Rule2021-14019
Implementing Executive Order 13992, Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 6, 2021
Effective
August 5, 2021
Issuing agencies
Housing and Urban Development Department
Abstract
On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, or the Department) published an interim final rule that implemented Executive Order 13891, "Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents." This order required Federal agencies to publish regulations to codify processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents. HUD created new regulations that outlined HUD policy and procedures for issuing guidance documents. On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13992, "Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation" which, among other things, revoked Executive Order 13891. After considering the public comments HUD received in response to its interim final rule and given the revocation of Executive Order 13891, this final rule removes the regulations HUD created in January.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35391-35396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14019]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. FR-6192-F-02]
RIN 2501-AD93
Implementing Executive Order 13992, Revocation of Certain
Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation
AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD, or the Department) published an interim final rule
that implemented Executive Order 13891, ``Promoting the Rule of Law
Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.'' This order required
Federal agencies to publish regulations to codify processes and
procedures for issuing guidance documents. HUD created new regulations
that outlined HUD policy and procedures for issuing guidance documents.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13992,
``Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal
Regulation'' which, among other things, revoked Executive Order 13891.
After considering the public comments HUD received in response to its
interim final rule and given the revocation of Executive Order 13891,
this final rule removes the regulations HUD created in January.
[[Page 35392]]
DATES: Effective August 5, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Santa Anna, Associate General
Counsel, Office of Legislation and Regulations, Office of General
Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street SW, Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-
5300 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Persons with hearing
or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the
toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Executive Order 13891 on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved
Agency Guidance Documents
On October 9, 2019 (84 FR 55235), the President issued Executive
Order (E.O.) 13891, ``Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency
Guidance Documents.'' E.O. 13891 recognized that the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) (APA) exempts ``interpretive rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
procedure or practice,'' except when required by statute, from the
notice and comment requirements for rulemaking. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). E.O.
13891 stated, however, that, in the view of the last administration,
agencies have sometimes used this authority to issue guidance documents
that regulate the public without following the notice and comment
rulemaking procedures of the APA. As a result, E.O. 13891 required
Federal agencies to issue regulations to codify processes and
procedures for issuing guidance documents. Among other things, E.O.
13891 required that agency regulations establish procedures for
modifying, withdrawing, and using guidance documents, including
requiring notice and comment for significant guidance documents, and
taking and responding to petitions from the public for withdrawal or
modification of a particular guidance document.
B. HUD's Interim Final Rule
In response to E.O. 13891, HUD published an interim final rule on
November 10, 2020 (85 FR 71537) that established a new part 11 in title
24 of the CFR. The new part 11 required HUD to follow certain
procedures in issuing guidance documents. These procedures included:
Establishing a single agency website where the public can find all HUD
guidance in effect; OMB review of significant guidance; public comment
on significant guidance; and a procedure for the public to request
withdrawal or modification of a guidance document. In issuing its
interim final rule, HUD determined that good cause existed to omit
advanced public comment because the rule was limited to internal HUD
procedures and did not impose new requirements on members of the
public. The rule took effect on December 10, 2020.
Although HUD determined that good cause existed to publish its
interim final rule prior to soliciting public comment, HUD provided for
a 60-day public comment period. In response to its interim final rule,
HUD received seven public comments which were mostly critical of, or
recommended significant changes to, the interim final rule. A summary
of these comments and HUD's responses to them are provided in Section
III of this document.
C. Executive Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning
Federal Regulation of January 20, 2021
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 13992, ``Executive
Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal
Regulation,'' which among other things, revoked E.O. 13891. E.O. 13992
also directed agencies to promptly take steps to rescind any orders,
rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof that
implemented or enforced the Executive Orders revoked. E.O. 13992
states, ``It is the policy of [the] Administration to use available
tools to confront the urgent challenges facing the Nation, including
the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, economic recovery,
racial justice, and climate change. To tackle these challenges
effectively, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must be
equipped with the flexibility to use robust regulatory action to
address national priorities. This order revokes harmful policies and
directives that threaten to frustrate the Federal Government's ability
to confront these problems and empowers agencies to use appropriate
regulatory tools to achieve these goals.''
II. This Final Rule
Given the revocation of E.O. 13891, and after considering the
public comments HUD received in response to the interim final rule, HUD
has decided to remove 24 CFR part 11. In reaching this conclusion, HUD
concluded that the interim final rule deprives HUD of necessary
flexibility to determine when and how to best issue guidance documents
based on particular facts and circumstances, and unduly restricts HUD's
ability to provide timely guidance on which the public can confidently
rely. Notwithstanding this determination, HUD takes the opportunity in
this rule to respond to public comments received in response to its
interim final rule.
III. The Public Comments
The comment period for HUD's interim final rule closed on January
11, 2021. HUD received seven public comments from various housing
policy and legal interest groups, a law firm, and two public housing
agencies (PHAs). HUD appreciates the time that commenters took to
review its interim final rule and provide helpful information and
valuable comments and recommendations.
The Comments Generally
Most commenters opposed the interim final rule and urged HUD to
withdraw or rescind the rule and ``abandon'' codification of 24 CFR
part 11. Most commenters stated that HUD should encourage the
facilitation and dissemination of guidance, particularly given the
urgent need for federal response to current crises, such as the COVID-
19 pandemic and lack of affordable housing, and housing discrimination.
These commenters stated that the rule would make it more difficult for
HUD to quickly respond to these crises and fulfill its mission of
creating strong, sustainable, inclusive communities.
A majority of the commenters also thought that the rule would
create confusion among HUD stakeholders and the public. Commenters
stated that the interim final rule ``would have a negative impact on
the successful administration of HUD's programs,'' and would
``significantly delay each program office's ability to be responsive to
emergencies and emerging questions and issues and increase the workload
for HUD.'' Commenters also warned that the burdens and delays imposed
by the interim final rule would negatively impact the ability of
stakeholders such as PHAs, tenants, and advocacy groups to carry out
their respective missions and may subject their programs to litigation.
Two commenters generally supported the interim final rule but
offered recommendations for significant changes, such as expanding it
to provide the public an opportunity to request the issuance of new
guidance or the reinstatement of rescinded guidance. One commenter
recommended that HUD include an explicit judicial review
[[Page 35393]]
provision to make it clear when review of a document becomes final to
permit an interested party to seek redress from the courts.
Comment: The Interim final rule's procedural requirements will
delay the issuance of guidance and limit HUD's flexibility in issuing
guidance.
Commenters expressed concern with the review of HUD guidance by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the need for
HUD to receive and review public comments on significant guidance. One
commenter stated that OIRA is a small office with a heavy workload that
is slow to formally review proposed and final rules submitted by HUD.
The commenter stated that adding the review of many HUD guidance
documents to OIRA's workload would cause significant delays in the
issuance of both HUD's guidance documents and its rules issued under
the Administrative Procedure Act. Another commenter stated that
``applying such procedures to sub-regulatory guidance creates
unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy.'' Other commenters said that
the review, approval, and signature process for significant guidance
``would hamper [HUD's] ability to act nimbly to issue guidance on key
issues.'' Finally, one commenter noted that the rule would not only
delay, but ultimately prevent, the dissemination of guidance.
Commenters also stated that allowing petitions to modify or rescind
guidance documents and the requirement for HUD to respond to each
petition in writing, would drain scarce agency resources and hamper
HUD's ability to issue important guidance. One commenter stated that
the process of permitting HUD to issue a coordinated response to
similar petitions is insufficient to address delay issues. The
commenter further said that HUD would be ``doing the work'' for
petitioners with inadequate submissions ``by laying out a roadmap and
effectively crafting arguments for petitioners to have their petitions
successfully adjudicated.'' Another commenter added that the ``petition
mechanism will likely confuse funding recipients,'' which in turn would
create more work for HUD staff and delay day-to-day programmatic
decision-making. The commenter also noted that ``the interim final rule
will strip authority from the career experts who normally develop
guidance . . . and place day-to-day decisions directly into the hands
of non-experts''.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the timely dissemination of guidance
documents is important to the successful administration and consistent
implementation of its programs. In support of this policy, HUD must
have flexibility to quickly issue guidance to further the
implementation of HUD's programs without additional barriers. As
commenters noted, applying the notice and comment process to
significant guidance documents would unnecessarily detract from HUD's
ability to respond to the needs of its stakeholders and adversely
impact its ability to issue regulations under the APA by diverting HUD
and OMB resources away from rulemaking processes. In addition, HUD
currently seeks input from the public on many of its guidance documents
and often issues guidance documents in response to such input and
frequently asked questions. Similarly, HUD agrees that the petition
process would cause delay in HUD's ability to disseminate guidance
documents. Furthermore, HUD agrees that there is no need to codify such
a requirement because HUD can and does already receive requests from
the public which it considers when issuing, updating, and rescinding
guidance.
Comment: The ambiguity of the terms used in the interim final rule
make the scope of the rule unclear.
Commenters stated that the interim final rule lacks clarity, uses
ambiguous terms, and creates general implementation issues. Many
commenters stated that the interim final rule does not provide clear
definitions and does not clarify which types of communication are
subject to the rule. For example, commenters noted that the interim
final rule's definition of what constitutes ``guidance'' is vague and
makes the scope of the rule unclear. One commenter noted that the
definition of ``guidance'' could be read broadly enough to include
``virtually all written communications HUD delivers to stakeholders.''
One commenter found the definition of guidance lacking and
recommended that legal opinions directed to parties about circumstance-
specific questions and Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) \1\ be
added to the definition of guidance documents. The commenter suggested
that legal opinions are helpful to more than a single PHA facing
similar factual scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HUD currently uses the term Notices of Funding Opportunity
or ``NOFO'' for documents that would previously have been referred
to as NOFAs. This change is based on the terminology used in Office
of Management and Budget Management in its Guidance for Grants and
Agreements (85 FR 49506, August 13, 2020). However, following the
terminology used in the public comments, this document uses the term
``NOFA'' throughout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also stated that the definition of ``significant
guidance'' is unclear, overly broad, and susceptible to variance. One
commenter stated that terms used in the definition of ``significant
guidance,'' such as ``serious inconsistency'' or ``interference'' with
another agency, are so vague that ``if [the interim final rule is]
interpreted broadly, nearly every piece of guidance not explicitly
exempted from being considered significant guidance will be subject to
the burdensome OIRA review and public comment process.'' The commenter
also noted the lack of explanation for how economic impact analyses
would be conducted for significant guidance, and the apparent lack of
public access to such analyses.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the terms and definitions used by the
interim final rule lack clarity and could lead to confusion and
inconsistent implementation of HUD's programs. HUD appreciates the
commenters' recommendations regarding legal opinions, but each legal
opinion is party- and fact-specific, and HUD does not believe that they
can be made generally applicable to other similarly situated parties.
As for the NOFA process, PHAs and other entities are permitted to
follow-up with HUD with questions regarding NOFAs and provide feedback
for future NOFAs regardless of the language in part 11.
Lastly, HUD agrees with public commenters that the definitions of
``guidance'' and ``significant guidance'' could be interpreted broadly
and doing so would make issuing guidance challenging. HUD notes that
the definition of ``significant guidance'' incorporated in the interim
final rule mirrors the definition in E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning
and Review) for ``significant regulatory action'' and includes ``novel
legal or policy issues'' which challenges articulating a specific
definition. Notwithstanding, the requirement that HUD provide an
economic analysis for guidance that rises to the level of ``significant
regulatory action'' creates additional challenges to the Department's
ability to timely issue guidance and outweighs any benefit resulting
from the interim final rule.
Comment: The interim final rule creates uncertainty.
Commenters stated that the uncertainty created by the interim final
rule would negatively affect HUD constituencies that routinely rely on
HUD guidance, including tenants, advocates, owners, vulnerable
populations, and PHAs. One commenter stated that HUD guidance is
undermined by the provision noting that ``the authority is nonbinding
and unenforceable.'' The commenter stated
[[Page 35394]]
that the interim final rule would ultimately lead to inconsistent
interpretations of HUD guidance because the provision negates the
purpose of issued guidance ``by inviting PHAs and owners to ignore
it.'' Another commenter stated that if a guidance document, which PHAs
have routinely incorporated into their policies for decades, is
determined to have no legal effect or rescinded, PHAs will find
themselves ``in limbo'' with no new replacement guidance.
One commenter stated that the interim final rule may adversely
impact vulnerable populations and encourage discriminatory policies.
For example, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking would be left without access to certain remedies and
procedures established under guidance (but not mentioned in statutes or
regulations). According to the commenter, ignoring guidance on
emergency transfers leaves ``survivors without a clear path to
obtaining an emergency transfer, leaving them in unsafe situations for
longer periods of time.'' The commenter also stated, by way of example,
that ``people with disabilities rely on HUD guidance to determine where
they can live with their assistance or emotional support animals'' and
provide people with disabilities a ``greater security when confronting
housing discrimination.'' A commenter further asserted that ``by
suggesting that PHAs or owners ignore HUD guidance, HUD encourages
discriminatory policies against tenants with disabilities who need
accommodations.''
Several commenters stated that the process for public petition
would reduce reliance on guidance documents because it permits repeated
requests for recission of certain documents, and ``create[s] a constant
and ongoing state of uncertainty about whether the guidance will
continue in effect or be withdrawn or modified pursuant to a petition
from the public.'' Other commenters stated that it is not clear how the
review of a petition would operate or what remedies would be available
if the public disagrees with a determination made by HUD in response to
a petition.
One commenter focused on several other aspects of the interim final
rule that the commenter said are unclear, including the ``description
of the public participation requirement;'' whether any exceptions to
OIRA review under Sec. 11.8 apply; how these exceptions interact with
Sec. 11.3(b); and the implications of the interim final rule on joint
agency guidance. For the public participation requirement, the
commenter referred to Sec. 11.6(b), and stated that stakeholders
cannot discern ``when HUD is soliciting public input on potential
significant guidance.'' Another commenter stated that the applicability
of the good cause exception is unclear.
One commenter stated that under the interim final rule, it is
unclear how HUD would notify the public when significant guidance
documents are available for comment, for example, whether HUD would
publish the significant guidance documents in the Federal Register or
post an open letter on its website. The commenter requested that HUD
explain how it would choose between outreach methods.
Commenters also stated that the interim final rule lacked clarity
as to whether it applies to guidance retroactively and sought
clarification on whether existing guidance documents remain in effect.
One commenter recommended that the scope of the interim final rule be
limited to future guidance and allow current guidance to remain in
place until the issuance of newly issued guidance documents.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the processes outlined in the interim
final rule lack clarity and would likely lead to the inconsistent
application of HUD's programs. HUD also agrees that the use of guidance
is helpful to supplement regulatory and statutory requirements and that
HUD does not want to suggest, as a commenter stated, that guidance
documents can be ignored. HUD agrees that HUD guidance documents that
aim to prohibit and prevent discrimination against persons with
disabilities and other protected classes should be reasonably relied on
by stakeholders.
As for the ambiguity pointed out by commenters on procedures and
processes for public petitions, identification of significant guidance
for public comment, and retroactivity of the rule, HUD agrees that the
rule provided minimal guidance to the public on how HUD would address
those provisions and believes this further supports the determination
to remove 24 CFR part 11.
Comment: The new indexed website portal is misguided.
One commenter supported HUD's use of the indexed guidance portal,
but many had questions about it. A commenter questioned whether HUD has
the operational capacity to establish and maintain a ``single,
searchable, indexed website'' as required by the interim final rule.
The commenter stated that although the interim final rule went into
effect on December 10, 2020, ``it appears no such guidance website has
been established.'' The commenter also asked what HUD intends to do
with the guidance documents not posted on this new guidance website, or
what will happen with guidance documents that are removed from the
website.
Other commenters questioned whether the guidance portal will
achieve the goal of making program policies more transparent. One
commenter specifically noted that separating guidance documents from
other types of documents (such as, NOFAs, legal briefs, and opinions)
makes program administration and policies less transparent, especially
since it is not clear what a guidance document is under the interim
final rule. The commenter also questioned what HUD meant by describing
the guidance portal as ``a single, accessible source of information''
for HUD programs and policies. The commenter recommended that ``it
would be better to organize relevant documents of all types by program
and subject matter, rather than by document type.''
Another commenter asked whether PHAs or members of the public could
challenge HUD's decision to include or not include a guidance document
on its website. The commenter noted that stakeholders ``should have a
formal opportunity to inform HUD if previously-issued helpful guidance
has been omitted from the guidance website.'' The commenter also
recommended that HUD include on the portal cross-references to other
federal agencies' guidance documents which potentially impact PHAs,
such as, the Federal Highway Administration's guidance on relocation
under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Act.
HUD Response: HUD will continue to disseminate and provide guidance
documents pertaining to specific programs and agrees that continuing to
organize documents by program type and subject matter may be helpful to
PHAs and others using HUD programs. At the same time, it will continue
to pursue ways to make its guidance documents more accessible to the
public.
Comment: HUD lacked good cause to bypass the APA's notice-and-
comment procedures.
Several commenters questioned HUD's authority to publish the
interim final rule without first seeking public comment, noting that
HUD did not adequately establish good cause to issue the rule.
Commenters stated that no emergency or exigency existed to justify
application of the good cause exception. These commenters said the fact
that HUD issued its interim final rule more than a year after the
issuance of E.O.
[[Page 35395]]
13891 undercuts HUD's justification to omit prior public comment.
Commenters also stated that ``the approach taken by HUD in this
rulemaking is wholly inconsistent with the value of public input.''
Some commenters stated that if HUD goes on to implement regulations on
guidance, HUD should follow normal notice-and-comment procedure
beginning with a proposed rule and should better involve stakeholders,
such as PHAs.
HUD Response: HUD's authority to issue the interim final rule
without the public notice period relied on both the APA and 24 CFR part
10 authority to issue rules regarding internal procedures prior to
receiving public comment. HUD appreciates and understands the
commenters' concerns, but HUD maintains that the interim final rule was
procedural rather than substantive, because it affected only HUD
internal procedures and imposed no obligations on parties outside the
federal government. Specifically, the regulation required HUD to issue
and maintain guidance documents in a certain manner but did not create
any new obligations for parties other than HUD itself. HUD also notes
that while it issued the interim final rule for immediate effect, it
provided the opportunity for public comment that HUD has considered in
issuing this final rule.
Comment: Changes could improve the interim final rule.
Some commenters generally supported the interim final rule but made
recommendations for significant changes. One commenter supported the
interim final rule's provision that provided the public a procedure to
challenge the agency's issuance of guidance but recommended that the
interim final rule also provide for ``judicial review after the final
disposition of a petition for withdrawal or modification of guidance
documents.'' The commenter reasoned that without additional procedure,
regulated entities would have difficulty establishing that an agency's
determination on a challenged guidance document is a ``final agency
action'' subject to APA review. The commenter recommended revising
Sec. 11.6, by adding a paragraph that would provide, ``[a]ny agency
pronouncement, response, or failure to respond pursuant to this section
shall constitute final agency action under 5 U.S.C. 704 and shall be
subject to review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702.''
Other commenters offered revisions to Sec. 11.6, including adding
provisions for the public to request clarification of existing
guidance, reinstatement of old guidance, or creation of new guidance,
and establishing a mechanism for expediting guidance when necessary.
Another commenter stated that the rule does not explain how new
procedures, namely the petition process, will be accessible to people
with disabilities and emphasized the importance of ``ensuring that
people with disabilities are afforded equal opportunity to comment
during public notice and comment periods.'' One commenter recommended
extending the comment period for significant guidance to 60 days,
instead of the existing 30 days, because significant guidance documents
``are likely to be complex in subject matter and scope.''
HUD Response: HUD disagrees with these recommendations. Providing
for ``judicial review after the final disposition of a petition for
withdrawal or modification of guidance documents'' would create
additional hurdles for HUD's issuance of guidance documents. Similarly,
providing the public a formal opportunity to request the issuance of
new guidance or the reinstatement of rescinded guidance would be
extremely time consuming, require the use of limited HUD resources, and
impede HUD's ability to provide timely guidance, particularly in times
of crisis. Moreover, HUD believes that stakeholders already can and do
question or request the revision of existing guidance, reinstatement of
old guidance, or creation of new guidance. HUD believes that engagement
with the public in this informal manner effectively addresses the needs
of HUD stakeholders without the additional burden of creating a formal
process as proposed.
President Biden's ``Executive Order on Revocation of Certain
Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation,'' of January 20, 2021,
revoking E.O. 13891 provides HUD the opportunity to remove 24 CFR part
11. Consideration of the comments received from the public provide HUD
an additional basis for removing 24 CFR part 11.
IV. Findings and Certifications
Regulatory Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination
must be made regarding whether a regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. E.O. 13563
(Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive
agencies to analyze regulations that are ``outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline,
expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.'' E.O.
13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are
to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
This rule was determined not to be a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and therefore was not
reviewed by OMB. This rule is also not a major rule under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as designated by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
Environmental Impact
The rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and
mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property
acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration,
demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for
standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule
is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
(UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and on the private sector. This rule does not impose a
Federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the
private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule removes 24 CFR part 11 which would have required that HUD
follow certain internal procedures in issuing guidance documents. These
procedures included establishing a single agency website where the
public can find all HUD guidance in effect; OMB review of significant
guidance; public comment on significant guidance; and a
[[Page 35396]]
procedure for the public to request withdrawal or modification of a
guidance document. Removal of these procedures imposes no significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore,
the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
E.O. 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
either: (1) Imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) preempts State
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of Section 6 of the E.O. This Interim final rule does not have
federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt state law
within the meaning of the E.O.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 11
Administrative practice and procedure.
PART 11 [REMOVED]
0
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble and under the
authority of 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development removes 24 CFR part 11.
Dated: June 24, 2021.
Marcia L. Fudge,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14019 Filed 7-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 6, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.