Housing Improvement Program

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is updating its regulations governing its Housing Improvement Program, which is a safety-net program that provides grants for repairing, renovating, or replacing existing housing and for providing new housing. This final rule is an important part of the Tiwahe initiative, which is designed to promote the stability and security of Indian families. This final rule aligns the program with other Federal requirements, allows leveraging of housing funds to increase the number of families served and projects funded, and promotes tribal sovereignty and self-determination by providing tribes with more flexibility in determining how to address waiting lists of tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

DATES:

This rule is effective December 10, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Les Jensen, Division of Housing Assistance, Bureau of Indian Affairs at (907) 586-7397. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1 (800) 877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. The Rule's Changes to the Current HIP

III. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments

A. General

B. Definitions (256.2)

C. Certificate of Title (256.3)

D. Eligibility (256.6)

1. Income Limits

2. Previous Assistance

3. Participation in Government Program

E. Category A—Repair of Existing Homes (256.7, 256.8)

F. Category B—Renovation (256.7, 256.9)

G. Category C—Replacement of New Housing, Square Footage (256.7, 256.10)

H. Both Categories B and C

I. Category D—Down Payment Assistance (256.7, 256.11)

J. New Ranking Factors (256.14)

K. Ranking Factor—Dependent Children

L. Ranking Factor—Age

M. Ranking Factor—Disability

N. Active Period for Applications

O. NEPA

P. Funding

Q. Other Comments

IV. Procedural Requirements

I. Background

The Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is a safety-net program that provides grants for the cost of services to repair, renovate, or replace existing housing and provide new housing for eligible members of federally recognized Indian tribes. The BIA administers the HIP under the regulations at 25 CFR part 256. The BIA distributes HIP funding based on a priority ranking derived from a point system to identify those individuals and families most in need of housing assistance. Funding is restricted to individuals and families that reside in the tribe's service area. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the HIP will serve approximately 140 recipients. These recipients are individuals and families with extremely low incomes.

II. The Rule's Changes to the Current HIP

This final rule updates various provisions to align the HIP with other Federal program requirements, allow leveraging of housing funds to increase the number of families served and projects funded, and provide tribes with flexibility to better address lengthy waiting lists of tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

Categories of Assistance and Funding Limits

Currently, the HIP provides funding for four categories of housing needs:

• Category A—for repair of existing homes;
• Category B—for renovation of existing homes to standard housing condition;
• Category C-1—for construction of replacement homes; and
• Category C-2—for new housing.

For each category, there is a limit on the amount of funding a recipient may receive. The final rule increases the limit for Category A funding from $2,500 to $7,500 and increases the limit for Category B funding from $35,000 to $60,000. The original limits are inadequate, given the average costs of repair and renovation to standard housing condition. These limit increases better reflect the actual costs of repair and renovation. Further, these limit increases will allow more households to repair and renovate existing homes, rather than spending more on each individual household to build a new home. This approach will improve housing conditions for more households.

The final rule adds a new Category D, to allow assistance toward the purchase of a modest house (e.g., financial assistance for a down payment) for families that can obtain a mortgage loan from other Federal programs. These rule changes allow for HIP assistance to families with very low income (rather than just families with extremely low income) and allow families to leverage the funding they receive, making each Federal dollar stretch farther.

Ranking Factors

Priority ranking for HIP assistance is based on total numeric value (points) received under the ranking factors. The current ranking factors are based on the applicant's annual household income, whether there is an aged person living in the house, whether there is a disabled person living in the house, and family size. There are a certain number of points available for each of the ranking factors. Each applicant receives a certain number of points under each of the ranking factors. The final rule updates the current ranking factors, as shown in the table below.

Overall, the adjustments to the points are intended to create a level playing field among applicants and provide tribes with more flexibility to determine how best to serve applicants on their long waiting lists.

Payback Agreements

Under the HIP, the recipient may be required to enter into a “payback agreement” which provides that the recipient will have to pay back the entire amount of funding received or a portion thereof if the recipient sells the home within a certain period of time. If the payback period expires, no payback is required and the money is considered a grant. Currently, for Category B, the payback period is 5 years. So, for example, a family that receives HIP funding for a home must repay the funding if the family sells the home within 5 years of receiving the funding. The final rule does not establish a uniform payback period, but provides that the payback agreement will establish the payback period. The final rule does not affect the payback period for Category C.

Four-Year Application Period

The final rule also increases the time for consideration of an application to 4 years. Currently an application expires after one year, requiring an applicant who does not receive assistance under the HIP to reapply annually until assistance is received. The final rule places each application in the application pool for four years, so an applicant need only apply once every 4 years until assistance is received.

Land Ownership Requirements

HIP funding applicants must provide proof of land ownership before the grant award. The final rule allows the applicant to provide proof of a homesite lease or proof that the applicant can obtain the land, even by lease, rather than requiring ownership. A certificate of title is required if and when the applicant becomes the owner of the home.

Square-Footage Limits

The final rule also increases square-footage limits to allow Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to be met, when applicable, and clarify when ADA requirements apply. The following table shows the increases in square footage the final rule makes.

Standard Housing Definition

The definition of “standard housing” reduces the number of persons appropriate for a three-bedroom dwelling from “up to seven persons” to “up to six persons” to reflect that, depending on the make-up of the family, three persons per bedroom may be considered crowded. Additionally, the final rule changes the bedroom sizes to require “up to 120 feet” of floor space for the first bedroom and “up to 100 feet” of floor space for each additional bedroom, to allow tribes the flexibility to provide for smaller square footage where appropriate. The current rule requires “at least 120 feet” and “at least 100 feet,” respectively.

III. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments

We received 20 written comment submissions on this rule and several oral comments at tribal consultations. The following summarizes the substantive comments received and our responses.

A. General

Every tribe that submitted comments on the rule supported the proposed rule changes in general, noting the importance of the HIP as a program, and further stating that the changes provide flexibility for tribes to better address long waiting lists in their service areas, foster relationships with other agencies to leverage Federal housing funds, and increase the number of families served and projects funded. Only one commenter opposed the rule for reasons summarized below (e.g., opposition to the funding limits for Categories A and B, adding a new category for down payment assistance, the increased application period).

One tribe asked how the changes to factors will provide tribes with flexibility to better address lengthy waiting lists. Expanding the criteria and adjusting the points allows younger families more of a chance at assistance by awarding a similar number of points for different factors. This may result in more ties in points among applicants, which will allow the tribe flexibility to identify the priority among applicants with a similar number of points. By increasing the funding limits in Categories A and B, more households will be able to repair and renovate existing homes, reducing the need to build new homes. These changes, along with the new category for down-payment assistance to purchase a new home, allow Federal dollars to stretch farther and serve more households.

A commenter stated that the tribe supports allowing applicants to provide proof of a lease rather than homeownership because some families cannot afford to purchase a home but still need to participate in the HIP to bring living conditions to an acceptable level. The final rule allows proof of a lease rather than homeownership.

B. Definitions (256.2)

One commenter suggested multiple changes to the definitions, as listed here.

• The definition of “agency” should include a unit of BIA that enters into cooperative agreements and/or self-determination contracts with tribes. The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because the context in which “agency” is used in the rule does not require specifying that tribal organizations can enter into agreements to administer the HIP.
• The citation in the definition of “overcrowding” is incorrect. The final rule includes the correct citation, to 256.10 instead of 256.11.
• The definition of “permanent members of household” should be reworded to be “adults and any children living in the household who intend to live there continuously.” The final rule does not make this change because the suggested wording could be interpreted to increase eligibility requirements by requiring proof of the children's intention to live in the household continuously.
• The definition of “standard housing condition” should include a four bedroom house as adequate for all but the largest families. The final rule inserts this provision and clarifies the number of occupants that each size house may not exceed.
• The definition of “standard housing condition” should state that, in regions of severe climate, the size of the house may be changed to comply with the requirement that the heating system has the capacity to maintain a minimum temperature of 70 degrees in the house. The final rule does not incorporate this change because the size requirements and heating system requirements are compatible and both can be met even in areas of severe climate.

Another commenter asked whether all agencies of the Federal government are using the same definition of homelessness. The definition of “homelessness” for the purposes of HIP is different from that of other Federal agencies, to ensure that our definition encompasses persons who may be without a home but staying with extended family or friends, while other agencies' definitions may focus more on chronic homelessness.

A commenter asked for more information on what it means that the rule changes will “align” HIP requirements with other programs. The rule changes will allow eligible applicants for the HIP to participate in both the HIP and other government housing programs to leverage available funding and make down payments or receive repairs or renovations they may not otherwise have been able to afford.

A few commenters recommended specifying in the definition of “standard housing condition” that, if no housing codes with building standards exist, construction must meet appropriate building standards for the region. The final rule does not incorporate this change because every housing office should have a standard housing code, which would apply.

C. Policy (256.3)

One commenter suggested adding to the policy statement that every American Indian and Alaska Native should have the opportunity for a “safe” home and suitable living “conditions” (rather than “environment”). The final rule incorporates these edits because the opportunity for “safe” homes, in addition to decent homes, is consistent with national housing policy.

One commenter supported the provision at 256.3 requiring BIA to provide a certificate of title for the dwelling once the program participant owns the home. Another commenter suggested adding to the end of 256.25 that a certificate of title or ownership will be issued upon completion of the work. The tribe or lender may issue a certificate of title.

D. Eligibility (256.6)

1. Income Limits

Several commenters stated their support of the proposal to increase the income guidelines for eligibility from 125 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines because it will extend the reach of the program to more applicants who are in need of housing but not eligible for other housing assistance programs. The final rule includes this increase.

One commenter requested more information about the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes the guidelines on an annual basis. They are available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.cfm .

2. Previous HIP Assistance

Some commenters stated that, while they recognize the need to serve clients who have not previously received assistance through the HIP, they recommend that this restriction on eligibility not apply to recipients of Category B rehabilitation funds if the funds were received prior to a certain time, such as more than 25 years ago. The final rule retains the restriction on eligibility in the interest of fairness, to ensure that those who have not yet received HIP assistance are given priority.

3. Participation in Government Program

A few commenters stated that the eligibility restriction against having acquired present housing through participation in a Federal government-sponsored housing program should be deleted. The commenters stated that the restriction could unnecessarily limit participation in the HIP and that participation in other programs, such as a Mutual Help, HUD Section 184, or Section 502 program should not prevent someone from participating in the HIP. The final rule clarifies that only past participation, over the previous 20-year period, in another Federal government-sponsored program to obtain your current home restricts your eligibility for the HIP. The final rule encourages contemporaneous participation in another Federal government-sponsored housing program to leverage available funding.

E. Category A—Repair of Existing Homes (256.7, 256.8)

Several commenters stated their support of the proposal to increase the limit for Category A (Repair) funding from $2,500 to $7,500 because it better reflects average costs of housing repairs and would allow tribes to address more housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of tribal members. A commenter stated that current funding limits allow only minimal repairs that do not make any lasting improvements, while the proposed limits would improve the health of impoverished families by better addressing basic housing needs. The final rule includes the proposed increase in Category A funding.

One commenter stated that there should be higher limits on repair costs and lower limits on renovation costs because renovations may be strictly cosmetic. The final rule does not change the limits because renovations funded by the HIP are those necessary to bring the house to standard housing condition. See 256.7.

One commenter stated that BIA should revisit the limits in two or three years, rather than the 13 years it took to update the current limits with this rule, to ensure that the amount continues to be sufficient. While revisiting the limits in two to three years may be unrealistic, BIA will endeavor to revisit the limits more frequently to account for inflation and other factors that may affect the effectiveness of the limits.

One commenter stated that higher limits are necessary to address emergency repairs such as roofing, windows, doors, insulation, and old wiring and heating, and stated that such repairs may cost $15,000 and up. While Category A funding may be used to address safety concerns, the HIP generally is not intended for emergency repairs.

F. Category B—Renovation (256.7, 256.9)

Several commenters expressed their support for increasing the limit for Category B funding from $35,000 to $60,000 because the current renovation limits fail to provide adequate funding to improve housing conditions to a level that meets applicable building code standards. The final rule includes the increase in Category B funding.

The proposed rule would have lengthened the Category B payback period to 10 years. So, for example, a family that receives HIP funding for a home would have had to repay the funding if the family sold the home within 10 years. Several commenters also expressed their support of increasing the payback agreement period from 5 years to 10 years for Category B, to better allow the tribe to recoup the costs before the recipient sells the home and allow those recouped costs to be used to address the housing needs of other program recipients on the waiting list. One commenter expressed opposition to increasing the payback period, stating that the increase would detrimentally affect grant recipients by requiring them to stay in their home for at least 10 years. Another commenter suggested a pro-rata formula for payback beyond 5 years, because wear and tear on a home over 5 years can be significant. The final rule provides that the payback agreement will establish the payback period in order to allow flexibility in determining the appropriate payback period under each set of circumstances.

G. Category C—Replacement of New Housing, Square Footage (256.7, 256.10)

One commenter stated support for the inclusion of freight costs in Category C funding for homes in Alaska. The final rule includes freight costs for Category C funding.

One commenter stated that the table at 256.10(a)(1) should also require that the land has adequate ingress and egress rights and reasonable access to utilities. The final rule does not include this additional requirement because the cited provision addresses homes already owned, so it is presumed that there is already adequate ingress and egress and reasonable access to utilities.

Several commenters supported the proposed increase in square footage limits. Some stated that that it will allow tribes to better serve families with disabilities and meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. One commenter, while conceptually in favor of the square footage limits, stated concern that, without additional appropriations, the increases may prevent the HIP from reaching a greater number of people in need or reduce the number served. Another commenter stated that the proposed increases to bedroom sizes do not go far enough. The final rule incorporates the proposed increases in square footage limits to better serve families with disabilities.

H. Both Categories B and C

A few commenters recommended clarifying that recipients of Category B and Category C who sell the house must repay the tribe directly operating the HIP (or BIA), to ensure that funding stays in the community where it was originally invested, consistent with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and self-governance. The final rule incorporates this change; however, any funding returned to the tribe or tribal organization may be used only for the HIP.

One commenter suggested providing a $60,000 funding limit for Alaska and a lower funding limit for the lower 48 States because renovations are generally more costly in Alaska. The final rule imposes a funding limit of $60,000 on renovations, regardless of what State the home is located in; however, it allows for additional funding for homes in Alaska to cover freight costs.

I. Category D—Assistance (256.7, 256.11)

Several commenters stated their support of the proposed new Category D, allowing for down payment assistance. The commenters pointed out that assistance with down payments will help tribes promote homeownership to families of all ages and will allow tribes to serve working class families that would not otherwise qualify for housing because they do not have the financial resources to come up with a down payment. One noted that the down payment assistance dollars could be used to buy down the interest rate and principal loan so that monthly mortgage payments are more affordable for working families.

One commenter stated a concern that Category D does not include spending caps or payback agreements that the current HIP program categories possess and that, without a cap, the limited HIP funds may serve fewer recipients. BIA agrees that a cap may be appropriate at some point but requires several years to collect data on what an appropriate cap would be. For this reason, BIA will revisit this comment at some point in the next decade or two.

A few commenters specifically supported the proposed language at 256.11(b) saying that Category D funds may be used for down payment assistance, closing costs, and pre-homeownership counseling.

A few commenters suggested defining the income eligibility for Category D using the definition provided in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) regulations at 12 CFR 1000.10, which would allow those with an annual income that is 80 percent of the area median income or United States median income, whichever is higher, to be eligible. The final rule does not incorporate this suggestion because defining income eligibility for one category in a manner different from the other categories would be administratively burdensome.

A few commenters suggested that, to promote use of Category D, BIA set aside 10 percent of each region's HIP allocation for Category D. They also suggested that BIA document the need for Category D funding so future appropriation requests can be increased to meet down payment assistance needs. There is no change to the final rule to address this comment because BIA addresses allocations in its annual funding letter to tribes. BIA believes it will take several funding cycles to fully implement the Category D program and identify the appropriate level of funding based on participation.

One commenter stated that down payment assistance should be offered as part of Category C-2, because creating a new Category D will demand more time, resources, and procedures. BIA has determined that the more cost effective solution is to create a new Category D for down payment assistance because it can be separately tracked and administered.

A commenter stated that the 30-point ranking value for factor 6, applicants with an approved financing package, may lead to an approval bias toward Category D applications, while needs related to the other three categories go unmet. The final rule lowers the point value from 30 to 25 in response to these comments. BIA believes the 25-point value will allow tribes the flexibility to put an applicant for Category D assistance on an equal footing with applicants for other categories. HIP funds will still be made available for the other categories.

One commenter stated that, with the addition of Category D, the intent of the program is changed from a safety-net program because the program would no longer be providing assistance to the neediest of the needy with no other resources, since Category D applicants do have other resources for assistance. The final rule does not make any changes in response to the comment because Category D applicants still must meet the extremely low and very low income and other eligibility requirements for HIP participation. While Category D helps those who need HIP assistance in order to avail themselves of otherwise unavailable resources. This commenter also suggested changing the down payment assistance program to one in which a participant could provide in-kind services for down payment (e.g., labor equity toward construction of the house). The final rule does not allow for in-kind services or labor equity because doing so would pose safety and liability issues that BIA is not prepared to undertake at this point.

One commenter asked whether a person approved for participation in the HIP can get a loan “on top of” the HIP assistance. The final rule does not allow loans in addition to HIP assistance, but does encourage coordination of HIP assistance with other Federal resources to leverage those resources.

J. New Ranking Factors (256.14)

Several commenters stated their support of the new ranking factors for homelessness, overcrowding, and dilapidated housing, as helping to identify and prioritize tribal communities' housing needs.

A few commenters suggested adding a new factor for veterans; one suggested the new factor for veterans should be for 20 points. The final rule adds veteran as an “other condition” in recognition of both the important contribution to society that veterans have made and the disadvantage many veterans are under economically. The final rule provides the veteran ranking factor with a point value of 5 to balance this factor with other factors.

K. Ranking Factor—Dependent Children

A few commenters stated their support for increasing the maximum number of points for dependent children. One noted that single-parent families are growing and in need of housing but have difficulty in gaining approval under the HIP, and that elders often live with these families and, as such, the proposed increase in points serves two constituencies. One commenter stated that there should be a ranking factor or priority points for families with young children, and that these families should be prioritized above all because it is our duty as society to allocate sufficient resources for habitable homes to these children. The proposed and final rule increase the maximum number of points awarded for dependent children from 5 to 15 points.

L. Ranking Factor—Age

The final rule retains the threshold for being considered “aged”at 55 years old. The proposed rule proposed to increase the threshold from 55 years old to 62 years old to align the age with the Social Security age for retirement. Several commenters opposed increasing the threshold for being considered “aged” from 55 years of age to 62 years of age. These commenters recommended that the threshold stay at 55 with a maximum of 20, rather than 15 points, allowing anyone over 75 to obtain 20 points. One commenter noted that the basis for the proposed increase to 62, aligning the HIP age requirement with the Social Security age of retirement, does not reflect the realities Indian Country faces, in which the average American Indian or Alaska Native has a shorter lifespan and more medical issues. Another commenter stated that the program should target the elderly and disabled by giving them higher priority. The final rule retains the current threshold for “aged” at 55 in response to these comments. The final rule retains the proposed maximum of 15 points for this factor to ensure that it is appropriately weighted against other factors so that tribes have more flexibility to address their lengthy waiting lists in a manner they determine best serves tribal members awaiting housing assistance.

M. Ranking Factor—Disability

One commenter supported the proposal to provide a set number of points if at least one disabled person is in the household, regardless of how many disabled persons are in the household. Another commenter opposed the proposal to provide a set number of points, stating that it does not account for the fact that households with two disabled members often experience high mortality rates and may put at a disadvantage those households where one disabled member dies before the household is served. The final rule provides for 10 points for any household in which there is at least one disabled member.

A few commenters stated that the proposed 10 points is not enough to account for disabled persons; one suggested 20 points should be provided for a disabled person. BIA ran several scenarios using different point values and determined that 10 points is appropriate to put this factor on equal footing with the other factors. As a whole, the rule attempts to balance the number of points available in each category to allow for households with different needs to remain competitive with each other in scoring, thereby allowing the tribe to prioritize among households with tied or close scores.

One commenter asked whether someone with fetal alcohol effects would be considered disabled under the rule. The rule defines “disabled” broadly to encompass a physical or intellectual impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

N. Active Period for Applications

Several commenters supported the proposal of allowing applications to remain active for four years, rather than the current one year, because this change removes unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens, removes a deterrent to reapplying, benefits applicants, and provides greater flexibility to tribes in providing housing services. One commenter stated that the change is not advantageous to the applicant or the HIP because the applicant's circumstances may change over the course of four years. The final rule incorporates the four-year period because applicants may annually update their applications to address any updated circumstances.

O. NEPA

A few commenters noted the typographical error in the title of the “National Environmental Policy Act.” The proposed rule identified the Act as the “National Environmental Protection Act.” The final rule corrects this error.

A few commenters also noted their view that all of the specific actions authorized by the HIP would be covered by a NEPA categorical exclusion and suggested adding language to 256.19 to clarify this. The final rule incorporates this change.

P. Funding

Nearly every commenter stated support of continued funding for the HIP and asserted that more funding is needed for the HIP. One commenter stated that the HIP targets a population in dire need of support and has had a significant impact on the lives of Indian people, but over the years, the funding in real dollars has dropped substantially. Another commenter stated that the households the tribe is serving through the HIP truly have no other options to improve living conditions. These commenters stated that there is a need for Congress and the Administration to work together to fund the HIP at a meaningful level; otherwise, the increases in funding limits, while appropriate and needed, may result in fewer families being served.

One commenter stated that funding for Category C, in particular, is needed. BIA recommends that tribes ask their regional HIP officers if additional funding for Category C is needed.

Another commenter stated that the HIP's funding formula methodology does not currently function well for tribes in its area because the income limits are too low. The final rule increases the current income limits but BIA has determined that increasing the limits further may duplicate other programs, rather than meeting the HIP's goal to meet the housing needs of the neediest.

A commenter stated that HIP funds should be leveraged with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding for energy efficiency. BIA encourages tribes to work with BIA, DOE, and other agencies to leverage funding.

A commenter expressed concern that the higher funding limits will mean fewer applications will be accepted and fewer households will receive benefits. BIA does not expect the rule's changes to the HIP to decrease the number of participants because the rule changes allow for better leveraging of federal funding, allowing each dollar to go farther.

Q. Other Comments

A few commenters addressed issues with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping. BIA suggests that tribes may want to consider contacting FEMA regarding mapping.

One commenter stated that households should be eligible for HIP assistance, even if prior assistance was received, if the useful life expectancy of the house has been exceeded and it otherwise qualifies as dilapidated. The final rule retains the restriction on previous assistance to be eligible for the HIP in order to prioritize getting HIP assistance to those who have not received assistance before, in the interest of fairness.

A commenter suggested adding more items to the list of other income for which applicants must provide proof in applying for the HIP. The final rule does not incorporate this change because the income items listed are examples and are not an exhaustive list.

A commenter suggested that “your position on the priority list” should be the first item listed in 256.17, listing factors that affect the length of time it takes to do work on your house. The final rule accepts this edit because the position on the priority list is an important factor that participants often overlook. This commenter also suggested that “infrastructure availability” should be added to the list. The final rule adds this to the list as an example of “other unforeseen factors.”

Commenters provided suggestions for additional non-substantive edits that the final rule does not incorporate. A few commenters suggested the Bureau create an advisory committee for updates to the HIP handbook. BIA plans to update the handbook and suggests that tribes and other interested parties work through their housing officers to provide comments.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not have any effect on small entities because only individuals and families are recipients of funding under the program governed by this rule. The Department provides funding through tribes to eligible individuals within service areas based on a priority ranking derived from a point system to identify those individuals and families most in need of housing assistance. While it is possible that small entities may be among the service providers performing renovations, repairs, and construction funded under this program, this rule will not foreseeably affect the demand for such services. Renovations, repairs, and construction performed using funding provided in this program must comply with applicable ordinances, including any permitting requirements.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Funding for the HIP comes from the Federal Government budget.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involves a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is not required.

F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule updates the implementation requirements for the HIP, which is a Federal program.

G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), 512 DM 4 and 5, and the BIA Government-to-Government Consultation Policy, we have held several listening sessions and consultation sessions with representatives of federally recognized tribes throughout the development of this rule. In 2010, BIA staff implementing the HIP opened a dialogue with Indian tribes because tribes indicated that the program as structured was not allowing them to make progress on their waiting lists of members with housing needs. BIA then held several listening sessions and incorporated comments received during those listening sessions into the rule. Following publication of the proposed rule, BIA hosted consultation sessions with Indian tribes throughout February 2015, including two sessions in Washington, DC to accommodate those attending the National American Indian Housing Council legislative conference and the National Congress of American Indian Executive Council Winter Session, one in Anchorage, Alaska, and one by teleconference. BIA has addressed the input received during those sessions in this final rule.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., prohibits a Federal agency from conducting or sponsoring a collection of information that requires OMB approval, unless such approval has been obtained and the collection request displays a currently valid OMB control number. Nor is any person required to respond to an information collection request that has not complied with the PRA. In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), BIA submitted the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this rule to OMB for review and approval. BIA received no comments addressing the information collection requirements and made no revisions to its request. OMB has reviewed the request and approved the information collection.

The following describes the information collection requirements in the rule. The information collection requirements differ from those in the current rule in that applicants need only submit a full application form every four years, but applicants must provide an update (in any format) annually if any information on the application changes. The application form associated with this information collection is also being updated. The revisions result in a net decrease of 4,000 hours because a full application is now required only once every four years, and applicants must only provide annual updates.

Title: Housing Improvement Program, 25 CFR part 256.

OMB Control Number: 1076-0184.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2018.

Summary: This information collection requires individuals and families that are seeking funding assistance for repair, renovation, or replacement of existing homes or new housing, to provide certain information to establish their eligibility for the HIP administered by BIA. This new information collection approval will replace existing OMB Control Number 1076-0084 to accommodate revisions to the application form.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Description of Respondents: Indian tribal members.

Total Annual Responses: 10,000.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,000.

Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden: $ 20,000.

J. National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

L. Drafting Information

The primary authors of this document are Les Jensen, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, and Sabrina McCarthy, Office of the Solicitor—Division of Indian Affairs.

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 256

• Grant programs—housing and community development
• Grant programs—Indians
• Housing
• Indians
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 25 CFR chapter I, subchapter K, by revising part 256 to read as follows:

PART 256—HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HIP)

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 13, 5 U.S.C. 301, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9, and 43 U.S.C. 1457.

Subpart A—General Provisions

Subpart B—Determining Eligibility

Subpart C—Applying for Assistance

Subpart D—Receiving Assistance