1998 S Housing - Cooperative Agreement with US Department HUD

Browse Search

. Federal Register. / Vol. 61, No. 153 /Wednesday, August 7. 1996 /Rules and Regulations 41283 performance. This commenter believed that HUD's administrative burdea~ would increase due to its inability to refer complaints during the suspension period. .. . The commenter also qusstioaed•the ~` adequacy of the reimbursement ~• ~ - -' provisions at 5 115.211. These'.' .~ •; =~ ~ ~,~.. pprovfsioas allowed HUD to reimburse .formerly auspeaded bgendes for cases processed during the auspansion period. The commenter wrote that agendas ~ ~ • ; . should also be rsimbuisad forlost = spedal grant funding sad tbacosts of- halted investigations. '..: .., ..~: . HUD Responee. HUD d;sagreea with. several of the assertions made by ths• . commenter. For example; the interim rule was suffideatly clear regarding the . conditions which might lead to as agency's suspenaion.~ Further. the • . suspension provisions will not .. necessarily increase HUD': ' - • a i*+;~*,tive burden. HUD also notes that agendas presently have a right to . notice sad as opportunity to respond prior to suspension. These rights are outlined in non-regulatory HUD guidance, which is currently being revised and updated. However. HUD agrees that this guidance should be referenced in 24 CFR part 115 sad has revised the interim rule accordingly. HUD has adopted another of the commenter's suggestions by limiting suspensions based on chaagea in the law to 180 days. The commeater's recommendations solely toncernad the suspension and withdrawal of certification procedures at S§ liS.Zii and 115.212. However; HUD has also revised S 115.208, which governs interim certification. to reference the non-regulatory guidance and to establish the 180-day limit. HUD believes the issues raised by the commenter are equally applicable to agendas with interim certification. Further, these revisicas are necessary to create uniformity in the procedurass for interim certification and certification. meanings of "covered multifamily . dwellings." However, the word "and" . . could easily be misinterpreted to be the conjunctive for the phrase "if such : ~ . buildings." The commenter suggested.. `that HUD clarify the wording of this .. . definition. . ~ ~.: ~ . THUD Response. HUD.agrees with the .: commenter. Section 804(f)(7) of the Act provides a dear. definition of the term ..covered multifamily dwellings.". ~.. Paragraph.(a)(5j of 5115.202 required that the a ccyy's fai~r housing law or `~ osdinancs~~ilrasida the same ' , . protections as those aBo:+de+i f section 804 • • of the Ad." This re ereacs to sedioa 804 encompassed the statutory definition of "covered multifamily ~.: dwellings." It is, therefore, unnecessary for the final rule to set forth a separate. definition. Accordingly, this final:trle simply removes 24 CFR 115.202(a)(5)(ii). This final rule also removes § 115.202(a)(5)(iii). The language of this provision was also already encompassed is section 804 of the Act. SpedficaIly, the provision repeated the language of section 8040(4), which concerns the American National Standard for facilities providing accessibility to persons with disabilities. N. Additional Changes trs the Fehnasy 25.1896 Ietieras 8ule _ A. Limitation on 5EE Fund ~3' Section 115.305 sat forth the eligibility requirements for Spada) F.aforcemeat Efforts (SEE) funds. SEE funds are awarded to enforcement agendas with proven experience and capability in administering their fair housing laws and ordinances. Accordingly. Paragraphs (a)(i) through (a)(e) of S 115.305 established fairly strict eligibility criteria. For example. 24 CFR i1S.305(a)(3) required that: (1~ At least tea percent of the agency's fair housing caseload resulted is written wadliatioa agreements providing monetary relief for the complainant as wall u remedial action, monitoring. reporting sad public interest relief provisions(.) Another example was provided by the criterion set forth in paragraph (a)(S) of 5115.305: (3) The ageary's administration of its fair housing ]aw or ordinance received meritorious mention for its complaint processing or other fair housing activities that were innovative(.) As the above examples illustrate. HUD intends to limit SEE funding to those agencies which meet a high threshold of eligibility. Accordingly, agendas which are experiendng difficulties in administering their fair housing laws and ordinances are B. Definition of "Coveted Multr%amily Dwellings" Was Cort~trsing Comment. Paragra h (a)(S)(i) of § 115.201 provided t~t "the term 'covered multifamily dwellings' means buildings consisting of four or more traits if such buildings have one or more elevators and ground floor units is other buildings consisting of four or more units." One of the commenters complained about the awkward phrasing of this provision. As this commenter noted, the correct . interpretation of the word "and" is unclear. The commenter correctly assumed that "and" was intended to be the conjunctive for the two independent ineligible for SEE funding. However, in order to prevent nay possible confusion, this final rule amends 5115.305 to clarify that an enforcement ageary may , not receive SEE funds if it is currently on a Performance Improvement Plan : . (P1P), or if its interim cs:rtificatioa or . certification has been suspended during . the $acal year is which SEE funds ors .. -being sought. HUD wishes to note that agencies ineligible far 5EE funding may still, if otherwise eligible, apply for Complaint Processing funds, sad Administrative Coatfunds- .. ~ , B. Partial Aeimbursemerrt of Reinstated Agencies As discussed is se~tion~III.A. of this pr~mble, the February 28,1998 interim rule pp vided that HUD warld reimburse an agency far cases prooessed during the ageary's suspension period. HUD maybe unable to fully reimburse . reinstated agendas for these coats. Accordingly. this final rule clarifies that HUD will provide full or partial reimbursement for cases processed during the period of suspension. C. Increased HUD Flexibility This final rule also makes two amendments, designed to benefit enforcement agencies. by providing isi11~ wroth greeter flexibility. The FeHataaet 241896 interim rule maoda~osd tlttat fi@i1D suspend an ageary if the conditions set forth in §§ iis.2o8 or 115.211 were satisfied. HUD may, is certain dretrmstances, wish to postpone the suspension of such an agency. The interim rule denied this ability to HUD. This final rule provides HUD with the required flexibility by revising §§ 115.208 sad 115.211 to state that HUD "may" suspend an ageary if the auspeasion conditions are triggered. The interim rule prohibited the reimbursement of an agency who was suspended due to its performance until HUD determined that the agenry complied with the performance standards in 5115.203. However, in certain cases speedier reimbursement of such agendas maybe justified. This final rule permits HUD to reimburse agendas prior to a determination that the requirements of § 115.203 are satisfied. V. Other Matter Environmental Impact This rulemakiag does not have an environmental impact. This rulemaking simply amends as existing regulation by consolidating and streamlinin; provisions and does not alter rho environmental effect of the regulations being amended. Findings of No