sec. 91.105 revise paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.105 Citizen participation plan; local governments.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1)(i) Consolidated plan. The citizen participation plan must
provide for at least two public hearings per year to obtain residents'
views and to respond
[[Page 2055]]
to proposals and questions, to be conducted at a minimum of two
different stages of the program year. Together, the hearings must
address housing and community development needs, development of
proposed activities, proposed strategies and actions for affirmatively
furthering fair housing, and a review of program performance.
(ii) Minimum number of hearings. To obtain the views of residents
of the community on housing and community development needs, including
priority nonhousing community development needs and affirmatively
furthering fair housing, the citizen participation plan must provide
that at least one of these hearings is held before the proposed
consolidated plan is published for comment.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 91.110 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.110 Consultation; States.
(a) When preparing the consolidated plan, the State shall consult
with public and private agencies that provide assisted housing
(including any State housing agency administering public housing),
health services, social services (including those focusing on services
to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with
HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons), and State-based and
regionally based organizations that represent protected class members
and organizations that enforce fair housing laws during preparation of
the consolidated plan.
(1) With respect to public housing or Housing Choice Voucher
programs, the State shall consult with any housing agency administering
public housing or the section 8 program on a Statewide basis, as well
as all PHAs that certify consistency with the State's consolidated
plan. State consultation with these entities may consider public
housing needs, planned programs and activities, strategies for
affirmatively furthering fair housing, and proposed actions to
affirmatively further fair housing. This consultation helps provide a
better basis for the certification by the authorized official that the
PHA Plan is consistent with the consolidated plan and the State's
description of its strategy for affirmatively furthering fair housing,
and the manner in which the State will address the needs of public
housing and, where applicable, the manner in which the State may
provide financial or other assistance to a troubled PHA to improve its
operations and remove such designation, as well as in obtaining PHA
input on addressing fair housing issues in public housing and the
Housing Choice Voucher programs. This consultation also helps ensure
that activities with regard to affirmatively furthering fair housing,
local drug elimination, neighborhood improvement programs, and resident
programs and services, funded under a PHA's program and those funded
under a program covered by the consolidated plan, are fully coordinated
to achieve comprehensive community development goals and affirmatively
further fair housing. If a PHA is required to implement remedies under
a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, the State should consult with the PHA
and identify actions the State may take, if any, to assist the PHA in
implementing the required remedies.
(2) The State shall consult with State-based and regionally based
organizations that represent protected class members, and organizations
that enforce fair housing laws, such as State fair housing enforcement
agencies (including participants in the Fair Housing Assistance Program
(FHAP)), fair housing organizations and other nonprofit organizations
that receive funding under the Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP),
and other public and private fair housing service agencies, to the
extent such entities operate within the State. This consultation will
help provide a better basis for the State's certification to
affirmatively further fair housing, and other portions of the
consolidated plan concerning affirmatively furthering fair housing.
This consultation should occur with organizations that have the
capacity to engage with data informing the certification to
affirmatively further fair housing and be sufficiently independent and
representative to provide meaningful feedback on the consolidated plan
and its implementation. Consultation on the consolidated plan shall
specifically seek input into how the goals identified in the
jurisdiction's certification to affirmatively further fair housing
inform the priorities and objectives of the consolidated plan. When
preparing the consolidated plan, the State shall also consult with
public and private organizations. Commencing with consolidated plans
submitted on or after January 1, 2018, such consultations shall include
broadband internet service providers, organizations engaged in
narrowing the digital divide, agencies whose primary responsibilities
include the management of flood prone areas, public land or water
resources, and emergency management agencies.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 91.115, revise the heading and introductory text of
paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(3), (c), and (f) through (h) to read
as follows:
Sec. 91.115 Citizen participation plan; States.
* * * * *
(b) Development of the consolidated plan. The citizen participation
plan must include the following minimum requirements for the
development of the consolidated plan:
* * * * *
(3)(i) The citizen participation plan must state how and when
adequate advance notice of the hearing will be given to residents, with
sufficient information published about the subject of the hearing to
permit informed comment. (Publishing small print notices in the
newspaper a few days before the hearing does not constitute adequate
notice. Although HUD is not specifying the length of notice required,
HUD would consider 2 weeks adequate.)
(ii) The citizen participation plan must provide that the hearing
be held at a time and accessible location convenient to potential and
actual beneficiaries, and with accommodation for persons with
disabilities. The citizen participation plan must specify how it will
meet these requirements.
(iii) The citizen participation plan must identify how the needs of
non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of a public
hearing where a significant number of non-English speaking residents
can be reasonably expected to participate.
* * * * *
(c) Amendments--(1) Criteria for amendment to consolidated plan.
The citizen participation plan must specify the criteria the State will
use for determining what changes in the State's planned or actual
activities constitute a substantial amendment to the consolidated plan.
(See Sec. 91.505.) The citizen participation plan must include, among
the criteria for a consolidated plan, substantial amendment changes in
the method of distribution of such funds.
(2) The citizen participation plan must provide residents and units
of general local government with reasonable notice and an opportunity
to comment on consolidated plan substantial amendments. The citizen
participation plan must state how reasonable notice and an opportunity
to comment will be given. The citizen participation plan must provide a
period, of not less than 30 calendar days, to receive comments on the
consolidated plan substantial amendment before the consolidated
[[Page 2056]]
plan substantial amendment is implemented.
(3) The citizen participation plan shall require the State to
consider any comments or views of its residents and units of general
local government received in writing, or orally at public hearings, if
any, in preparing the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. A
summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or
views not accepted and the reasons why, shall be attached to the
substantial amendment of the consolidated plan.
* * * * *
(f) Availability to the public. The citizen participation plan must
provide that the consolidated plan as adopted, consolidated plan
substantial amendments, and the performance report will be available to
the public, including the availability of materials in a form
accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request. The citizen
participation plan must state how these documents will be available to
the public.
(g) Access to records. The citizen participation plan must require
the State to provide its residents, public agencies, and other
interested parties with reasonable and timely access to information and
records relating to the State's consolidated plan and use of assistance
under the programs covered by this part during the preceding 5 years.
(h) Complaints. The citizen participation plan shall describe the
State's appropriate and practicable procedures to handle complaints
from its residents related to the consolidated plan, consolidated plan
amendments, and the performance report. At a minimum, the citizen
participation plan shall require that the State must provide a timely,
substantive written response to every written resident complaint,
within an established period of time (within 15 working days, where
practicable, if the State is a CDBG grant recipient).
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec. 91.205 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.205 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
* * * * *
(b) Categories of persons affected. (1) The plan shall estimate the
number and type of families in need of housing assistance for:
(i) Extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-
income families;
(ii) Renters and owners;
(iii) Elderly persons;
(iv) Single persons;
(v) Large families;
(vi) Public housing residents;
(vii) Families on the public housing and Section 8 tenant-based
waiting list;
(viii) Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families;
(ix) Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking;
(x) Persons with disabilities; and
(xi) Formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving
rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that
assistance.
(2) The description of housing needs shall include a concise
summary of the cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding
(especially for large families), and substandard housing conditions
being experienced by extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income,
and middle-income renters and owners compared to the jurisdiction as a
whole. (The jurisdiction must define in its consolidated plan the terms
``standard condition'' and ``substandard condition but suitable for
rehabilitation.'')
* * * * *
Sec. 91.215 [Amended]
0
13. Amend Sec. 91.215 by removing paragraph (a)(5).
0
14. In Sec. 91.220 revise paragraph (k)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.220 Action plan.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Actions it plans to take
during the next year that further the commitments identified in the
jurisdiction's certification to affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
0
15. In Sec. 91.225 revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.225 Certifications.
(a) * * *
(1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Each jurisdiction is
required to submit a certification that it will affirmatively further
fair housing by addressing at least three goals towards fair housing
choice or obstacles to fair housing choice, identified by the
jurisdiction, that the jurisdiction intends to achieve or ameliorate,
respectively. The identified goals or obstacles must have concrete and
measurable outcomes or changes.
(i) Jurisdictions must include with each goal or obstacle a brief
description of how accomplishing the goal or ameliorating the obstacle
affirmatively furthers fair housing in that jurisdiction, unless the
obstacle is an obstacle to fair housing choice identified from the
following non-exhaustive list of obstacles which HUD considers to be
inherent barriers to fair housing choice:
(A) Lack of a sufficient supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing that is affordable.
(B) Lack of a sufficient supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing that is affordable and accessible to people with disabilities.
(C) Concentration of substandard housing stock in a particular
area.
(D) Not in derogation of applicable federal law or regulations,
inflexible or unduly rigorous design standards or other similar
barriers which unreasonably increase the cost of the construction or
rehabilitation of low-to-mid price housing or impede the development or
implementation of innovative approaches to housing.
(E) Lack of effective, timely, and cost-effective means for
clearing title issues, if such are prevalent in the community.
(F) Source of income restrictions on rental housing.
(G) administrative procedures which have the effect of restricting
or otherwise materially impeding the approval of affordable housing
development
(H) High rates of housing-related lead poisoning in housing.
(I) Artificial economic restrictions on the long-term creation of
rental housing, such as certain types of rent control.
(J) Unduly prescriptive or burdensome building and rehabilitation
codes.
(K) Arbitrary or excessive energy and water efficiency mandates.
(L) Unduly burdensome wetland or environmental regulations.
(M) Unnecessary manufactured-housing regulations and restrictions.
(N) Cumbersome or time-consuming construction or rehabilitation
permitting and review procedures.
(O) Tax policies which discourage investment or reinvestment.
(P) Arbitrary or unnecessary labor requirements.
(ii) Jurisdictions should focus on goals or obstacles within their
control or partial control. If, in addition to identifying obstacles
within the jurisdiction's control or partial control, a jurisdiction
identifies obstacles to fair housing choice not within its control or
partial control, but which the jurisdiction determines deserve public
or HUD scrutiny, the certification may also discuss those issues and
include suggested solutions to address the obstacles.
(iii) The goals or obstacles included in the certification are to
be determined by the jurisdiction, and the specific steps
[[Page 2057]]
for the jurisdiction to take are to be informed by the nature of the
jurisdiction, its geographic scope, its size, and its financial,
technical, and managerial resources, and taking into consideration
relevant public comments. The contents of the certification need not be
based on any HUD-prescribed specific analysis or data but should
reflect the practical experience and local insights of the
jurisdiction, including objective quantitative and qualitative data as
the jurisdiction deems appropriate.
(iv) Following the procedures in Sec. 91.500, HUD may question the
accuracy of the certifications of low-ranking jurisdictions, as defined
in 24 CFR 5.155(d)(1). Jurisdictions may be asked to amend their
certifications to commit the jurisdiction to goals that have a rational
basis toward favorably affecting the metrics in 24 CFR 5.155(c).
* * * * *
0
16. Revise Sec. 91.230 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.230 Monitoring.
The plan must describe the standards and procedures that the
jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance
of the plan, including strategies and actions that address the fair
housing issues and goals identified in the jurisdiction's certification
to affirmatively further fair housing, and that the jurisdiction will
use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs
involved, including civil rights related program requirements, minority
business outreach, and the comprehensive planning requirements.
0
17. In Sec. 91.235 revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.235 Special case; abbreviated consolidated plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Assessment of needs, resources, and planned activities. An
abbreviated plan must contain sufficient information about needs,
resources, and planned activities to address the needs to cover the
type and amount of assistance anticipated to be funded by HUD. The plan
must describe how the jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair
housing in accordance with its certification to affirmatively further
fair housing.
* * * * *
(4) Submissions, certifications, amendments, and performance
reports. An Insular Area grantee that submits an abbreviated
consolidated plan under this section must comply with the submission,
certification, amendment, and performance report requirements of 24 CFR
570.440. This includes certification that the grantee will
affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will take
meaningful actions to further the goals identified in the certification
to affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
0
18. In Sec. 91.305 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.305 Housing and homeless needs assessment.
* * * * *
(b) Categories of persons affected. (1) The plan shall estimate the
number and type of families in need of housing assistance for:
(i) Extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-
income families;
(ii) Renters and owners;
(iii) Elderly persons;
(iv) Single persons;
(v) Large families;
(vi) Public housing residents;
(vii) Families on the public housing and Section 8 tenant-based
waiting list;
(viii) Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families;
(ix) Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking;
(x) Persons with disabilities; and
(xi) Formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving
rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that
assistance.
(2) The description of housing needs shall include a concise
summary of the cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding
(especially for large families), and substandard housing conditions
being experienced by extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income,
and middle-income renters and owners compared to the state as a whole.
(The state must define in its consolidated plan the terms ``standard
condition'' and ``substandard condition but suitable for
rehabilitation.'')
* * * * *
Sec. 91.315 [Amended]
0
19. Amend Sec. 91.315 by removing paragraph (a)(5).
0
20. In Sec. 91.320 revise paragraph (j)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.320 Action plan.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Actions it plans to take
during the next year that further the commitments in its certification
to affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
0
21. In Sec. 91.325 revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.325 Certifications.
(a) * * *
(1) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Each State is required
to submit a certification that it will affirmatively further fair
housing by addressing at least three goals towards fair housing choice
or obstacles to fair housing choice, identified by the jurisdiction,
that the jurisdiction intends to achieve or ameliorate, respectively.
The identified goals or obstacles must have concrete and measurable
outcomes or changes.
(i) States must include with each goal or obstacle a brief
description of how accomplishing the goal or ameliorating the obstacle
affirmatively furthers fair housing in that State, unless the obstacle
is an obstacle to fair housing choice identified from the following
non-exhaustive list of obstacles which HUD considers to be inherent
barriers to fair housing choice:
(A) Lack of a sufficient supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing that is affordable.
(B) Lack of a sufficient supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing that is affordable and accessible to people with disabilities.
(C) Concentration of substandard housing stock in a particular
area.
(D) Not in derogation of applicable federal law or regulations,
inflexible or unduly rigorous design standards or other similar
barriers which unreasonably increase the cost of the construction or
rehabilitation of low-to-mid price housing or impede the development or
implementation of innovative approaches to housing.
(E) Lack of effective, timely, and cost-effective means for
clearing title issues, if such are prevalent in the community.
(F) Source of income restrictions on rental housing.
(G) Regulatory provisions or other administrative practices that
have the effect of restricting or otherwise materially impeding the
approval of affordable housing development.
(H) High rates of housing-related lead poisoning in housing.
(I) Artificial economic restrictions on the long-term creation of
rental housing, such as rent controls.
(J) Unduly prescriptive or burdensome building and rehabilitation
codes.
(K) Arbitrary or excessive energy and water efficiency mandates.
(L) Unduly burdensome wetland or environmental regulations.
(M) Unnecessary manufactured-housing regulations and restrictions.
(N) Cumbersome or time-consuming construction or rehabilitation
permitting and review procedures.
[[Page 2058]]
(O) Tax policies which discourage investment or reinvestment.
(P) Arbitrary or unnecessary labor requirements.
(ii) States should focus on goals or obstacles within their control
or partial control. If, in addition to identifying obstacles within the
State's control or partial control, a State identifies obstacles to
fair housing choice not within its control or partial control, but
which the State determines deserve public or HUD scrutiny, the
certification may also discuss those issues and include suggested
solutions to address the obstacles.
(iii) The goals or obstacles included in the certification are to
be determined by the State, and the specific steps for the State to
take are to be informed by the nature of the State, its geographic
scope, its size, and its financial, technical, and managerial
resources, taking into consideration relevant public comments. The
contents of the certification need not be based on any HUD-prescribed
specific mode of analysis or data but should reflect the practical
experience and local insights of the State, including quantitative and
qualitative data as the jurisdiction deems appropriate.
(iv) Following the procedures in Sec. 91.500, HUD may question the
accuracy of the certifications of low-ranking States, as defined in 24
CFR 5.155(d)(1). States may be asked to amend their certifications to
commit the jurisdiction to goals that have a rational basis toward
favorably affecting the metrics in 24 CFR 5.155(c).
* * * * *
0
22. Revise Sec. 91.415 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.415 Strategic plan.
Strategies and priority needs must be described in the consolidated
plan, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 91.215, for the entire
consortium. The consortium is not required to submit a nonhousing
Community Development Plan; however, if the consortium includes CDBG
entitlement communities, the consolidated plan must include the
nonhousing Community Development Plans of the CDBG entitlement
community members of the consortium. The consortium must set forth its
priorities for allocating housing (including CDBG and ESG, where
applicable) resources geographically within the consortium, describing
how the consolidated plan will address the needs identified (in
accordance with Sec. 91.405), describing the reasons for the
consortium's allocation priorities, and identifying any obstacles there
are to addressing underserved needs.
0
23. In Sec. 91.420 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.420 Action plan.
* * * * *
(b) Description of resources and activities. The action plan must
describe the resources to be used and activities to be undertaken to
pursue its strategic plan, including actions the consortium plans to
take during the next year that further the commitments in the
consortium's certification to affirmatively further fair housing. The
consolidated plan must provide this description for all resources and
activities within the entire consortium as a whole, as well as a
description for each individual community that is a member of the
consortium.
* * * * *
0
24. In Sec. 91.425 revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.425 Certifications.
(a) * * *
(1) General--(i) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. Each
consortium must certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing
by addressing at least three goals towards fair housing choice or
obstacles to fair housing choice, identified by the consortium, the
consortium intends to achieve or ameliorate. The identified goals or
obstacles must have concrete and measurable outcomes or changes.
(A) Consortia must include with each goal or obstacle a brief
description of how accomplishing the goal or ameliorating the obstacle
affirmatively furthers fair housing in the consortia's jurisdiction,
unless the obstacle is an obstacle to fair housing choice identified
from the following non-exhaustive list of obstacles which HUD considers
to be inherent barriers to fair housing choice:
(1) Lack of a sufficient supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing that is affordable.
(2) Lack of a sufficient supply of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing that is affordable and accessible to people with disabilities.
(3) Concentration of substandard housing stock in a particular
area.
(4) Not in derogation of applicable federal law or regulations,
inflexible or unduly rigorous design standards or other similar
barriers which unreasonably increase the cost of the construction or
rehabilitation of low-to-mid price housing or impede the development or
implementation of innovative approaches to housing.
(5) Lack of effective, timely, and cost-effective means for
clearing title issues, if such are prevalent in the community.
(6) Source of income restrictions on rental housing.
(7) Administrative procedures that have the effect of restricting
or otherwise materially impeding the approval of affordable housing
development.
(8) High rates of housing-related lead poisoning in housing.
(9) Artificial economic restrictions on the long-term creation of
rental housing, such as rent controls.
(10) Unduly prescriptive or burdensome building and rehabilitation
codes.
(11) Arbitrary or excessive energy and water efficiency mandates.
(12) Unduly burdensome wetland or environmental regulations.
(13) Unnecessary manufactured-housing regulations and restrictions.
(14) Cumbersome or time-consuming construction or rehabilitation
permitting and review procedures.
(15) Tax policies which discourage investment or reinvestment.
(16) Arbitrary or unnecessary labor requirements.
(B) Consortia should focus on goals or obstacles within their
control or partial control. If, in addition to identifying obstacles
within the consortium's control or partial control, a consortium
identifies obstacles to fair housing choice not within its control or
partial control, but which the consortium determines deserve public or
HUD scrutiny, the certification may also discuss those issues and
include suggested solutions to address the obstacles.
(C) The goals or obstacles included in the certification are to be
determined by the consortium, and the specific steps for the consortium
to take are to be informed by the nature of the consortium, its
geographic scope, its size, and its financial, technical, and
managerial resources, taking into consideration relevant public
comments. The contents of the certification need not be based on any
HUD-prescribed specific mode of analysis or data but should reflect the
practical experience and local insights of the consortium, including
quantitative and qualitative data as the jurisdiction deems
appropriate.
(D) Following the procedures in Sec. 91.500, HUD may question the
accuracy of the certifications of low-ranking consortia, as defined in
24 CFR 5.155(d)(1). Consortia may be asked to amend their
certifications to commit the consortium to goals that have a rational
basis toward favorably affecting the metrics in 24 CFR 5.155(c).
* * * * *
[[Page 2059]]
0
25. In Sec. 91.520, revise the introductory text in paragraphs (a) and
(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.520 Performance reports.
(a) General. Each jurisdiction that has an approved consolidated
plan shall annually review and report, in a form prescribed by HUD, on
the progress it has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its
action plan. The performance report must include a description of the
resources made available, the investment of available resources, the
geographic distribution and location of investments, the families and
persons assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of persons
assisted), actions taken pursuant to the jurisdiction's certification
to affirmatively further fair housing and any measurable results of
those actions, and other actions indicated in the strategic plan and
the action plan. This performance report shall be submitted to HUD
within 90 days after the close of the jurisdiction's program year.
* * * * *
(i) Evaluation by HUD. (1) HUD shall review the performance report
and determine whether it is satisfactory. If a satisfactory report is
not submitted in a timely manner, HUD may suspend funding until a
satisfactory report is submitted, or may withdraw and reallocate
funding if HUD determines, after notice and opportunity for a hearing,
that the jurisdiction will not submit a satisfactory report.
(2) With the steps the jurisdiction has taken to affirmatively
further fair housing, HUD will deem that portion of the performance
report ``satisfactory'' if the steps the jurisdiction has taken are
rationally related to the goals or obstacles identified in the
jurisdiction's certification to affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 91.525 paragraph (a) by redesignating paragraph (5) as
paragraph (6) and adding a new paragraph (5) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.525 Performance review by HUD.
(a) * * *
(5) Extent to which the jurisdiction made progress towards the
goals or obstacles identified in the jurisdiction's certification to
affirmatively further fair housing; and
* * * * *
PART 92--HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
0
27. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 12 U.S.C. 1701x and 4568.
0
28. Revise Sec. 92.104 to read as follows:
Sec. 92.104 Submission of a consolidated plan.
A jurisdiction that has not submitted a consolidated plan to HUD
must submit to HUD, not later than 90 calendar days after providing
notification under Sec. 92.103, a consolidated plan in accordance with
24 CFR part 91.
0
29. In Sec. 92.508 revise paragraph (a)(7)(i)(C) to read as follows:
Sec. 92.508 Recordkeeping.
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Documentation of the actions the participating jurisdiction has
taken to affirmatively further fair housing, including documentation
related to the participating jurisdiction's certification to
affirmatively further fair housing as described in 24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
PART 570--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
0
30. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701x, 1701 x-1; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and
5301-5320.
0
31. In Sec. 570.3 revise the first sentence of the introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 570.3 Definitions.
The terms Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, HUD, and Secretary
are defined in 24 CFR part 5. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 570.205 [Amended]
0
32. Amend Sec. 570.205 paragraph (a)(4) by removing paragraph (vii)
and redesignating paragraph (viii) as (vii).
0
33. In Sec. 570.441 revise introductory text in paragraphs (b) and (3)
to read as follows:
Sec. 570.441 Citizen participation--insular areas.
* * * * *
(b) Citizen participation plan. The insular area jurisdiction must
develop and follow a detailed citizen participation plan and must make
the plan public. The plan must be completed and available before the
statement for assistance is submitted to HUD, and the jurisdiction must
certify that it is following the plan. The plan must set forth the
jurisdiction's policies and procedures for:
* * * * *
(3) Holding a minimum of two public hearings for the purpose of
obtaining residents' views and formulating or responding to proposals
and questions. Each public hearing must be conducted at a different
stage of the CDBG program year. Together, the hearings must address
affirmatively furthering fair housing, community development and
housing needs, development of proposed activities, proposed strategies
and actions furthering the commitments in the certification to
affirmatively further fair housing, and a review of program
performance. There must be reasonable notice of the hearings, and the
hearings must be held at times and accessible locations convenient to
potential or actual beneficiaries, with reasonable accommodations,
including materials in accessible formats, for persons with
disabilities. The jurisdiction must specify in its citizen
participation plan how it will meet the requirement for hearings at
times and accessible locations convenient to potential or actual
beneficiaries;
* * * * *
0
34. In Sec. 570.487 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.487 Other applicable laws and related program requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The Act requires the
State to certify to the satisfaction of HUD that it will affirmatively
further fair housing. The Act also requires each unit of general local
government to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing.
The certification that the State will affirmatively further fair
housing shall specifically require the State to assume the
responsibility of fair housing planning by:
(1) Taking meaningful actions to further the goals identified in
the jurisdiction's or State's Strategic plan under 24 CFR part 91; and
(2) Assuring that units of local government funded by the State
comply with their certifications to affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
0
35. In Sec. 570.490, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 570.490 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * * (1) The State shall establish and maintain such records
as may be necessary to facilitate review and audit by HUD of the
State's administration of CDBG funds under Sec. 570.493. The content
of records maintained by the State shall be as jointly agreed upon by
HUD and the States and sufficient to enable HUD to make the
determinations described at Sec. 570.493. For fair housing
[[Page 2060]]
and equal opportunity purposes, and as applicable, such records shall
include documentation related to the State's certification to
affirmatively further fair housing, as described in 24 CFR part 91. The
records shall also permit audit of the States in accordance with 24 CFR
part 85.
* * * * *
(b) Unit of general local government's record. The State shall
establish recordkeeping requirements for units of general local
government receiving CDBG funds that are sufficient to facilitate
reviews and audits of such units of general local government under
Sec. Sec. 570.492 and 570.493. For fair housing and equal opportunity
purposes, and as applicable, such records shall include documentation
related to the State's certification to affirmatively further fair
housing under 24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
0
36. In Sec. 570.506 revise paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.506 Records to be maintained.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Documentation related to the recipient's certification to
affirmatively further fair housing under 24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
0
37. In Sec. 570.601 revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.601 Public Law 88-352 and Public Law 90-284; affirmatively
furthering fair housing; Executive Order 11063.
(a) * * *
(2) Public Law 90-284, which is the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
3601-3620). In accordance with the Fair Housing Act, the Secretary
requires that grantees administer all programs and activities related
to housing and urban development in a manner to affirmatively further
the policies of the Fair Housing Act. Furthermore, in accordance with
section 104(b)(2) of the Act, for each community receiving a grant
under subpart D of this part, the certification that the grantee will
affirmatively further fair housing shall specifically require the
grantee to take meaningful actions to further the goals identified in
the grantee's certification to affirmatively further fair housing under
24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
PART 574--HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
0
38. The authority citation for part 574 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701x, 1701 x-1; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and
5301-5320.
0
39. In Sec. 574.530 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 574.530 Recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(b) Documentation related to the formula grantee's certification to
affirmatively further fair housing under 24 CFR part 91.
* * * * *
PART 576--EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM
0
40. The authority citation for part 576 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701x, 1701 x-1; 42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.,
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
0
41. In Sec. 576.500 revise paragraph (s)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 576.500 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Documentation in regard to the recipient's certification that
the recipient will affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
PART 903--PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLANS
0
42. The authority citation for part 903 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437c; 42 U.S.C. 1437c-1; Pub. L. 110-289;
42 U.S.C. 3535d.
0
43. In Sec. 903.7 revise paragraphs (o)(1) and (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 903.7 What information must a PHA provide in the Annual Plan?
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(1) The PHA must certify that it has consulted with the local
jurisdiction on how to satisfy their obligations in common to
affirmatively further fair housing, and that it will carry out its plan
in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d-2000d-4), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-19), section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and
other applicable Federal civil right laws, and that it will
affirmatively further fair housing in its programs and in areas under
its direct control.
* * * * *
(3) If the PHA has been subject to an unresolved HUD letter of
finding or a material finding of a civil rights violation by a court or
administrative law judge in an action brought by or on behalf of HUD or
by the United States Department of Justice in the last two years that
has not been successfully appealed or otherwise set aside at the time
of the submission of the certification, then the PHA must include with
its certification an explanation of what steps the PHA has taken and is
taking to resolve the violation.
* * * * *
0
44. Revise Sec. 903.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 903.15 What is the relationship of the public housing agency
plans to the Consolidated Plan and a PHA's Fair Housing Requirements?
A PHA is obligated to affirmatively further fair housing, as
contemplated in Sec. 903.7(o). All admission and occupancy policies
for public housing and Section 8 tenant-based housing programs must
comply with Fair Housing Act requirements and other civil rights laws
and regulations and with a PHA's plans to affirmatively further fair
housing. The PHA may not impose any specific income or racial quotas
for any development or developments.
(a) Nondiscrimination. A PHA must carry out its PHA Plan in
conformity with the nondiscrimination requirements in Federal civil
rights laws, including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act. A PHA may not assign
housing to persons in a particular section of a community or to a
development or building based on race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status, or national origin for purposes of
segregating populations.
(b) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. A PHA's policies should
be designed in conformity with any applicable certification to
affirmatively further fair housing as part of a consolidated plan under
24 CFR part 91 and the PHA's assessment of its fair housing needs.
(1) The Fair Housing Act provides that PHAs must certify that they
will affirmatively further fair housing. PHAs must affirmatively
further fair housing as detailed in Sec. 903.7(o).
(2) Such affirmative steps may include, but are not limited to,
marketing efforts, engagement with landlords to promote the acceptance
of housing choice vouchers, use of nondiscriminatory tenant selection
and assignment policies that lead to increased fair housing choice,
additional applicant consultation and information, provision of
additional supportive services and amenities to a
[[Page 2061]]
development (such as supportive services that enable an individual with
a disability to transfer from an institutional setting into the
community), and engagement in ongoing coordination with state and local
aging and disability community and community-based organizations to
provide additional community-based housing opportunities for
individuals with disabilities and to connect such individuals with
supportive services to enable an individual with a disability to
transfer from an institutional setting into the community and
facilitate the provision of such services at PHA properties.
(c) Validity of certification. (1) A PHA's certification under
Sec. 903.7(o) will be subject to challenge by HUD where it appears
that a PHA fails to meet the requirements in 24 CFR 903.7(o).
(2) If HUD challenges the validity of a PHA's certification, HUD
will do so in writing specifying the deficiencies, and will give the
PHA an opportunity to respond to the particular challenge in writing.
In responding to the specified deficiencies, a PHA must establish, as
applicable, that it has complied with fair housing and civil rights
laws and regulations, or has remedied violations of fair housing and
civil rights laws and regulations, and has adopted policies and
undertaken actions to affirmatively further fair housing, including,
but not limited to, providing a full range of housing opportunities to
applicants and tenants and taking affirmative steps as described in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section in a nondiscriminatory manner. In
responding to the PHA, HUD may accept the PHA's explanation and
withdraw the challenge, undertake further investigation, or pursue
other remedies available under law. HUD will seek to obtain voluntary
corrective action consistent with the specified deficiencies. In
determining whether a PHA has complied with its certification, HUD will
review the PHA's circumstances relevant to the specified deficiencies,
including characteristics of the population served by the PHA;
characteristics of the PHA's existing housing stock; and decisions,
plans, goals, priorities, strategies, and actions of the PHA, including
those designed to affirmatively further fair housing.
0
45. In Sec. 903.23 revise paragraph (f) to read as follows;
Sec. 903.23 What is the process by which HUD reviews, approves, or
disapproves an Annual Plan?
* * * * *
(f) Recordkeeping. PHAs must maintain records reflecting actions to
affirmatively further fair housing, as described in Sec. 903.7(o).
PART 905--THE PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM
0
46. The authority citation for part 905 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-2, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-
7, and 3535(d).
0
47. In Sec. 905.308 revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 905.308 Federal requirements applicable to all Capital Fund
activities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity. The PHA shall comply
with all applicable nondiscrimination and equal opportunity
requirements, including, but not limited to, the Department's generally
applicable nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements at 24
CFR 5.105(a) and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151
et seq.), and its implementing regulations at 24 CFR parts 40 and 41.
The PHA shall affirmatively further fair housing in its use of funds
under this part, following the requirements at 24 CFR 903.7(o).
* * * * *
Dated: January 6, 2020.
Benjamin S. Carson, Sr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00234 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P