99-11918. Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Formula Allocation  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 1999)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 25736-25744]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-11918]
    
    
    
    [[Page 25735]]
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part V
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    
    
    Department of Housing and Urban Development
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    24 CFR Part 761
    
    
    
    Public Housing Drug Elimination: Program Formula Allocation; Proposed 
    Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / 
    Proposed Rules
    
    [[Page 25736]]
    
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
    
    24 CFR Part 761
    
    [Docket No. FR-4451-P-02]
    RIN 2577-AB95
    
    
    Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Formula Allocation
    
    AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
    Housing, HUD.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend HUD regulations to replace the 
    competitive distribution of HUD's Public and Indian Housing Drug 
    Elimination Program (PHDEP) funds with a formula allocation funding 
    system. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a more timely, 
    predictable and equitable allocation of PHDEP funds. The competitive 
    distribution of funding through the Assisted Housing component of the 
    Drug Elimination Program would not be affected by this rule.
    
    DATES: Comment Due Date: July 12, 1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments to the 
    Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Room 10276, 
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, 
    Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above 
    docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) responses are not acceptable. 
    A copy of each response will be available for public inspection and 
    copying during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern 
    Time at the above address).
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bertha M. Jones, Program Analyst, 
    Community Safety and Conservation Division, Office of Public and Indian 
    Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 
    Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1197 x.4237; or 
    Tracy C. Outlaw, National Office of Native American Programs, 
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3390, 
    Denver, CO 80202, telephone (303) 675-1600 (these are not toll-free 
    numbers). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number 
    via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 
    1-800-877-8339. Also, please see HUD's website at http://www.hud.gov/
    pih/legis/titlev.html for additional PHDEP information.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        Section 586 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 
    1998 (Pub. L. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, approved October 21, 1998) 
    (Public Housing Reform Act) makes certain amendments to the Public and 
    Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990, including authorizing 
    HUD to make renewable grants to public housing agencies (PHAs). HUD is 
    to provide preference in funding to these public housing agencies, but 
    this preference does not preclude selection by the Secretary of other 
    meritorious public housing agencies that need funding to address urgent 
    or serious crime problems.
        On February 18, 1998 (64 FR 8210), HUD published an Advance Notice 
    of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments on possible methods 
    and elements of a need based formula and performance criteria. Further, 
    HUD welcomed any formula methods for consideration that housing 
    agencies or other interested members of the public may have devised. 
    Public comments received in response to this notice were considered in 
    the development of this proposed rule on formula funding for PHDEP, and 
    are discussed in the following section.
    
    II. Public Comment on the ANPR
    
        HUD received 60 comments on the ANPR. The commenters addressed the 
    options for PHDEP funding, and offered several recommendations on how 
    funding may be allocated. This proposed rule takes into consideration 
    the comments received on the ANPR, as discussed below.
    
    Opposition to Formula Funding
    
        Several commenters opposed the change to formula allocation. Their 
    concern was that providing funding to a somewhat greater number of 
    applicants under a formula would reduce the amount that was previously 
    made available to individual applicants who successfully competed for 
    funding.
        HUD remains convinced that formula allocation for this program is 
    the better method for allocating PHDEP funds. First, formula allocation 
    of funding for a period of years eliminates the uncertainty of 
    competitive funding and permits the development and implementation of 
    long range plans. Second, as many commenters pointed out, success in 
    funding competitions is often related to the ``creative writing'' 
    ability of an applicant, an applicant's capacity to hire a professional 
    grants writer, and the subjective preferences of reviewers. These 
    unfavorable characteristics would be avoided under a formula system of 
    funding. Third, the timing of funding availability under a formula 
    process will be more consistent and regular than under a competitive 
    process. Fourth, a formula will relieve the administrative burden on 
    PHAs and HUD, by eliminating the competitive NOFA process. For these 
    reasons, HUD has determined that a formula approach to PHDEP funding 
    will provide a more timely, predictable and equitable allocation of 
    PHDEP funds.
    
    Criticisms of Funding Formula
    
        Although many of the commenters supported the idea of formula 
    funding, the formula itself was criticized on several points. Among the 
    criticisms was that the formula was difficult to understand; that it 
    used incomplete or invalid data; that the same bedroom mix factor was 
    used more than once; that the weights assigned to the formula's 
    components were not justified, and that the results were not 
    replicable.
        This rule proposes to address these criticisms by using a greatly 
    simplified formula for the allocation of PHDEP funding. The amount that 
    will be made available to an applicant qualifying for funding will be 
    based upon the applicant's share of the total number of units of all 
    applicants that qualify for funding, with a maximum award of $35 
    million and a minimum award of $25,000.
    
    Minimum Amount of Funding
    
        Several commenters addressed the issue of the minimum amount of 
    formula funding. Some favored maintaining the $50,000 minimum available 
    under the competitive system; some favored the suggested $25,000 
    minimum; and others supported a minimum without specifying an amount.
        This rule proposes to go forward with the $25,000 minimum amount of 
    funding. The certainty of funding over five years is proposed to 
    compensate for any problems resulting from the drop in minimum funding. 
    The great majority of beneficiaries of the minimum funding amount is 
    expected to be small applicants that were not previously funded and 
    that would be able to undertake meaningful activities with the minimum 
    amount.
    
    Establish Two Pools of PHDEP Funding
    
        Several commenters suggested that PHDEP funding be divided into two 
    pools, one to be allocated according to a formula, and the other 
    awarded on the basis of a competition.
        HUD does not support such a system because it would substantially
    
    [[Page 25737]]
    
    compromise the savings in administrative burden to PHAs and HUD that 
    would be available under a formula system.
    
    III. Changes in This Proposed Rule
    
        This rule proposes to amend the Drug Elimination Program (DEP) 
    regulations at 24 CFR part 761 to implement Public Housing Reform Act 
    section 586. In particular, it would amend the way that public housing 
    drug elimination funds are distributed, as explained in the following 
    discussion.
    
    Statutory Changes to DEP Funding and Eligibility
    
        Section 586(e) of the Public Housing Reform Act amends section 5125 
    of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADAA) (the Public and Assisted 
    Housing Drug Elimination Program is authorized under sections 5121 
    through 5130 of ADAA). Before being amended by section 586(e), section 
    5125(b) provided that HUD ``shall approve applications under this 
    chapter based exclusively on'' a list of four factors. This language 
    placed strict limitations on the manner in which HUD could distribute 
    drug elimination funds. Section 586(e) redesignates paragraphs (b) 
    through (d) of section 5125 as paragraphs (c) through (e), 
    respectively, and amends the limiting language in redesignated 
    paragraph (c) to provide that HUD ``shall approve applications under 
    subsection (b) that are not subject to a preference under subsection 
    (b)(2)(A) on the basis of thresholds or criteria such as'' followed by 
    the same four factors.
        Section 586 adds both structure and flexibility to the funding 
    process of the drug elimination program. By replacing the tightly 
    controlling parameters of ``based exclusively on'' with the expansive 
    ``on the basis of thresholds or criteria such as'', section 586 
    provides HUD with greater flexibility in the way DEP funds are 
    distributed. Section 586 also introduces non-competitive, renewable 
    grants as a way of distributing drug elimination funds. The new 
    subsection (b) added to ADAA section 5125 by Public Housing Reform Act 
    section 586 reads as follows:
    
        (b) One-Year Renewable Grants--
    
        (1) In General--An eligible applicant that is a public housing 
    agency may apply for a 1-year grant under this chapter that, subject 
    to the availability of appropriated amounts, shall be renewed 
    annually for a period of not more than 4 additional years, except 
    that such renewal shall be contingent upon the Secretary finding, 
    upon an annual or more frequent review, that the grantee agency is 
    performing under the terms of the grant and applicable laws in a 
    satisfactory manner and meets such other requirements as the 
    Secretary may prescribe. The Secretary may adjust the amount of any 
    grant received or renewed under this paragraph to take into account 
    increases or decreases in amounts appropriated for these purposes or 
    such other factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
        (2) Eligibility and Preference--The Secretary may not provide 
    assistance under this chapter to an applicant that is a public 
    housing agency unless--
        (A) the agency will use the grants to continue or expand 
    activities eligible for assistance under this chapter, as in effect 
    immediately before the effective date under section 503(a) of the 
    Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, in which case 
    the Secretary shall provide preference to such applicant; except 
    that preference under this subparagraph shall not preclude selection 
    by the Secretary of other meritorious applications that address 
    urgent or serious crime problems nor be construed to require 
    continuation of activities determined by the Secretary to be 
    unworthy of continuation; or
        (B) the agency is in the class established under paragraph (3).
        (3) PHA's Having Urgent or Serious Crime Problems--The Secretary 
    shall, by regulations issued after notice and opportunity for public 
    comment, set forth criteria for establishing a class of public 
    housing agencies that have urgent or serious crime problems. The 
    Secretary may reserve a portion of the amount appropriated to carry 
    out this chapter in each fiscal year only for grants for public 
    housing agencies in such class, except that any amounts from such 
    portion reserved that are not obligated to agencies in the class 
    shall be made available only for agencies that are subject to a 
    preference under paragraph (2)(A).
        (4) INAPPLICABILITY TO FEDERALLY ASSISTED LOW-INCOME HOUSING--
    The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to federally 
    assisted low-income housing.
    
        In Senate colloquy before passage of the Public Housing Reform Act, 
    Senator Mack noted that the amendments made to the Public and Assisted 
    Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990 represent a significant 
    improvement in the program. The Senator stated:
    
        The amendments will provide renewable grants for agencies that 
    meet performance standards established by HUD. In addition, housing 
    authorities with urgent or serious crime needs are protected and 
    will be assured an equitable amount of funding.
        * * * [T]he intent of these provisions is to provide more 
    certain funding for agencies with clear needs for funds and to 
    assure that both current funding recipients and other agencies with 
    more urgent or serious crime problems are appropriately assisted by 
    the program. The provisions will also reduce the administrative 
    costs of the current application process which entails a substantial 
    paperwork burden for agencies and HUD. Under the terms of the 
    amendments, HUD can establish a fixed funding mechanism in which the 
    relative needs of housing authorities are addressed with a greater 
    amount of certainty. (Congressional Record of October 8, 1998, 
    S.11842)
    
        The new language of ADAA section 5125(b), as revised by Public 
    Housing Reform Act section 586(e)(6), addresses the manner in which the 
    categories of eligible DEP applicants (PHAs, RMCs, NAHASDA recipients, 
    consortia, and owners of federally assisted low income housing) are to 
    be funded. PHAs are divided into two categories for funding purposes. 
    The first category consists of PHAs that will ``use the grants to 
    continue or expand activities eligible for assistance'' under the drug 
    elimination program. The requirement that funds must be used to 
    ``continue or expand'' activities indicates that PHAs in this category 
    must have previously received DEP funding, or they would not have any 
    activities that could be continued or expanded. HUD has determined that 
    PHAs that successfully competed for PHDEP funding under at least one of 
    the Notices of Funding Availability for Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 
    1996, 1997 and 1998 would have activities to continue or expand and 
    would constitute the first category of PHAs that qualify for funding. 
    Further, revised section 5125(b)(2)(A) states that PHAs in this 
    category are to be provided a preference for funding. How HUD will fund 
    these ``preference PHAs'' is explained below in the discussion of the 
    funding formula proposed by this rule.
        The second category of PHAs that qualify for funding is covered by 
    an exception to the preference. This exception is also found in section 
    5125(b)(2)(A), in the language which states, ``except that preference 
    under this subparagraph shall not preclude selection by the Secretary 
    of other meritorious applications that address urgent or serious crime 
    problems''. The funding formula discussed below would define what PHAs 
    fall into this ``needs'' category and the amount of funding each would 
    qualify to receive.
        RMCs and NAHASDA recipients would also qualify for ``needs'' 
    funding under the exception language of section 5125(b)(2)(A), on the 
    basis of ``meritorious applications that address urgent or serious 
    crime problems''. The determination of how NAHASDA recipients and RMCs 
    qualify for needs funding and the amounts they would receive are 
    explained under the formula funding discussion, below.
        A consortium of eligible applicants would qualify for at least the 
    amount of funding for which its individual members would qualify on a 
    preference or a needs basis. Consortia are more fully discussed under a 
    separate heading in this preamble, below.
    
    [[Page 25738]]
    
        HUD is seeking comment in particular on methods and the 
    desirability of providing more of a financial incentive for consortia.
        Federally assisted low-income housing is specifically excluded from 
    the provisions of revised section 5125(b) of ADAA, by section 
    5125(b)(4). Assisted housing DEP funding will continue to be made 
    available on a competitive basis under periodic NOFAs published in the 
    Federal Register.
    
    Proposed PHDEP Formula Funding
    
        This rule proposes to distribute all PHDEP funding in a 
    noncompetitive manner through the use of a funding formula. The new 
    language in revised ADAA section 5125(c), discussed above, provides HUD 
    with the flexibility to follow this formula approach. The funding 
    formula process satisfies the section 5125(c) requirement that HUD 
    ``approve applications under subsection (b) that are not subject to a 
    preference under subsection (b)(2)(A) on the basis of thresholds or 
    criteria such as'' the four listed factors. The manner in which 
    eligible applicants qualify for funding through the formula process is 
    sufficient to satisfy the new, more expansive ``such as'' requirement 
    which replaced the exclusive reliance upon the four listed ADAA 
    factors.
        The application of a funding cut-off point, or threshold, to the 
    ranking of eligible applicants derived through the formula process also 
    satisfies the requirement of the ``needs'' exception in section 
    5125(b)(2)(A), that the selection ``of other meritorious applications 
    that address urgent or serious crime problems'' not be precluded. This 
    rule provides that non-preference PHAs, NAHASDA recipients, and RMCs in 
    the top 50% (the cut-off point or threshold) of the unit-weighted 
    distribution of an index of a rolling average rate of violent crimes of 
    the community have needs that qualify for funding. Needs in the top 50% 
    are above average needs, and this broad approach to addressing ``urgent 
    or serious crime problems'' will assure the broad distribution of PHDEP 
    funding. Needs in the bottom 50% are below average and, therefore, 
    difficult to characterize as ``urgent or serious''.
        The crime rate used in this needs determination formula is the 
    rate, from the most recent years feasible, of FBI violent crimes per 
    10,000 residents of the community (or communities). If this information 
    is not available for a particular applicant's community, HUD will use 
    the average of data from recipients of the same or a comparable State 
    and size category of PHA (less than 500 units, 500 to 1249 units, and 
    more than 1250 units). If fewer than five PHAs have data for a given 
    size category within a State, then the average of PHAs for a given size 
    category within the census region will be used.
        The use of a funding cut-off point in the ranking also addresses 
    the preference requirement for previously funded (in FFYs 1996, 1997 or 
    1998) PHAs. These PHAs will be funded regardless of any ranking, 
    providing them with the preference of assured funding. Renewal of 
    funding under section 5125(b)(1) of ADAA for preference PHAs is 
    contingent only upon ``the Secretary finding, upon an annual or more 
    frequent review, that the grantee agency is performing under the terms 
    of the grant and applicable laws in a satisfactory manner and meets 
    such other requirements as the Secretary may prescribe.'' Of course, as 
    section 5125(b)(2)(A) of ADAA also provides, the preference shall not 
    be ``construed to require continuation of activities determined by the 
    Secretary to be unworthy of continuation''.
        In addition to addressing the preference requirement and 
    determining what ``needs'' applicants will qualify for funding, a 
    formula would determine the amount each applicant that qualifies for 
    funding would receive. The proposed formula at Sec. 761.13 would 
    distribute PHDEP funding based upon a qualified applicant's (an 
    applicant that qualifies on the basis of preference or need) share of 
    the total number of units of all eligible applicants that qualify for 
    funding, with a maximum award of $35 million and a minimum award of 
    $25,000. The amount an applicant that qualifies for funding would 
    receive in any given FFY would vary in proportion to the amounts 
    appropriated annually for the DEP, but would not exceed the established 
    maximum or minimum amounts.
        The Department specifically requests comment on whether the 
    proposed formula funding is appropriate for NAHASDA recipients, and 
    will consider implementing alternative methods of funding this category 
    of eligible applicants. Also, please see the discussion under the 
    heading, ``Funding of NAHASDA Recipients,'' below in this preamble.
    
    DEP Application and Plan Requirement
    
        To qualify for funding, an eligible applicant must still meet the 
    ADAA section 5125(a) requirement of submitting a plan for addressing 
    the problem of drug-related or violent crime in and around the 
    recipient's housing. This rule addresses the plan requirement by 
    providing, at Sec. 761.15, that a PHA must include a DEP plan with its 
    PHA Plan, submitted pursuant to 24 CFR part 903, as a qualification for 
    DEP funding. Similarly, as a qualification for DEP funding, a NAHASDA 
    recipient must include a DEP plan with its Indian Housing Plan (IHP), 
    submitted pursuant to subpart C of 24 CFR part 1000. As for RMCs, a 
    qualification for funding is that an RMC must submit a PHDEP plan to 
    its PHA. The PHA must then submit, with its PHA Plan, the RMC's PHDEP 
    plan. The minimum requirements for the contents of a PHDEP plan are 
    contained in a new Sec. 761.21. The PHDEP plan serves as the 
    application for PHDEP funding, and an otherwise qualified recipient 
    that does not submit a PHDEP plan as required will not be funded.
        HUD specifically solicits comments on ways to further streamline 
    the PHDEP plan and performance reporting. HUD is continuing to develop 
    model outcome measures with specific, measurable goals for PHDEP-funded 
    activities, including the overall reduction of violent crime and drug 
    use.
        AHDEP applicants will continue to apply in accordance with the 
    requirements of NOFAs published in the Federal Register.
        Recipients who qualify and receive funding will be reviewed at 
    least annually as grantees to determine if they meet the performance 
    requirements proposed in a new Sec. 761.23. A grantee that fails to 
    satisfy the performance requirements of this section may be subject to 
    the sanctions listed in Sec. 761.30(f)(2).
    
    Consortia
    
        This rule would also establish the requirements for the eligibility 
    and funding of consortia. The rule permits eligible applicants to join 
    together and form a consortium to apply under PHDEP, whether or not 
    each member would individually qualify for funding as a preference PHA 
    or a needs recipient in the top 50% of the formula ranking. To qualify 
    for funding, the consortium members must prepare and submit a 
    consortium DEP plan that meets the requirements of a DEP plan contained 
    in Sec. 761.21. The act of two or more eligible applicants joining 
    together to form a consortium, and identifying related crime problems 
    and eligible activities to address those problems pursuant to a 
    consortium PHDEP plan, qualifies the consortium for PHDEP funding to 
    the extent the individual applicants qualify. The consortium's DEP plan 
    must include a written agreement, signed by an authorized 
    representative of each consortium member, that designates a lead 
    applicant for purposes of grant funding and administration, and as a
    
    [[Page 25739]]
    
    central point of contact, and describes the activities and 
    responsibilities that each consortium member is bound to undertake. 
    Each member must submit the consortium plan with its PHA plan or IHP, 
    as appropriate.
        HUD will make the determination of the amount of funding the 
    consortium as a whole will receive upon first receipt and favorable 
    review of a consortium's plan. The amount of funding made available to 
    the consortium will be the total of the amounts that each individual 
    member would otherwise qualify to receive, on either a preference or 
    needs basis, under the funding formula. The Department specifically 
    requests comment on methods and the desirability of providing more of a 
    financial incentive for consortia.
    
    Funding of NAHASDA Recipients
    
        An option HUD wishes to present for comment is whether to establish 
    a separate pool to fund NAHASDA recipients. The lack of full FBI data 
    on Indian Country and the difficulty of formulating appropriate 
    comparable data make it difficult to fund NAHASDA recipients on the 
    same basis as PHAs. Rather than including NAHASDA recipients in the 
    same funding pool with PHAs, HUD would make separate DEP funding 
    available for NAHASDA recipients. The amount of funding available would 
    be set at a level that is significantly greater percentage of the total 
    amounts made available than the average of the amounts received by 
    Indian tribes, IHAs, or tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs) in 
    FFYs 1996, 1997 and 1998. The increase under such a formulation would 
    be in keeping with the overall increase in HUD funding that took place 
    when Native American housing assistance was consolidated under NAHASDA.
        HUD welcomes suggestions on the basis on which additional NAHASDA 
    recipients may be permitted to qualify, short of requiring the 
    submission and verification of extensive data, because it is HUD's goal 
    to streamline the funding process for all categories of PHDEP 
    applicants.
    
    IV. Findings and Certifications
    
    Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
    
        The proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
    rule, and the additional PHDEP requirements at 24 CFR part 761 not 
    affected by this rule, including the changeover in the reporting 
    requirements under Sec. 761.35 from a hardcopy format to an electronic 
    format, have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
    (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
    of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
        Estimate of the total reporting and recordkeeping burden that will 
    result from the collection of information:
    
                                           Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Est. avg. time
                                                         Number of     Annual freq.         for         Est. annual
                    Section reference                     parties     of requirement    requirement    burden (hrs.)
                                                                                          (hours)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    761.17..........................................             600               1              16           9,600
    761.21..........................................            1100               1              25          27,500
    761.23..........................................            1100               1               8           8,800
    761.25..........................................            7000               1               1           7,000
    761.30..........................................            1100               1              16          17,600
    761.35..........................................            1100               7              22         169,400
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden      ..............  ..............  ..............         239,900
         (Hours)....................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments 
    from members of the public and affected agencies concerning this 
    collection of information to:
        (1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
    the proposed collection of information;
        (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
    be collected; and
        (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
    who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated 
    collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., 
    permitting electronic submission of responses.
        Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the 
    information collection requirements in this proposal. Comments must be 
    received within sixty (60) days from the date of this proposal. 
    Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (FR-4451) 
    and must be sent to:
        Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and 
    Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503;
    and
        Mildred Hamman, Reports Liaison Officer, Office of the Assistant 
    Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing & Urban 
    Development, 451--7th Street, SW, Room 4244, Washington, DC 20410.
        Additional information on these information collection requirements 
    may be obtained from the Reports Liaison Officer or from the HUD web 
    site at http://www.hud.gov/pih/programs/ph/de/cscd.html.
    
    Executive Order 12866
    
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this 
    advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) under Executive Order 
    12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, issued by the President on 
    September 30, 1993. Any changes made in this ANPR subsequent to its 
    submission to OMB are identified in the docket file, which is available 
    for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of 
    the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Room 10276, U.S. 
    Department of Housing and Urban
    
    [[Page 25740]]
    
    Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
    U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed and approved this proposed rule, and in so 
    doing certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 
    impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule 
    begins the rulemaking process to implement changes for the distribution 
    of Public Housing Drug Elimination Program funds under the Quality 
    Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. A significant economic 
    impact on a substantial number of small entities is not expected 
    because under this proposal, all small entities previously funded will 
    continue to be funded at comparable levels. Although HUD has determined 
    that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
    a substantial number of small entities, HUD welcomes comments regarding 
    any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's 
    objectives as described in this preamble. The rule will have no adverse 
    or disproportionate economic impact on small businesses.
    
    Environmental Impact
    
        In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council 
    on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.19(c)(2) of the HUD regulations, 
    this rule amends an existing document, the regulations at 24 CFR part 
    761, which as a whole would not fall within an exclusion, but the 
    amendment by itself would do so. Therefore, the actions proposed in 
    this document are determined not to have the potential of having a 
    significant impact on the quality of the human environment and further 
    review under the National Environmental Policy Act is not necessary and 
    no FONSI is needed.
    
    Executive Order 12612, Federalism
    
        The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a) 
    of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that this rule 
    will not have substantial direct effects on States or their political 
    subdivisions, or the relationship between the Federal Government and 
    the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
    the various levels of government. No programmatic or policy changes 
    will result from this rule that would affect the relationship between 
    the Federal Government and State and local governments.
    
    List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 761 
    
        Drug abuse, Drug traffic control, Grant programs--housing and 
    community development, Grant programs--Indians, Grant programs--low and 
    moderate income housing, Indians, Public housing, Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements.
    
    Catalog of Domestic Assistance Numbers
    
        The Catalog of Domestic Assistance numbers for the Public Housing 
    Drug Elimination Program is 14.854.
        Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, part 761 of 
    title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
    
    PART 761--DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAMS
    
        1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 761 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11901 et seq.
    
        2. In part 761, all references to ``drug-related crime'' are 
    revised to read ``drug-related and violent crime'' and all references 
    to ``Indian housing authorities (IHAs)'' are revised to read ``NAHASDA 
    recipients''.
        3. In Sec. 761.1, the introductory text is revised to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.1  Purpose and scope.
    
        This part 761 contains the regulatory requirements for the Assisted 
    Housing Drug Elimination Program (AHDEP) and the Public Housing Drug 
    Elimination Program (PHDEP). The purposes of these programs are to:
    * * * * *
        4. Section 761.5, is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.5  Public housing; encouragement of resident participation.
    
        For the purposes of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, 
    the elimination of drug-related and violent crime within public housing 
    developments requires the active involvement and commitment of public 
    housing residents and their organizations. To enhance the ability of 
    PHAs to combat drug-related and violent crime within their 
    developments, Resident Councils (RCs), Resident Management Corporations 
    (RMCs), and Resident Organizations (ROs) will be permitted to undertake 
    management functions specified in this part, notwithstanding the 
    otherwise applicable requirements of 24 CFR part 964.
        5. In Sec. 761.10, the introductory text is revised, the definition 
    of Recipient of assistance under the Native American Housing Assistance 
    and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA recipient) is added in 
    alphabetical order, and the definition of Resident Management 
    Corporation (RMC) is revised, to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.10  Definitions.
    
        The definitions Department, HUD, and Public Housing Agency (PHA) 
    are defined in 24 CFR part 5.
    * * * * *
        Recipient of assistance under the Native American Housing 
    Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA recipient) shall 
    have the same meaning as recipient provided in section 4 of the Native 
    American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 
    U.S.C. 4101 et seq.).
    * * * * *
        Resident Management Corporation (RMC), for purposes of the Public 
    Housing Program, means the entity that proposes to enter into, or that 
    enters into, a management contract with a PHA under 24 CFR part 964 in 
    accordance with the requirements of that part.
    * * * * *
        6. The heading of subpart B is revised to read as follows:
    
    Subpart B--Grant Funding
    
        7. A new Sec. 761.13 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.13  Amount of funding.
    
        (a) PHDEP formula funding. (1) Funding share formula. The amount of 
    funding made available each FFY to an applicant that qualifies for 
    funding in accordance with Sec. 761.15(a) is based upon the applicant's 
    share of the total number of units of all applicants that qualify for 
    funding, with a maximum award of $35 million and a minimum award of 
    $25,000.
        (2) Consortium funding. The amount of funding made available to a 
    consortium will be the total of the amounts that each individual member 
    would otherwise qualify to receive under the PHDEP funding formula in 
    accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
        (3) Adjustments to funding. The amount of funding made available 
    each FFY to an applicant in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) and 
    (a)(2) of this section may be adjusted as follows:
        (i) An applicant must submit a PHDEP plan that meets the 
    requirements of Sec. 761.21, as required by Sec. 761.15(a)(5), each FFY 
    year to receive that FFY's funding. An applicant that does not submit a 
    PHDEP plan for a FFY as
    
    [[Page 25741]]
    
    required will not receive that FFY's funding.
        (ii) Ineligible activities, described at Sec. 761.17(b), are not 
    eligible for funding. Activities proposed for funding in an applicant's 
    PHDEP plan that are determined to be ineligible will not be funded, and 
    the applicant's funding for that FFY may be reduced accordingly.
        (iii) In accordance with Sec. 761.15(a)(6), an applicant that does 
    not meet the performance requirements of Sec. 761.23 may not be funded, 
    in whole or in part.
        (iv) Any amounts that become available because of adjustments to an 
    applicant's funding will be distributed to every other applicant that 
    qualifies for funding in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 
    of this section.
        (b) AHDEP funding. Information concerning funding made available 
    under AHDEP for a given FFY will be contained in Notices of Funding 
    Availability (NOFAs) published in the Federal Register.
        8. Section 761.15 is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.15  Qualifying for funding.
    
        (a) Qualifications for PHDEP funding. (1) Eligible applicants. The 
    following are eligible applicants for PHDEP funding:
        (i) A PHA;
        (ii) A NAHASDA recipient;
        (iii) An RMC; and
        (iv) A consortium of PHAs.
        (2) Preference PHAs. A PHA that successfully competed for PHDEP 
    funding under at least one of the PHDEP NOFAs for FFY 1996, FFY 1997 or 
    FFY 1998 qualifies to receive PHDEP funding.
        (3) Needs qualification for funding. A PHA that does not qualify to 
    receive PHDEP funding under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a NAHASDA 
    recipient, or an RMC must be in the top 50% of the unit-weighted 
    distribution of an index of a rolling average rate of violent crimes of 
    the community, as computed for each Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) to 
    qualify for funding. The crime rate used in this needs determination 
    formula is the rate, from the most recent years feasible, of FBI 
    violent crimes per 10,000 residents of the community (or communities). 
    If this information is not available for a particular applicant's 
    community, HUD will use the average of data from recipients of a 
    comparable State and size category of PHA (less than 500 units, 500 to 
    1249 units, and more than 1250 units). If fewer than five PHAs have 
    data for a given size category within a State, then the average of PHAs 
    for a given size category within the census region will be used.
        (4) Consortium of eligible applicants. Eligible applicants may join 
    together and form a consortium to apply for funding, whether or not 
    each member would individually qualify for PHDEP funding under 
    paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section. The act of two or more 
    eligible applicants joining together to form a consortium, and 
    identifying related crime problems and eligible activities to address 
    those problems pursuant to a consortium PHDEP plan, qualifies the 
    consortium for PHDEP funding of an amount as determined under 
    Sec. 761.13(a)(2).
        (5) PHDEP plan requirement. (i) PHAs. To receive PHDEP funding, a 
    PHA that qualifies to receive PHDEP funding must include a PHDEP plan 
    that meets the requirements of Sec. 761.21 with its PHA Plan submitted 
    pursuant to 24 CFR part 903.
        (ii) NAHASDA recipients. To receive PHDEP funding, a NAHASDA 
    recipient that qualifies to receive PHDEP funding must include a PHDEP 
    plan that meets the requirements of Sec. 761.21 with its Indian Housing 
    Plan (IHP) submitted pursuant to subpart C of 24 CFR part 1000.
        (iii) RMCs. To receive PHDEP funding, an RMC that qualifies to 
    receive PHDEP funding must submit a PHDEP plan that meets the 
    requirements of Sec. 761.21 to its PHA. That PHA may submit, with its 
    PHA Plan submitted pursuant to 24 CFR part 903, the RMC's PHDEP plan.
        (iv) Consortia. To receive PHDEP funding, the consortium members 
    must prepare and submit a consortium PHDEP plan that meets the 
    requirements of Sec. 761.21, including the additional requirements that 
    apply to consortia. Each member must submit the consortium plan with 
    its PHA plan, submitted pursuant to 24 CFR part 903, or IHP, submitted 
    pursuant to subpart C of 24 CFR part 1000, as appropriate.
        (6) An otherwise qualified recipient PHA, NAHASDA recipient, RMC or 
    consortium may not be funded if HUD determines, on a case-by-case 
    basis, that it does not meet the performance requirements of 
    Sec. 761.23.
        (b) Qualifications for AHDEP funding. Under AHDEP, eligible 
    applicants are owners of federally assisted low-income housing, as the 
    term Federally assisted low-income housing is defined in Sec. 761.10. 
    Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) published in the Federal 
    Register will contain specific information concerning funding 
    requirements and eligible and ineligible applicants and activities.
        9. A new Sec. 761.17 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.17  Eligible and ineligible activities for funding.
    
        (a) Eligible activities. One or more of the eligible activities 
    described in 42 U.S.C. 11903 and in this Sec. 761.17(a) are eligible 
    for funding under PHDEP or AHDEP, as further explained or limited in 
    paragraph (b) of this section and, for AHDEP, in separate annual 
    Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs). All personnel funded by these 
    programs in accordance with an eligible activity must meet, and 
    demonstrate compliance with, all relevant Federal, State, tribal, or 
    local government insurance, licensing, certification, training, 
    bonding, or other similar law enforcement requirements.
        (1) Employment of security personnel, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 
    11903(a)(1), with the following additional requirements:
        (i) Security guard personnel. (A) Contract security personnel 
    funded by this program must perform services not usually performed by 
    local law enforcement agencies on a routine basis.
        (B) The applicant, the cooperating local law enforcement agency, 
    and the provider (contractor) of the security personnel are required, 
    as a part of the security personnel contract, to enter into and execute 
    a written agreement that describes the following:
        (1) The activities to be performed by the security personnel, their 
    scope of authority, and how they will coordinate their activities with 
    the local law enforcement agency;
        (2) The types of activities that the security personnel are 
    expressly prohibited from undertaking.
        (ii) Employment of HA police. (A) If additional HA police are to be 
    employed for a service that is also provided by a local law enforcement 
    agency, the applicant must provide a cost analysis that demonstrates 
    the employment of HA police is more cost efficient than obtaining the 
    service from the local law enforcement agency.
        (B) Additional HA police services to be funded under this program 
    must be over and above those that the existing HA police, if any, 
    provides, and the tribal, State or local government is contractually 
    obligated to provide under its Cooperation Agreement with the applying 
    HA (as required by the HA's Annual Contributions Contract). An 
    applicant seeking funding for this activity must first establish a 
    baseline by describing the current level of services provided by both 
    the local law enforcement agency and the HA police, if any (in terms of 
    the kinds of services provided, the number of officers and equipment 
    and the actual percent of their time assigned to the developments
    
    [[Page 25742]]
    
    proposed for funding), and then demonstrate that the funded activity 
    will represent an increase over this baseline.
        (C) The applicant and the cooperating local law enforcement agency 
    are required to enter into and execute a written agreement that 
    describes the following:
        (1) The activities to be performed by the HA police, their scope of 
    authority, and how they will coordinate their activities with the local 
    law enforcement agency;
        (2) The types of activities that the HA police are expressly 
    prohibited from undertaking.
        (2) Reimbursement of local law enforcement agencies for additional 
    security and protective services, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(2), 
    with the following additional requirements:
        (i) Additional security and protective services to be funded must 
    be over and above those that the tribal, State, or local government is 
    contractually obligated to provide under its Cooperation Agreement with 
    the applying HA (as required by the HA's Annual Contributions 
    Contract). An application seeking funding for this activity must first 
    establish a baseline by describing the current level of services (in 
    terms of the kinds of services provided, the number of officers and 
    equipment, and the actual percent of their time assigned to the 
    developments proposed for funding) and then demonstrate that the funded 
    activity will represent an increase over this baseline.
        (ii) Communications and security equipment to improve the 
    collection, analysis, and use of information about drug-related or 
    violent criminal activities in a public housing community may be 
    eligible items if used exclusively in connection with the establishment 
    of a law enforcement substation on the funded premises or scattered 
    site developments of the applicant. Funds for activities under this 
    section may not be drawn until the grantee has executed a contract for 
    the additional law enforcement services.
        (3) Physical improvements to enhance security, as provided in 42 
    U.S.C. 11903(a)(3). For purposes of PHDEP, the following provisions in 
    paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(iv) of this section apply:
        (i) An activity that is funded under any other HUD program shall 
    not also be funded by this program.
        (ii) Funding is not permitted for physical improvements that 
    involve the demolition of any units in a development.
        (iii) Funding is not permitted for any physical improvements that 
    would result in the displacement of persons.
        (iv) Funding is not permitted for the acquisition of real property.
        (4) Employment of investigating individuals, as provided in 42 
    U.S.C. 11903(a)(4). For purposes of PHDEP, the following provisions in 
    paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section apply:
        (i) If one or more investigators are to be employed for a service 
    that is also provided by a local law enforcement agency, the applicant 
    must provide a cost analysis that demonstrates the employment of 
    investigators is more cost efficient than obtaining the service from 
    the local law enforcement agency.
        (ii) The applicant, the cooperating local law enforcement agency, 
    and the investigator(s) are required, before any investigators are 
    employed, to enter into and execute a written agreement that describes 
    the following:
        (A) The nature of the activities to be performed by the 
    investigators, their scope of authority, and how they will coordinate 
    their activities with the local law enforcement agency;
        (B) The types of activities that the investigators are expressly 
    prohibited from undertaking.
        (5) Voluntary tenant patrols, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(5). 
    For purposes of PHDEP, the following provisions in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) 
    through (a)(5)(iv) of this section apply:
        (i) The provision of training, communications equipment, and other 
    related equipment (including uniforms), for use by voluntary tenant 
    patrols acting in cooperation with officials of local law enforcement 
    agencies is permitted. Grantees are required to obtain liability 
    insurance to protect themselves and the members of the voluntary tenant 
    patrol against potential liability for the activities of the patrol. 
    The cost of this insurance will be considered an eligible program 
    expense.
        (ii) The applicant, the cooperating local law enforcement agency, 
    and the members of the tenant patrol are required, before putting the 
    tenant patrol into effect, to enter into and execute a written 
    agreement that describes the following:
        (A) The nature of the activities to be performed by the tenant 
    patrol, the patrol's scope of authority, and how the patrol will 
    coordinate its activities with the local law enforcement agency;
        (B) The types of activities that a tenant patrol is expressly 
    prohibited from undertaking, to include but not limited to, the 
    carrying or use of firearms or other weapons, nightsticks, clubs, 
    handcuffs, or mace in the course of their duties under this program;
        (C) The type of initial tenant patrol training and continuing 
    training the members receive from the local law enforcement agency 
    (training by the local law enforcement agency is required before 
    putting the tenant patrol into effect).
        (iii) Tenant patrol members must be advised that they may be 
    subject to individual or collective liability for any actions 
    undertaken outside the scope of their authority and that such acts are 
    not covered under a HA's or RMC's liability insurance.
        (iv) Grant funds may not be used for any type of financial 
    compensation for voluntary tenant patrol participants. However, the use 
    of program funds for a grant coordinator for volunteer tenant foot 
    patrols is permitted.
        (6) Drug prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, as 
    provided in 42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6).
        (7) Funding resident management corporations (RMCs), resident 
    councils (RCs), and resident organizations (ROs). For purposes of the 
    Public Housing Program, funding may be provided for PHAs that receive 
    grants to contract with RMCs and incorporated RCs and ROs to develop 
    security and drug abuse prevention programs involving site residents, 
    as provided in 42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(7).
        (8) Youth sports. Sports programs and sports activities that serve 
    primarily youths from public or other federally assisted low-income 
    housing projects and are operated in conjunction with, or in 
    furtherance of, an organized program or plan designed to reduce or 
    eliminate drugs and drug-related problems in and around such projects, 
    as provided in 42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(8).
        (9) Eliminating drug-related and violent crime in PHA-owned 
    housing, under the Public Housing Program, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 
    11903(b).
        (b) Ineligible activities. For purposes of PHDEP, funding is not 
    permitted:
        (1) For activities not included under paragraph (a) of this 
    section;
        (2) For costs incurred before the effective date of the grant 
    agreement;
        (3) For the costs related to screening or evicting residents for 
    drug-related crime. However, investigators funded under this program 
    may participate in judicial and administrative proceedings;
        (4) For previously funded activities determined by HUD on a case-
    by-case basis to be unworthy of continuation.
        10. Section 761.20 is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.20  Selection requirements.
    
        (a) PHDEP selection. Every PHA, NAHASDA recipient, RMC and
    
    [[Page 25743]]
    
    consortium that meets the requirements of Sec. 761.15 in a FFY will be 
    selected for funding in that FFY and, subject to meeting the 
    performance requirements of Sec. 761.23, for four additional FFYs.
        (b) AHDEP selection. HUD will publish specific Notices of Funding 
    Availability (NOFAs) in the Federal Register to inform the public of 
    the availability of AHDEP grant amounts under this part 761. The NOFAs 
    will provide specific guidance with respect to the grant process, 
    including identifying the eligible applicants; deadlines for the 
    submission of grant applications; the limits (if any) on maximum grant 
    amounts; the information that must be submitted to permit HUD to score 
    each of the selection criteria; the maximum number of points to be 
    awarded for each selection criterion; the contents of the plan for 
    addressing drug-related and violent crime that must be included with 
    the application; the listing of any certifications and assurances that 
    must be submitted with the application; and the process for ranking and 
    selecting applicants. NOFAs will also include any additional 
    information, factors, and requirements that HUD has determined to be 
    necessary and appropriate to provide for the implementation and 
    administration of AHDEP under this part 761.
        10. A new Sec. 761.21 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.21  Plan requirement.
    
        (a) General requirement. To receive funding under this part, each 
    PHDEP qualified recipient or AHDEP applicant must submit to HUD a plan 
    for addressing the problem of drug-related and violent crime in and 
    around the housing covered by the plan. If the plan covers more than 
    one development, it does not have to address each development 
    separately if the same activities will apply to each development. The 
    plan must address each development separately only where program 
    activities will differ from one development to another. The plan must 
    include a description of the planned activity or activities, a 
    description of the role of plan partners and their contributions to 
    carrying out the plan, a budget and timetable for implementation of the 
    activities, and the funding source for each activity, identifying in 
    particular all activities to be funded under this part. In addition, 
    the plan must set measurable performance goals and interim milestones 
    for the PHDEP-supported activities and describe the system for 
    monitoring and evaluating these activities. Measurable goals must be 
    established for each category of funded activities, including drug 
    prevention, drug intervention, drug treatment, tenant patrols, and 
    physical improvements. The plan under this section serves as the 
    application for PHDEP funding, and an otherwise qualified recipient 
    that does not submit a PHDEP plan as required will not be funded. For 
    AHDEP funding, NOFAs published in the Federal Register may provide 
    additional information on plan requirements for purposes of this 
    section. Plans must meet the requirements of this section before grant 
    funds are distributed. HUD will review the submitted plans for a 
    determination of whether they meet the requirements of this section.
        (b) Additional requirements for consortia. In addition to meeting 
    the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, to receive funding 
    under this part, a consortium's plan must include a written agreement, 
    signed by an authorized representative of each consortium member, that 
    designates a lead applicant for purposes of grant funding and 
    administration, and as a central point of contact, and describes the 
    activities and responsibilities that each consortium member is bound to 
    undertake.
        11. A new Sec. 761.23 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.23  Grantee performance requirements.
    
        (a) Basic grantee requirements. (1) Compliance with civil rights 
    requirements. Grantees must be in compliance with all fair housing and 
    civil rights laws, statutes, regulations, and executive orders as 
    enumerated in 24 CFR 5.105(a). Federally recognized Indian tribes must 
    comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Indian Civil 
    Rights Act.
        (2) Adherence to the grant agreement. The grant agreement between 
    HUD and the grantee incorporates the grantee's application and plan for 
    the implementation of grant-funded activities.
        (3) Compliance with ``baseline'' funding requirement. Grantees may 
    not use grant funds to reimburse law enforcement agencies for 
    ``baseline'' community safety services. Grantees must adhere to 24 CFR 
    761.17(a)(2)(i), reimbursement of local law enforcement agencies for 
    additional security and protective services. In addition, grantees must 
    provide to HUD a description of the baseline of services for the unit 
    of general local government in which the jurisdiction of the agency is 
    located.
        (4) Partnerships. Grantees must provide HUD with evidence of 
    partnerships--in particular, firm commitments by organizations 
    providing funding, services, or other in-kind resources for PHDEP-
    funded activities (e.g., memorandum of agreement, letter of firm 
    commitment). The partnership agreement must cover the applicable 
    funding period.
        (5) MTCS reporting. Grantees must maintain a level of compliance 
    with MTCS reporting requirements that is satisfactory to HUD.
        (b) Planning and reporting requirements. (1) Planning consistency. 
    PHDEP funded activities must be consistent with the most recent HUD-
    approved PHA Plan or Indian Housing Plan, as appropriate. AHDEP funded 
    activities must be consistent with the most recent Consolidated Plan 
    under 24 CFR part 91 for the community.
        (2) Demonstration of coordination with other law enforcement 
    efforts. Each grantee must demonstrate to HUD that it consulted with 
    local law enforcement authorities and other local entities in the 
    preparation of its plan for addressing the problem of drug-related and 
    violent crime under Sec. 761.21. Furthermore, a grantee must 
    demonstrate to HUD that its grant-funded activities are coordinated 
    with other anti-crime and anti-drug programs, such as Operation Safe 
    Home, Operation Weed and Seed, and the Safe Neighborhoods Action 
    Program operating in the community, if applicable.
        (3) Compliance with reporting requirements. Grantees must provide 
    periodic reports consistent with this part at such times and in such 
    form as is required by HUD.
        (4) Reporting on drug-related and violent crime. Grantees must 
    report any change or lack of change in crime statistics--especially 
    drug-related crime and violent crime--or other relevant indicators 
    drawn from the applicant's or grantee's evaluation and monitoring plan, 
    IHP or PHA Plan. The grantee must also indicate, if applicable, how it 
    is adequately addressing any recommendations emanating from other anti-
    crime and anti-drug programs, such as Operation Safe Home, Operation 
    Weed and Seed, and the Safe Neighborhoods Action Program, operating in 
    the community and is taking appropriate actions, in view of available 
    resources, such as post-enforcement measures, to take full advantage of 
    these programs.
        (c) Performance requirements. (1) Timely obligation and expenditure 
    of grant funds. The HA must obligate and expend funds in compliance 
    with all funding notifications, regulations, notices, and grant 
    agreements. In
    
    [[Page 25744]]
    
    addition, the HA must obligate at least 50 percent of funds under a 
    particular grant within 12 months of the execution of the grant 
    agreement, and must expend at least 25 percent of funds under a 
    particular grant within 12 months of the execution of the grant 
    agreement.
        (2) Operational monitoring and evaluation system. The grantee must 
    demonstrate that it has a fully operational system for monitoring and 
    evaluating its grant-funded activities. A monitoring and evaluation 
    system must collect quantitative evidence of the number of persons and 
    units served, including youth served as a separate category, types of 
    services provided, and the impact of such services on the persons 
    served. Also, the monitoring and evaluation system must collect 
    quantitative and qualitative evidence of the impact of grant-funded 
    activities on the public housing or other housing, the community and 
    the surrounding neighborhood.
        (3) Reduction of violent crime and drug use. The grantee must 
    demonstrate that it has established, and is attaining, measurable goals 
    for PHDEP-funded activities with respect to the overall reduction of 
    violent crime and drug use.
        (d) Other requirements. HUD reserves the right to add additional 
    performance factors consistent with this rule and other related 
    statutes and regulations on a case-by-case basis.
        (e) Sanctions. A grantee that fails to satisfy the performance 
    requirements of this section may be subject to the sanctions listed in 
    Sec. 761.30(f)(2).
        12. In Sec. 761.40, paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) are revised to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 761.40  Other Federal requirements.
    
    * * * * *
        (e) Indian preference. For purposes of PHDEP, NAHASDA recipients 
    are subject to the Indian Civil Rights Act (24 U.S.C. 1301), and the 
    provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
    Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e(b)). These provisions require 
    that, to the greatest extent feasible, preference and opportunities for 
    training and employment be given to Indians, and that preference in the 
    award of subcontracts and subgrants be given to Indian Organizations 
    and Indian Owned Economic Enterprises.
        (f) Intergovernmental Review. The requirements of Executive Order 
    12372 (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197) and the regulations issued under the 
    Order in 24 CFR part 52, to the extent provided by Federal Register 
    notice in accordance with 24 CFR 52.3, apply to these programs.
        (g) Environmental review. Grants under this part 761 are 
    categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321), in accordance with 24 CFR 
    50.19(b)(4), (b)(12), or (b)(13). If grant funds will be used to cover 
    the cost of any non-exempt activities, HUD will perform an 
    environmental review to the extent required by 24 CFR part 50, prior to 
    grant awards.
    
        Dated: April 21, 1999.
    Deborah Vincent,
    General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
    [FR Doc. 99-11918 Filed 5-11-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4210-33-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/12/1999
Department:
Housing and Urban Development Department
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
99-11918
Pages:
25736-25744 (9 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. FR-4451-P-02
RINs:
2577-AB95: Public Housing Drug Elimination Program -- Formula Allocation (FR-4451)
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2577-AB95/public-housing-drug-elimination-program-formula-allocation-fr-4451-
PDF File:
99-11918.pdf
CFR: (12)
24 CFR 761.13(a)(2)
24 CFR 761.30(f)(2)
24 CFR 761.1
24 CFR 761.5
24 CFR 761.10
More ...