Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

2588

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
New paragraph a1 would establish a timeframe for revisions of standards of every 3 years, or every 3 years after the most recent revision, whichever is later.
The inclusion of this regulation would allow HUD to respond to the changing needs of an evolving housing portfolio and technological changes that may impact the inspections process. This proposed rule would mandate that the Agency update the scoring and ranking criteria regularly and would further demonstrate HUDs commitment to ensure scoring is reasonable, responsive, and current.
New paragraph a2 would allow HUD to publish a notice without 30
days of public comment in the case of an emergency. For 5.709, an emergency would be defined as a significant health hazard, a new safety concern due to changing construction technology, or another event as determined by the Secretary. This section would further highlight the Secretarys commitment to being responsive to the needs and safety of residents.
Question for Comment 18: In alignment with HUDs desire to increase clarity and decrease ambiguity, HUD is considering definitions for kitchens and sanitary facilities. HUD seeks public input on the following:
a. Should HUD define what constitutes a kitchen and its related components required for functional adequacy e.g., cooking appliance, means of refrigeration, food preparation and storage?
b. Should HUD define what constitutes a sanitary facility and its related components required for functional adequacy e.g., bathtub or shower, toilet, ventilation, sink?
f. Section 5.711 Scoring, Ranking Criteria, and Appeals The proposed rule would add a new regulation at 5.711 which would incorporate and streamline existing regulations governing the scoring and ranking of covered properties, chiefly multifamily and public housing properties. Further, it would include the responsibilities of PHAs and owner/
agents after an inspection and outline the process for appealing inspection results. Proposed 5.711 would also incorporate and replace the current scoring and ranking process under 200.857 as well as the prior appeals process for physical inspections under the Public Housing Assessment System PHAS at 902.22, 902.24, 902.26, and 902.68. By aligning similar language across programs, HUD believes the proposed rule will increase clarity and
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:44 Jan 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

ease of compliance while creating a standardized set of expectations.
New paragraph a would exempt the HCV and PBV programs which would continue to be assessed under the Section Eight Management Assessment Program SEMAP as well as small rural PHAs which would be assessed under new subpart D of 985. As part of the streamlining in the proposed rule, new paragraph b moves the existing regulation at 200.857a1 to part 5.
New paragraph b2 would clarify that Public Housing projects would continue to be scored and ranked under the Public Housing Assessment System PHAS outlined in part 902. New paragraph c1 would introduce the category of severe health or safety SHS
deficiencies which are the most serious types of conditions that can be cited as violations of 5.703 and replaces the current exigent health and safety EH&S
category of deficiencies found in 902.22. Similar to the use of new language in 5.703, the change in terminology would serve as a visual marker to help a reader differentiate between the existing and proposed regulations. It would also help to minimize confusion across the aligned programs. The term exigent health and safety has been associated with more than one definition in the past and has been confused with the term lifethreatening. For example, HUDs notice at 76 FR 10055 employed EH&S
and life threatening synonymously despite the different meanings.11
While generally equivalent in purpose to the way EH&S is being used today, the new phrase, severe health or safety would provide a clear expression of the seriousness of these types of issues which would also be reflected in the proposed default timeframe of repair of 24 hours. HUD
acknowledges that current regulations are inconsistent in describing how soon an EH&S deficiency must be corrected, establishing a singular provision at 5.711c1 for the correction of SHS
deficiencies for most programs would address these inconsistencies.
Additionally, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 HOTMA limited HUDs flexibility in defining the timeframes for 11 The UPCS physical inspection emphasizes health and safety H&S deficiencies because of their crucial impact on the well-being of residents.
A subset of H&S deficiencies is exigent health and safety EHS deficiencies. These are life threatening LT and require immediate action or remedy. EHS
deficiencies can substantially reduce the overall project score. See, 76 FR 10055 https
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/02/23/
2011-2633/changes-to-the-public-housingassessment-system-phas-physical-conditionscoring-notice.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

repair of deficiencies in the HCV or PBV
programs. That act requires that life threatening conditions be addressed in 24 hours and all other deficiencies within 30 days. In order to accommodate that statutory constraint, HUD would identify in the notice described in 5.709 which of the SHS
deficiencies are life threatening and which ones are non-life threatening.
Section 5.711 would also require the correction of non-SHS health or safety deficiencies within 30 days, for all programs.
Further, proposed 5.711 would incorporate and condense the administrative review and enforcement action provisions found at 200.857h and 200.857i to align with HUDs current procedures and eliminate inconsistencies with Section 219, Title II, Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 11694, December 20, 2019. As previously noted, CPD programs do not apply any scoring, weighting, ranking or enforcement from Part 5. This is outlined in the HOME rule at 24 CFR
92.251f1i. CPD programs are fundamentally different than many of the programs subject to REAC
inspections as they are programs administered by local governments subject to local decision making. CPD
programs have their own means of enforcement specified in each program regulation. These functions are instead performed by HUD CPD staff, and can include requiring the participating jurisdiction or grantee repaying the full amount of subsidy provided to the project. New paragraph d2 would consolidate current regulations governing the process for technical reviews into one section with an aligned set of procedures applicable to properties inspected by HUD.
With regard to tenant-induced damage, HUD is requesting public comments on the following questions:
Question for Comment 19: HUD is soliciting comment on how to fairly approach tenant-induced damage to units and properties in such a way that it will have a positive impact on HUDassisted properties. What could be used as incentives or disincentives to discourage tenant-induced damage?
Question for Comment 20: HUD
seeks input on the scoring threshold that should be used to refer a property to the Departmental Enforcement Center DEC: What factors should be considered by HUD in setting the threshold, and whether should this be a stationary threshold or one that is updated periodically?

E:FRFM13JAP1.SGM

13JAP1