Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS): Proposed Physical Condition Interim Scoring Notice, 63640-63654 [2011-26516]
Download as PDF
63640
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
‘‘How to Correct Your Records’’ from
the menu on the right.
Hotline accepts calls in multiple
languages. Additional information is
available on the OSC Web site at
https://www.justice.gov/crt/osc/.
[FR Doc. 2011–26538 Filed 10–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Note Regarding Federal, State, and
Local Government Agencies (Such as
Departments of Motor Vehicles)
State and local government agencies
are permitted to create their own
guidelines when granting certain
benefits, such as a driver’s license or an
identification card. Each state may have
different laws, requirements, and
determinations about what documents
you need to provide to prove eligibility
for certain benefits. If you are applying
for a state or local government benefit,
you may need to provide the state or
local government agency with
documents that show you are a TPS
beneficiary and/or show you are
authorized to work based on TPS.
Examples are:
(1) Your expired EAD that has been
automatically extended, or your EAD
that has a valid expiration date;
(2) A copy of this Federal Register
notice if your EAD is automatically
extended under this notice;
(3) A copy of your Application for
Temporary Protected Status, Form I–821
Receipt Notice (Form I–797) for this reregistration;
(4) A copy of your past or current
Form I–821 Approval Notice (Form I–
797), if you receive one from USCIS;
and
(5) If there is an automatic extension
of work authorization, a copy of the fact
sheet from the USCIS TPS Web site that
provides information on the automatic
extension.
Check with the state or local agency
regarding which document(s) the agency
will accept.
Some benefit-granting agencies use
the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification
for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to
verify the current immigration status of
applicants for public benefits. If such an
agency has denied your application
based solely or in part on a SAVE
response following completion of all
required SAVE verification steps, the
agency must offer you the opportunity
to appeal the decision in accordance
with the agency’s procedures. If the
agency has completed all SAVE
verification and you do not believe the
response is correct, you may make an
Info Pass appointment for an in-person
interview at a local USCIS office.
Detailed information on how to make
corrections, make an appointment, or
submit a written request can be found
at the SAVE Web site at https://
www.uscis.gov/save, then by choosing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5526–N–01]
Public Housing Assessment System
(PHAS): Proposed Physical Condition
Interim Scoring Notice
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice provides
additional information to public
housing agencies (PHAs) and members
of the public about HUD’s process for
issuing scores under the Physical
Condition Indicator of the PHAS under
the PHAS Physical Condition Scoring
Process notice published on February
23, 2011. This notice provides
information to the public about the
implementation of a point loss cap in
the scoring process. This notice also
proposes changes to definitions in the
Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions that
is an appendix to the PHAS notice on
the physical condition scoring process.
These proposed changes would affect
the physical condition inspections
process for both multifamily and public
housing properties. This notice also
provides information about the updated
inspection software that will be used by
inspector when conducting inspection.
The changes made in this notice are
discussed in the Supplementary
Information section below.
DATES: Comment Due Date: November
14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments on this
notice and the revised Definitions to be
included in the Dictionary of Deficiency
Definitions, attached to this notice as an
appendix, to the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
Communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD
strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically.
Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt by HUD, and enables
HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments
submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can
be viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. Again, all submissions must refer to
the docket number and title of the rule.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address. Due to security measures at the
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–402–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
via TTY by calling the Federal Relay
Service, toll-free, at 800–877–8339.
Copies of all comments submitted are
available for inspection and
downloading at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claudia J. Yarus, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of
Public and Indian Housing, Real Estate
Assessment Center (REAC), 550 12th
Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC
20410 at 202–475–8830 (this is not a
toll-free number). Persons with hearing
or speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at 800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose of This Notice
The purpose of this notice is to
describe the physical condition scoring
process for the PHAS physical condition
indicator. This notice is different from,
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
and supersedes, the February 23, 2011
notice in that it: (1) Describes the
change to the scoring process through
the implementation of a point loss cap;
(2) proposes changes to certain
definitions in the Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions; and (3) describes
the updated inspection software that
will be used by inspectors when
conducting REAC inspections of HUD
insured and assisted properties.
II. Background
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Initial Changes to the Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions
Since 2001, when the conference
report on that fiscal year’s
appropriations bill (H.R. Conf. Rep.
106–988) directed HUD to ‘‘assess the
accuracy and effectiveness of the PHAS
system and to take whatever remedial
steps may be needed,’’ and to perform
a statistically valid test of PHAS, HUD
has engaged in an extensive effort to
ensure that the dictionary of deficiency
definitions were responsive to industry
concerns. HUD engaged a contractor, the
Louis Berger group (the contractor) to
perform the requested study; the
contractor produced a final report in
June, 2001, identifying 47 definitions in
the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions,
published as Appendix 2 to the Public
Housing Assessment System Physical
Condition Scoring Process notice
published on November 26, 2001 (66 FR
59084) and recommended modifications
and minor changes to each.
From 2001 to 2002, HUD and the
contractor met with representatives
from the multifamily industry, the
public housing industry, and HUD’s
own multifamily and public housing
staff to conduct informal discussions on
proposed changes to various definitions
in the Dictionary of Deficiency
Definitions. It was emphasized to the
participants that HUD was not seeking
their opinions as a group or any official
recommendations. Informed by these
discussions, HUD then drafted the
revisions to the definitions it proposed
in a 2004 Federal Register Notice for
public comment (see 69 FR 12474,
March 16, 2004).
The definitions for which changes
were proposed were those that had been
identified as causing the greatest
inconsistency among contract
inspectors. These proposed changes
would affect the physical condition
inspection process for both multifamily
and public housing properties.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
2. System Development and Changes to
PASS and the Dictionary of Deficiency
Definitions
From 2004 to the present, HUD
conducted an ongoing deliberative
process to develop an updated physical
inspection system, including an
updated electronic system, that would
incorporate the proposed changes to the
Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions as
well as an additional equity principle.
To that end, HUD utilized the
information obtained from the earlier
consultations with industry groups.
Accordingly, the system development
process began with the incorporation of
the revised Dictionary of Definitions,
which the industry and other HUD
stakeholders supported. The process
was furthered by repeated informal
industry contacts from 2004 to the
present, which demonstrated to HUD
that these changes, while proposed in
2004, are still desired by the industry
and still address key areas of interest for
the major actors. This repeated
confirmation has led HUD to conclude
that the newly developed system should
incorporate the revised Dictionary of
Definitions, as well as an additional
principle into the scoring methodology
and an updated inspection software
tool.
3. Point Loss Cap
One of the major changes made in this
notice is the addition of a point loss cap.
With the point loss cap, the scoring
methodology would take into account
the disproportionate effect on scoring
that a single deficiency can have when
there are relatively few buildings or
units that are inspected in a project.
Until this point, the scoring
methodology has not accounted for this
disproportionate effect in the physical
inspections scores. This is an issue that
has been the subject of repeated
comments. These comments have been
made consistently in the appeals of
PASS scores under the original PHAS
Rule, in informal communications with
industry, and during industry
conferences and meetings in which
HUD staff are represented and they
continue to be made by the industry
members. In order to lessen this impact,
HUD developed a mechanism to cap the
number of points that would be
deducted from the project score for any
one deficiency.
This mechanism, a point loss cap set
at the inspectable area level, was
developed in an effort to more precisely
account for the impact of a single
deficiency on a property score. These
long standing comments on this
component of the current scoring
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63641
methodology, along with HUD’s internal
analysis of the impact of the proposed
change in scoring, has led to the
decision by HUD to add a point loss cap
to the physical inspection system.
4. DCD 4.0 Inspection Software
The DCD 4.0 is an updated inspection
software that will replace the aging DCD
2.3.3 software originally developed in
1997. In addition to taking advantage of
advances in technology, the core
functionality of the inspection software
has been modified to improve data
collection. It employs a decision tree
model that replaces the selection-based
model of recording observed
deficiencies. The inspection protocol
remains unchanged, but the overall
system includes the changes made to
the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions
and the inclusion of a point loss cap
determined at the inspectable area level.
Incorporation of the revised
definitions and point loss cap along
with the DCD 4.0 Inspection Software
has led to an overall physical inspection
system broader in scope than what was
proposed in the 2004 Federal Register
Notice. As a result, HUD is once again
publishing proposed revisions to the
Dictionary of Definitions for comment
along with the new proposed change of
a point loss cap. The proposed revisions
to the Dictionary of Deficiency
Definitions are included as Appendix 1
to this notice.
III. The Revised Physical Inspection
Scoring Process
Substantive revisions to the physical
scoring process proposed in this notice
include:
• A definition is added for ‘‘point loss
cap’’ following the definition for
‘‘normalized sub-area weight.’’
• Under section 3, ‘‘equity
principles,’’ a paragraph is added on the
point loss cap.
• Under section 5, ‘‘health and safety
deficiencies,’’ language is added
reflecting both remediation and action
to abate the deficiency; language
relating to a deadline for transmittal of
the deficiency report is removed.
• Under the same section, it is
specified that if there are smoke detector
deficiencies, the physical inspection
score will include an asterisk.
• Under section 7, ‘‘scoring using
weighted averages,’’ language is added
related to the point loss cap.
• Under section 8, ‘‘essential weights
and levels,’’ the point loss cap is added
to the bulleted list.
• Under section 9, the title is revised
to ‘‘normalized area weights’’ and the
description of the calculation is revised.
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
63642
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• Under section 12, the examples of
physical condition score calculations
are substantially revised.
• Section 13, ‘‘computing PHAS
physical inspection scores,’’ is revised.
• The examples of sampling weights
for buildings in section 14 are revised.
The PHAS physical inspection
generates comprehensive results,
including physical inspection scores
reported at the project level; area level
scores for each of the five physical
inspection areas, as applicable; and
observations of deficiencies recorded
electronically by the inspector at the
time of the inspection.
to reflect their relative importance and
are shown in the Item Weights and
Criticality Levels tables. The tables refer
to the weight of each item as the
nominal item weight, which is also
known as the amenity weight.
Normalized area weight represents
weights used with area scores to
calculate project-level scores. The
weights are adjusted to reflect the
inspectable items actually present at the
time of the inspection. These weights
are proportional, as follows:
• For dwelling units, the area score is
the weighted average of sub-area scores
for each unit, weighted by the total of
item weights present for inspection in
1. Definitions
each unit, which is referred to as the
amenity weight.
The following are the definitions of
• For common areas, the area score is
the terms used in the physical condition
the weighted average of sub-area
scoring process:
common area scores weighted by the
Criticality means one of five levels
total weights for items available for
that reflect the relative importance of
the deficiencies for an inspectable item. inspection (or amenity weight) in each
residential building common area or
Appendix 1 lists all deficiencies with
their designated criticality levels, which common building. Common buildings
refer to any inspectable building that
vary from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most
contains no dwelling units. All common
critical. Based on the criticality level,
buildings are inspected.
each deficiency has an assigned value
• For building exteriors or building
that is used in scoring. Those values are
systems, the area scores are weighted
as follows:
averages of sub-area scores.
• For sites, the area score is
Criticality
Level
Value
calculated as follows: (1) The amenity
Critical ...............................
5
5.00 weights found on a site, (2) minus
Very Important ..................
4
3.00 deductions for deficiencies, and (3)
Important ...........................
3
2.25 normalized to a 100-point scale.
Contributes .......................
2
1.25
Normalized sub-area weight means
Slight Contribution ............
1
0.50 the weight used with sub-area scores to
compute an inspectable area score.
Based on the importance of the
These weights are proportional:
deficiency as reflected by its criticality
• For dwelling units, the item weight
value, points are deducted from the
of amenities available in the unit at the
project score. For example, a clogged
time of inspection is the amenity
drain in the kitchen is more critical than weight.
a damaged surface on a countertop.
• For common areas, the common
Therefore, more points will be deducted area amenity weight is divided by a
for a clogged drain than for a damaged
building’s probability of being selected
surface.
for inspection. All residential buildings
Deficiencies refer to specific problems with common areas may not be selected
that are recorded for inspectable items,
for inspection; however, all buildings
such as a hole in a wall or a damaged
with common areas are used to
refrigerator in the kitchen.
determine the amenity weight.
Inspectable area means any of the five
• For building exterior and building
major components of the project: site,
systems, the building exterior or
building exteriors, building systems,
building system amenity weight is
common areas, and dwelling units.
multiplied by the building’s size
Inspectable items refer to walls,
(number of units) and then divided by
kitchens, bathrooms, and other features
its probability of being selected for
that are inspected in an inspectable
inspection.
area. The number of inspectable items
• For the site, there is no sub-area
varies for each inspectable area, from 8
score. For each project, there is a single
to 17. Weights are assigned to each item site.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Note that dividing by a building’s
probability of being selected for
inspection is the same as multiplying by
the probability weight since the
probability weight is 1 divided by the
probability of being selected for
inspection.
Point loss cap is the maximum
number of points that a single
deficiency can count against the overall
property score. The point loss cap for
each inspectable area is:
Inspectable area
Maximum point
deduction for a
single deficiency
Site ....................................
Building Exterior ...............
Building System ................
Common Areas .................
Dwelling Units ...................
7.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Project is used synonymously with
the term ‘‘property.’’
Severity means one of three levels that
reflect the extent of damage associated
with each deficiency, with values
assigned as follows:
Severity level
3 ........................................
2 ........................................
1 ........................................
Value
1.00
0.50
0.25
The Item Weights and Criticality
Levels tables show the severity levels
that are possible for each deficiency.
Based on the severity of each deficiency,
the score is reduced. Points deducted
are calculated by multiplying the item
weight by the values for criticality and
severity, as described below. For
specific definitions of each severity
level, see the Dictionary of Deficiency
Definitions.
Score means a number between 0 and
100 that reflects the physical condition
of a project, inspectable area, or subarea. A property score includes both an
alphabetical and a numerical
component. The number represents an
overall score for the basic physical
condition of a property, including
points deducted for health and safety
deficiencies other than those associated
with smoke detectors. The letter code
specifically indicates whether health
and safety deficiencies were detected, as
shown in the chart below:
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
63643
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Health and safety deficiencies
No health and
safety deficiencies
Non-life threatening (NLT)
Life threatening
(LT)/exigent
health and safety
(EHS)
No smoke detector problems
Smoke detector
problems
a .......................................................................
a* ......................................................................
b .......................................................................
b* ......................................................................
c .......................................................................
c* ......................................................................
X
X
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
X
X
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
X
X
X
............................
X
............................
X
............................
............................
X
............................
X
............................
X
To record a health or safety problem,
a letter is added to the project score (a,
b, or c) and to note that one or more
smoke detectors are inoperable or
missing an asterisk (*) is added to the
project score. The project score for
properties with LT deficiencies will
have a ‘‘c’’ whether or not there also are
NLT deficiencies.
Sub-area means an area that will be
inspected for all inspectable areas
except the site. For example, the
building exterior for building ‘‘2’’ is a
sub-area of the building exterior area.
Likewise, unit ‘‘5’’ would be a sub-area
of the dwelling units area. Each
inspectable area for each building in a
property is treated as a sub-area.
mechanism ensures that no single
building or dwelling unit can affect the
overall score more than its
proportionate share of the whole.
Configuration of project. The scoring
methodology takes into account
different numbers of units in buildings.
To fairly score projects with different
numbers of units in buildings, the area
scores are calculated for building
exteriors and systems by using weighted
averages of the sub-area scores, where
the weights are based on the number of
units in each building and on the
building’s probability of being selected
for inspection. In addition, the
calculation for common areas includes
the amenities existing in the residential
common areas and common buildings at
the time of inspection.
Differences between projects. The
scoring methodology also takes into
account that projects have different
features and amenities. To ensure that
the overall score reflects only items that
are present to be inspected, weights to
calculate area and project scores are
adjusted depending on how many items
are actually there to be inspected.
Point loss cap. The scoring
methodology further takes into account
that a single deficiency can have
disproportionate effects on scoring
when there are relatively few buildings
or units that are inspected in a project.
To mitigate any disproportionate
impact, the number of points deducted
from the project score for any one
deficiency is capped. Point loss caps are
set at the inspectable area level.
Physical inspection score alphanumeric codes
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2. Scoring Protocol
To generate accurate scores, the
inspection protocol includes a
determination of the appropriate
relative weights of the various
components of the inspection; that is,
which components are the most
important, the next most important, and
so on. For example, in the building
exterior area, a blocked or damaged fire
escape is more important than a cracked
window, which is more important than
a broken light fixture. The Item Weights
and Criticality Levels tables provide the
nominal weight of observable
deficiencies by inspectable item for each
area/sub-area. The Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions provides a
definition for the severity of each
deficiency in each area/sub-area.
3. Equity Principles
In addition to determining the
appropriate relative weights,
consideration is also given to several
issues concerning equity between
properties so that scores fairly assess all
types of properties:
Proportionality. The scoring
methodology includes an important
control that does not allow any sub-area
scores to be negative. If a sub-area, such
as the building exterior for a given
building, has so many deficiencies that
the sub-area score would be negative,
the score is set to zero. This control
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
4. Deficiency Definitions
During a physical inspection of a
project, the inspector looks for
deficiencies for each inspectable item
within the inspectable areas, such as the
walls (the inspectable item) of a
dwelling unit (the inspectable area).
Based on the observed condition, the
Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions
defines up to the three levels of severity
for each deficiency: Level 1 (minor),
Level 2 (major), and Level 3 (severe).
The associated values are shown in the
definition of ‘‘severity’’ in Section V.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Fire safety
A specific criticality level, with
associated values as shown in that chart,
is also assigned to each deficiency. The
criticality level reflects the importance
of the deficiency relative to all other
possible observable deficiencies for the
inspectable area.
5. Health and Safety Deficiencies
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. As
noted in the definition for the word
‘‘score’’ in the Definitions section, all
H&S deficiencies are highlighted by the
addition of a letter to the numeric score.
The Item Weights and Criticality Levels
tables list all H&S deficiencies with an
LT designation for those that are EHS
deficiencies and an NLT designation for
those that are non-life threatening. The
LT and NLT designations apply only to
severity level 3 deficiencies.
To ensure prompt correction, remedy
or action to abate of H&S deficiencies,
the inspector gives the project
representative a deficiency report
identifying every observed EHS
deficiency before the inspector leaves
the site. The project representative
acknowledges receipt of the deficiency
report by signature. HUD makes
available to all PHAs an inspection
report that includes information about
all of the H&S deficiencies recorded by
the inspector. The report shows:
• The number of H&S deficiencies
(EHS and NLT) that the inspector
observed;
• All observed smoke detector
deficiencies; and
• A projection of the total number of
H&S problems that the inspector
potentially would see in an inspection
of all buildings and all units.
If there are smoke detector
deficiencies, the physical conditions
score will include an asterisk. However,
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
63644
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
problems with smoke detectors do not
currently affect the overall score. When
there is an asterisk indicating that the
project has at least one smoke detector
deficiency, that part of the score may be
identified as ‘‘risk;’’ for example, ‘‘93a,
risk’’ for 93a*, and ‘‘71c, risk’’ for 71c*.
There are six distinct letter grade
combinations based on the H&S
deficiencies and smoke detector
deficiencies observed: a, a*, b, b*, c, and
c*. For example:
• A score of 90c* means that the
project contains at least one EHS
deficiency to be corrected, including at
least one smoke detector deficiency, but
is otherwise in excellent condition.
• A score of 40b* means the project
is in poor condition, has at least one
non-life threatening deficiency, and has
at least one missing or inoperable smoke
detector.
• A score of 55a means that the
project is in poor condition, even
though there are no H&S deficiencies.
• A project in excellent physical
condition with no H&S deficiencies
would have a score of 90a to 100a.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6. Scoring Process Elements
The physical condition scoring
process is based on three elements
within each project: (1) Five inspectable
areas (site, exterior, systems, common
areas, and dwelling units); (2)
inspectable items in each inspectable
area; and (3) observed deficiencies.
7. Scoring Using Weighted Averages
The score for a property is the
weighted average of the five inspectable
area scores, where area weights are
adjusted to account for all of the
inspectable items that are actually
present to be inspected. In turn, area
scores are calculated by using weighted
averages of sub-area scores (e.g.,
building area scores for a single building
or unit scores for a single unit) for all
sub-areas within an area.
For all areas except the site,
normalized sub-area weights are
determined using the size of sub-areas,
the items available for inspection, and
the sub-area’s probability of selection
for inspection. Sub-area scores are
determined by deducting points for
deficiencies, including H&S
deficiencies, based on the importance
(weight) of the item, the criticality of the
deficiency, and the severity of the
deficiency. The maximum deduction for
a single deficiency cannot exceed the
point cap for the inspectable area where
the deficiency is observed and a subarea score cannot be less than zero.
Also, points will be deducted only for
one deficiency of the same kind within
a sub-area. For example, if multiple
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
deficiencies for broken windows are
recorded, only the most severe
deficiency observed (or one of the most
severe, if there are multiple deficiencies
with the same level of severity) will
result in a point deduction.
8. Essential Weights and Levels
The process of scoring a project’s
physical condition depends on the
weights, levels, and associated values of
the following quantities:
• Weights for the 5 inspectable areas
(site, building exteriors, building
systems, common areas, and dwelling
units).
• Weights for inspectable items
within inspectable areas (8 to 17 per
area).
• Criticality levels (critical, very
important, important, contributes, and
slight contribution) plus their associated
values for deficiencies within areas
inspected.
• Severity levels (3, 2, and 1) and
their associated values for deficiencies.
• Health and safety deductions
(exigent/fire safety and non-life
threatening for all inspectable areas).
• Point loss cap, defined at the
inspectable area level.
to the other inspectable areas. The 15
percent is redistributed by totaling the
weights of other inspectable areas (15 +
15 + 20 + 35 = 85) and dividing the
weights of each by that amount (0.85,
which is 85% expressed as a decimal).
The modified weights are 17.6 percent,
17.6 percent and 23.5 percent, zero
percent, and 41.2 percent for site,
building exterior, building systems,
common areas, and units, respectively,
and they add up to 100 percent.
10. Area and Sub-Area Scores
For inspectable areas with sub-areas
(all areas except sites), the inspectable
area score is a weighted average of the
sub-area scores within that area. The
scoring protocol determines the amenity
weight for the site and each sub-area as
noted in Section VI.1 under the
definition for normalized sub-area
weight. For example, a property with no
fencing or gates in the inspectable area
of the site would have an amenity
weight of 90 percent or 0.9 (100 percent
minus 10 percent for lack of fencing and
gates), and a single dwelling unit with
all items available for inspection, except
a call-for-aid would have an amenity
weight of 0.98 or 98 percent (100
percent minus 2 percent for lack of call9. Normalized Area Weights
for-aid). A call-for-aid is a system
Area weights are used to obtain a
designed to provide elderly residents
weighted average of area scores. A
the opportunity to call for help in the
project’s overall physical condition
event of an emergency.
score is a weighted average of all
The amenity weight excludes all
inspectable area scores. The nominal
health and safety items. Each deficiency
weights are:
as weighted and normalized are
subtracted from the sub-area or siteWeight
weighted amenity score. Sub-area and
Inspectable area
(percent)
site area scores are further reduced for
Site ............................................
15 any observed health and safety
Building Exterior .......................
15 deficiencies. These deductions are taken
Building Systems ......................
20 at the site, building, or unit level. At
Common Areas .........................
15 this point, a control is applied to
Dwelling Units ...........................
35 prevent a negative site, building, or unit
score. The control ensures that no single
These weights are assigned for all
building or unit can affect an area score
inspections when all inspectable items
more than its weighted share.
are present for each area and for each
building and unit. All of the inspectable 11. Overall Project Score
items may not be present in every
The overall project score is the
inspectable area. When items are
weighted average of the five inspectable
missing in an area, the area weights are
area scores, with the five areas weighted
modified to reflect the missing items so
by their normalized weights.
that within that area they will add up
Normalized area weights reflect both the
to 100 percent. Area weights are
initial weights and the relative weights
recalculated when some inspectable
between areas of inspectable items
items are missing in one or more area(s). actually present. For reporting purposes,
Although rare, it is possible that an
the number of possible points is the
inspectable area could have no
normalized area weight adjusted by
inspectable items available; for example, multiplying by 100 so that the possible
there could be no common areas in the
points for the five areas add up to 100.
inspected residential buildings and no
In the Physical Inspection Report for
common buildings. In this case, the
each project that is sent to the PHA, the
weight of the ‘‘common areas’’ would be following items are listed:
zero percent and its original 15 percent
• Normalized weights as the
weight would be equitably redistributed ‘‘possible points’’ by area;
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
63645
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
• The area scores, taking into account
the points deducted for observed
deficiencies;
• The deductions for H&S for each
inspectable area; and
• The overall project score.
The Physical Inspection Report allows
the PHA and the project manager to see
the magnitude of the points lost by
inspectable area and the impact on the
score of the H&S deficiencies.
reduced by the application of the point
loss cap. Although interim results in the
examples are rounded to one decimal,
only the final results are rounded for
actual calculations.
Following this section, another
example is given specifically for public
housing projects to show how project
scores are rolled up into the PHAS
physical indicator score for the PHA as
a whole.
12. Examples of Physical Condition
Score Calculations
Example #1. This example illustrates how
the score for a sub-area of building systems
is calculated based on the following features.
Consider a project for which the five
inspectable areas are present and during the
inspection of a residential building with 28
units missing/damaged/expired fire
extinguishers are observed. This deficiency
has a severity level of 3, which has a severity
weight of 1.00 (see Item 1 of this section); a
criticality level of 5, which has a criticality
weight of 5 (see Item 1 of this section); and
an item weight of 15.5. The amount of the
points deducted is the item weight (15.5),
multiplied by the criticality weight (5),
multiplied by the severity weight (1), which
equals 77.5.
If this sub-area has all inspectable items,
the amenity weight for the sub-area adds to
100%. If missing/damaged/expired fire
extinguishers is the only deficiency observed,
the initial proportionate score for this subarea (building systems in building one) is the
amenity score minus the deficiency points,
normalized to a 100-point basis. In this
instance the initial proportionate sub-area
score is 100 ¥ 77.5 = 22.5 × (100 ÷ 100) =
22.5. Because the point deduction for the
missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers
is 77.5, this deficiency accounts for 77.5% of
the sub-area score. Additional deficiencies or
H&S deficiencies would be calculated in the
same manner and further decrease the subarea score, and if the result is less than zero
(a negative number) the score is set to zero.
The physical inspection scoring is
deficiency based. All projects start with
100 points. Each deficiency observed
reduces the score by an amount
dependent on the importance and
severity of the deficiency, the number of
buildings and units inspected, the
inspectable items actually present to be
inspected, and the relative weights
between inspectable items and
inspectable areas.
The calculation of a physical
condition score is illustrated in the
examples provided below. The
examples go through a number of
interim stages in calculating the score,
illustrating how sub-area scores are
calculated for a single project, how the
sub-area scores are rolled up into area
scores, how the point cap is applied,
and how area scores are combined to
calculate the overall project score. One
particular deficiency, missing/damaged/
expired fire extinguishers, is carried
through the example.
As will be seen, the deduction starts
as a percent of the sub-area. Then the
area score is decreased considerably in
the final overall project score since it is
averaged across other sub-areas
(building systems in the example) and
then averaged across the five
inspectable areas. Last, as applicable,
the points deducted due to the
observance of a particular deficiency are
Element
Associated value
Amenity Score ........
Deficiency points .....
100.0
77.5
Element
Associated value
Calculation for the
initial proportionate score.
Normalizing factor ...
Normalized Initial
sub-area score.
100.00 ¥ 77.5 = 22.5
Example #2. This example illustrates how
the building systems inspectable area score is
calculated from the sub-area score. Consider
a property with two buildings with the
following characteristics:
• Building One (from example #1 above):
—28 units
—100 percent amenity weight for items that
are present to be inspected in building
systems
—Building systems sub-area score is 22.5
points
• Building Two:
—2 units
—62 percent amenity weight for items that
are present to be inspected in the
building’s systems
—Building systems sub-area score is 100.0
points
The score for the building systems area is
the weighted average of the individual scores
for each building’s systems. Each building
systems score is weighted by the number of
units and the percent of the weight for items
present to be inspected in the building
systems inspectable area.
The building systems area score is
determined as follows. First, the unit
weighted average for each building is
computed by multiplying the number of
units in the building by the amenity weight
for that building. The unit weighted average
for each building then is divided by the total
of the building weights for all buildings in
the property to determine the proportion of
building weight for each building.
Multiplying the proportion of building
weight by the initial sub-area score for the
building produces the building systems area
score. The building systems area score for the
property is the sum of the building systems
area score for each building.
In this example, the buildings systems area
score for the property is 25.7.
Number
of units
Building
100 ÷ 100 = 1
22.5 × 1 = 22.5
×
Amenity
weight
=
Unit
weighted
average
One .....................................................................................................................................................
Two .....................................................................................................................................................
28
2
1.00
.62
28.0
1.24
Total .............................................................................................................................................
30
................
29.24
÷
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Unit weighted average
Sum of
building
weights
28.0 .............................................................................................................................................................
1.24 .............................................................................................................................................................
29.24
29.24
29.24
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:11 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
=
Proportion
of building
weight
.958
.042
63646
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Initial sub-area
score
×
Proportion of building weight
.958 .........................................................................................................................................................
.042 .........................................................................................................................................................
Building systems area
score
=
building weight allocated to building one, or
77.5 × .958 = 74.2.
Example #3. This example illustrates how
the overall weighted average for the building
systems area amenity weight is calculated.
The unit weighted average of amenity weight
for each building is computed by dividing
the unit weighted average for the building (as
calculated in example #2) by the total
Unit
weighted
average
Building
Total
units in
property
÷
=
21.5
4.2
..........................
As shown in the calculations above, the
proportion of building weight allocated to
building one is 95.8% (28.0 ÷ 29.24 = .958).
A building systems area score of 25.7
indicates that the point deduction for the
missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers
in building one is 74.2 points: The number
of points deducted at the sub-area (from
example #1) multiplied by the proportion of
22.5
100.0
25.7
number of units in the property. Normalizing
the unit weighted average of amenity weights
for each building by multiplying by 100
results in the overall building systems
weighted average amenity weight. In this
example, the overall building systems
weighted average amenity weight for the
property is 97.4.
Unit
weighted
average
of amenity
weights
×
Normalized
to a 100
point basis
Overall building systems
weighted average amenity
weight
=
One ................................................................................
Two ................................................................................
28.0
1.24
30
30
.933
.041
100
100
93.3
4.1
Total .......................................................................
29.24
................
..................
....................
97.4
Example #4. This example illustrates how
the score for a property is calculated.
Consider a property with the following
characteristics. All of the values are
presumed except for the values buildings
systems which were calculated in the
preceding examples.
• Site
—Score: 90 points
—67.5 percent weighted average amenity
weight
—Nominal area weight: 15 percent
• Building Exteriors
—Score: 85 points
—100 percent weighted average amenity
weight
—Nominal area weight: 15 percent
• Building Systems (from Examples 2 and
3)
—Score: 25.7 points
—97.4 percent weighted average amenity
weight
—Nominal area weight: 20 percent
• Common Areas
—Score: 77 points
—20 percent weighted average amenity
weight
—Nominal area weight: 15 percent
• Dwelling Units
—Score: 85 points
—94 weighted average amenity weight
—Nominal area weight: 35 percent
To calculate the property score, the
adjusted area weights for all five inspectable
areas are determined. The amenity weights
for each of the five inspectable areas shown
in the table below are all presumed, except
for the amenity weight for building systems
Nominal
area
weight
Inspectable area
Amenity
weight
×
=
Amenity
weighted
average
÷
that was calculated in the three examples
above.
The property score is determined as
follows. The amenity weighted average is
computed by multiplying the nominal area
weight for the inspectable area (see Item 1 of
this Section) by the amenity weight
(presumed for the example). Next, the
amenity weighted averages for the five
inspectable areas are added to determine the
total adjusted weight (80.5 in this example).
to determine the maximum possible points
for the inspectable area, each amenity
weighted average is divided by the total
adjusted weight and then multiplied by 100
to normalize the result. The sum of the five
maximum inspectable area points is the total
number of possible points for the property.
In this example, the maximum possible
points, 99.9, was rounded to 100.
Total
adjusted
weight
×
Normalized
to 100
point
scale
=
Maximum
possible
area points
15
15
20
15
35
0.675
1.00
0.974
0.20
0.94
10.1
15.0
19.5
3.0
32.9
80.5
80.5
80.5
80.5
80.5
100
100
100
100
100
12.5
18.6
24.2
3.7
40.9
Total ..................................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Site ...........................................................
Building Exterior ......................................
Building Systems .....................................
Common Areas ........................................
Dwelling Units ..........................................
..................
................
80.5
................
..................
100.0
Before the final property score is
calculated, the points deducted for each
deficiency are checked against the point loss
cap in the applicable inspectable area to
assure that no single deficiency results in the
deduction of too many points. For the
missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers
in building one, the points deducted under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
building systems will be the result of
multiplying the number of building systems
points deducted for the deficiency (74.2 as
determined in example #2) by the proportion
of total points allocated to the building
systems inspectable area (.242 from the table
above). In this example, the points deducted
for this deficiency would be 74.2 × .242 =
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18.0. Because the point loss cap for building
systems is 10 points, this 18.0 point
deduction exceeds the cap. Therefore, the
total points deducted due to the missing/
damaged/expired fire extinguishers
deficiency in building one is reduced to 10.
There are four steps to implement the point
deduction in the final score. First, the points
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
63647
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
lost at the area level are set. For this property,
the building systems points deducted due to
missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers
is set by dividing the point cap (10) by the
proportion of total points allocated to
building systems (.242), or 10 ÷.242 = 41.3.
Second, the building systems sub-area
weight for building one is set. This is
determined by dividing the points lost at the
area level (41.3) by the proportion of building
weight for building one (.958), or 41.3 ÷ .958
= 43.1
Third, the building one building systems
sub-area score is recalculated by summing
the building systems deficiencies in building
one. In example #1, the missing/damaged/
expired fire extinguishers is the only
deficiency in this sub-area. Therefore, the
Number
of units
Building
×
Amenity
weight
=
Unit
weighted
average
recalculated sub-area score for building one
building systems is the amenity score (100)
minus the building systems sub-area
deficiency points (43.1), or 100 ¥ 43.1 =
56.9.
The last step in the application of the point
loss cap is the determination of the building
systems area score for the property.
Sum
of the
building
weights
÷
×
Initial
proportionate
score
=
Building
systems
area score
One ...........................................................
Two ...........................................................
28
2
1.00
0.62
28.0
1.24
29.24
29.24
56.9
100.0
54.5
4.2
Total ..................................................
30
................
29.24
................
..................
58.7
The recalculated building systems area
score is 58.7 points, and will be rounded to
59. This area score is used to calculate the
overall property score.
The nominal possible points for each
inspectable area is multiplied by the amenity
weight, divided by the total adjusted amenity
weight, and normalized to a 100-point basis,
in order to produce the possible points for
the inspectable area. The property score is
the sum of all weighted inspectable area
scores for that property. The example below
Area
points
Inspectable area
×
reflects how the missing/damaged/expired
fire extinguishers deficiency from example
#1 in building systems impacts the overall
property score. In this example, the property
score of 78.9 is rounded to 79.
Area
score
÷
Normalized
to a 100
point scale
=
Project
weighted
area scores
Site ............................................................................................................................
Building Exterior ........................................................................................................
Building Systems ......................................................................................................
Common Areas .........................................................................................................
Dwelling Units ...........................................................................................................
12.5
18.6
24.2
3.7
40.9
90
85
59
77
85
100
100
100
100
100
11.2
15.8
14.3
2.8
34.8
Total ...................................................................................................................
100.0
............
....................
78.9
13. Computing the PHAS Physical
Inspection Score
The physical inspection score for the
PHAS for a PHA is the weighted average
of the PHA’s individual project physical
inspection scores, where the weights are
the number of units in each project
divided by the total number of units in
all projects for the PHA.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Example: Project 1 has a score of 79 and
has 30 units (from the example above)
Project 2 has a score of 88 and has 600
units.
The overall PHAS score is computed as
follows:
Score = [79 × 30/(30+600)] + [88 × 600/
(30+600)]
= 3.76 + 83.81
= 87.57 that rounds to an overall physical
inspection score of 88.
14. Examples of Sampling Weights for
Buildings
The determination of which buildings
will be inspected is a two-phase
process. In Phase 1 of the process, all
common buildings and buildings that
contain sampled dwelling units that
will be inspected are included in the
sampled buildings that will be
inspected. (Dwelling units are sampled
with equal probabilities at random from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
all buildings.) When all buildings in a
project are not selected in the building
sample through Phase 1, Phase 2 is used
to increase the size of the building
sample. In Phase 2, the additional
buildings that are to be included in the
sample are selected with equal
probabilities so that the total residential
building sample size is the lesser of
either (1) the dwelling unit sample size,
or (2) the number of residential
buildings.
To illustrate the process for sampling
buildings, two examples are provided
below:
Example #1. This example illustrates a
project with two buildings for which both
buildings are sampled with certainty.
Building 1 has 10 dwelling units and
building 2 has 20 dwelling units, for a total
of 30 dwelling units. The target dwelling unit
sample size for a project with 30 dwelling
units is 15. Thus, the sampling ratio for this
project is the total number of dwelling units
divided by the unit sample size, or 30 ÷ 15
= 2. This means that every second dwelling
unit will be selected. The number of
residential buildings to be inspected is the
minimum of 15 (the dwelling unit sample)
and 2 (the number of residential buildings).
Thus, 2 residential buildings will be
inspected. Since both buildings have at least
2 dwelling units, both buildings are certain
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to be selected for inspection in Phase 1. Since
all buildings were selected in Phase 1 of
sampling, Phase 2 is not invoked. Both
buildings will then have a selection
probability of 1.00 and a sampling weight of
1.00.
Example #2. This example illustrates a
project with some buildings selected in Phase
1, other buildings selected in Phase 2, and
some buildings that are not selected at all.
The project is comprised of 22 residential
buildings. Two of the buildings each have 10
dwelling units and the other 20 buildings are
single-family dwelling units, for a total of 40
dwelling units (2 × 10) + 20 = 40. The target
dwelling unit sample size for a project with
40 dwelling units is 16. The sampling ratio
for this project is the total number of units
divided by the unit sample size, or 40 ÷16
= 2.5. In accordance with the inspection
protocol of inspecting the minimum of the
dwelling unit sample (16) and the number of
residential buildings (22), 16 of the
residential buildings will be inspected for
this project.
In Phase 1 of sampling, the two buildings
with 10 dwelling units are selected with
certainty since each building has more than
2.5 dwelling units. Each of the single-family
buildings has a 1 ÷ 2.5 or 0.40 probability of
selection in Phase 1.
Assume that both multi-unit buildings and
eight of the single-family buildings (10
buildings in all) are selected in Phase 1. This
leaves 12 single-family buildings available
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
63648
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
for selection in Phase 2. Since 16 residential
buildings will be inspected, the sample of 10
buildings selected in Phase 1 falls six
buildings short of a full sample. Therefore,
six buildings will be selected in Phase 2.
Since Phase 2 sampling will select 6 of the
12 previously unselected buildings, each
building not selected in Phase 1 will have a
six in 12 (0.50) probability of selection in
Phase 2.
The two multi-unit buildings each have a
sampling probability calculated as follows:
Sampling probability = 1.00 + ((1.00¥1.00)
× 0.50) = 1.00. The sampling weight for these
buildings is 1.
The single-family buildings each have a
sampling probability calculated as follows:
Sampling probability = 0.40 + ((1.00¥0.40)
× 0.50) = 0.70. The sampling weight of
selected single-family buildings is 1 ÷ 0.70 =
1.43.
15. Accessibility Questions
HUD reviews particular elements
during the physical inspection to
determine possible indications of
noncompliance with the Fair Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 3601–3619) and section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794). More specifically, during
the physical inspection, the inspector
will record if: (1) There is a wheelchairaccessible route to and from the main
ground floor entrance of the buildings
inspected; (2) the main entrance for
every building inspected is at least 32
inches wide, measured between the
door and the opposite door jamb; (3)
there is an accessible route to all
exterior common areas; and (4) for
multi-story buildings that are inspected,
the interior hallways to all inspected
units and common areas are at least 36
inches wide. These items are recorded,
but do not affect the score.
IV. Environmental Review
This notice provides operating
instructions and procedures in
connection with activity under the
Public Housing Assessment System
regulations at 24 DFR part 902 that have
previously been subject to the required
environmental review. Accordingly,
under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(4), this notice is
categorically excluded from
environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Dated: September 26, 2011.
Sandra B. Henriquez,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing.
Appendix I—Proposed Changes to
Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions
Inspectable item
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
Proposed definition
1. Building Exterior.
Walls .................
Damaged Chimneys.
The chimney, including the
part that extends above
the roofline, has separated from the wall or
has cracks, spalling,
missing pieces, or broken sections.
2. Building Exterior.
Windows ...........
The chimney, including the
part that extends above
the roofline, has separated from the wall or
has cracks, spalling,
missing pieces, or broken sections (including
chimney caps).
Window systems provide
light, security, and exclusion of exterior noise,
dust, heat, and cold.
Frame materials include
wood, aluminum, vinyl,
etc. Note removed.
3. Building Exterior.
Windows ...........
Security Bars
Prevent
Egress.
4. Building Exterior.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Inspectable area
Windows ...........
Missing/Deteriorated Caulking/Seals/
Glazing Compound.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Window systems provide
light, security, and exclusion of exterior noise,
dust, heat, and cold.
Frame materials include
wood, aluminum, vinyl,
etc.
Note: This does not include
windows that have defects noted from inspection from inside the unit.
Exiting (egress) is severely
limited or impossible, because security bars are
damaged or improperly
constructed or installed.
The caulking or glazing
compound that resists
weather is missing or deteriorated.
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Exiting (egress) is severely
limited or impossible, because security bars are
damaged or improperly
constructed or installed.
Security bars that are
designed to open
should open. If they do
not open, record a deficiency.
The caulking or glazing
compound that resists
weather is missing or deteriorated.
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
Change rationale
This is a technical modification to include deficiencies for chimney
caps as a Level 1 deficiency.
This provision eliminates
the confusion of inspecting some windows on exterior and other windows
on interior. Windows are
now inspected on the exterior and interior of inspected units. However,
only interior observations
are scored.
This is a clarification and
definitional change that
provides language regarding scoring a deficiency for security bars
that open. This change
also rewrites the Level 3
definition for clarity.
The definition for this deficiency is unchanged.
Now interior observations
only will be scored and
the Level 2 deficiency
will be lowered to a Level
1, since the deficiency
only indicates superficial
deterioration and not
damage to the frame or
structure itself.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Inspectable item
5. Building Exterior.
Windows ...........
Peeling/Needs
Paint.
6. Building Systems.
Exhaust System
Roof Fans Inoperable.
7. Building Systems.
HVAC ...............
8. Building Systems.
HVAC ...............
Boiler/Pump
Leaks.
Water or steam is escaping
from unit casing or system piping.
9. Common
Areas.
Ceiling ...............
Bulging/Buckling
A ceiling is bowed, deflected, sagging, or is no
longer aligned horizontally.
10. Common
Areas.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Inspectable area
Ceiling ...............
Holes/Missing
Tiles/Panels/
Cracks.
The ceiling surface has
punctures that may or
may not penetrate completely. -orPanels or tiles are missing
or damaged.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
Proposed definition
Change rationale
Paint covering the window
assembly or trim is
cracking, flaking, or otherwise failing. -orThe window Note: This
does not include windows that are not intended to be painted assembly or trim is not
painted or is exposed to
the elements.
The ventilation system to
exhaust kitchen or bathroom air does not function.
Paint covering the window
assembly or trim is
cracking, flaking, or otherwise failing. -orThe window Note: This
does not include windows that are not intended to be painted assembly or trim is not
painted or is exposed to
the elements.
The ventilation system to
exhaust air from building areas (such as
kitchen, bathroom, etc.)
does not function.
Note:
1. The inspector shall determine if the fan is
event activated (example: fire, timer, etc.)—if
so, there is no deficiency.
2. ‘‘Missing’’ only refers to
the case where there
was a fan to begin with.
If a fan was not included
in the design, do not
record a deficiency for
not having one.
Portion of the building system that provides ability
to heat or cool the air
within the building. Includes equipment such
as boilers, burners, furnaces, fuel supply, hot
water and steam distribution, centralized air
conditioning systems,
and associated piping,
filters, and equipment.
Also includes air handling equipment and associated ventilation ducting.
Coolant, water, or steam is
escaping from unit casing and/or pump packing/system piping.
The definition is unchanged
but now only interior observations will be scored.
Portion of the building system that provides ability
to heat or cool the air
within the building. Includes equipment such
as boilers, burners, furnaces, fuel supply, hot
water and steam distribution, and associated piping, filters, and equipment. Also includes air
handling equipment and
associated ventilation
ducting.
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
63649
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A ceiling is bowed, deflected, sagging, or is no
longer aligned horizontally to the extent
that ceiling failure is
possible.
The ceiling surface has
punctures that may or
may not penetrate completely. -orPanels or tiles are missing
or damaged.
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
This definitional clarification
provides language to indicate that there is the
possibility that the inspector may encounter
exhaust fans in other
building areas besides
the kitchen or bathroom.
This definitional clarification
ensures that there is sufficient language added to
clarify that the deficiency
would include the
functionality of the cooling system.
This change adds language to clarify that this
deficiency also covers
the use of non-water
coolants in building
HVAC systems.
Phrase added to definition
to indicate the imminent
possibility of material or
building component failure.
This is a technical modification that ensures the
deficiency would include
cracking in ceiling materials. Level 1 and Level 3
definitions were modified
to include reference to
cracks and the last section of Level 2 was deleted.
63650
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Inspectable item
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
Proposed definition
Change rationale
11. Common
Areas.
Ceiling ...............
Mold ..................
You see evidence of water
infiltration, mold, or mildew that may have been
caused by saturation or
surface failure.
You see evidence of water
infiltration, or other
moisture producing
conditions causing
mold or mildew that may
have been caused by
saturation or surface failure.
12. Common
Areas.
Floors ................
Hard Floor Covering Missing
Flooring/Tiles.
You see that flooring—terrazzo, hardwood, ceramic tile, or other flooring material—is missing.
Floors ................
Soft Floor Covering Damaged.
You see damage to carpet
tiles, wood, sheet vinyl,
or other floor covering.
You see that hard flooring—terrazzo, hardwood,
ceramic tile, sheet vinyl,
vinyl tiles, or other similar flooring material—is
missing section(s), or
presents a tripping or
cutting hazard, associated with but not limited to holes or
delamination.
You see damaged and
missing carpet.
This technical modification
acknowledges that other
possible sources of
moisture beyond water
infiltration contribute to
mold and mildew growth.
Further, the Level 2 definition is eliminated and
there are now technical
modifications to the Levels for this type of deficiency.
This deficiency definition
now will include a technical modification to
specify additional types
of flooring that should be
considered and the various types of defects the
inspector should observe.
13. Common
Areas.
14. Common
Areas.
FHEO ................
Routes Obstructed or Inaccessible to
Wheelchair.
Verify that routes to all outside common areas are
accessible to wheelchairs (i.e., there are
curb cuts, ramps, and
sufficient (36″) width).
15. Common
Areas.
Floors ................
Rot/Deteriorated
Subfloor.
The subfloor has decayed
or is decaying.
16. Common
Areas.
HVAC ................
Inoperable ........
17. Common
Areas.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Inspectable area
HVAC ................
Noisy, Vibrating,
Leaking.
The heating, cooling, or
ventilation system does
not function.
Note:
1. If the HVAC system is
not functioning because
it is not the right season,
do not record this as a
deficiency.
2. Statement may be validated by resident survey
process.
The HVAC distribution
components, including
fans, are the source of
abnormal noise, unusual
vibrations, or leaks.
18. Common
Areas.
Dishwasher/Gar- Inoperable ........
bage Disposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
A dishwasher or garbage
disposal, if provided,
does not function as it
should.
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Verify that at least one
route to all outside common areas is accessible
to wheelchairs (i.e., there
are curb cuts, ramps,
and sufficient (36″)
width).
The subfloor has decayed
or is decaying.
Note:
1. If there is any doubt,
apply weight to detect
noticeable deflection.
2. This type of defect typically occurs in kitchens
and bathrooms.
The heating, cooling, or
ventilation system does
not function.
Note: If the HVAC system
does not operate because of seasonal conditions, do not record this
as a deficiency.
The HVAC distribution
components, including
fans, are the source of
unusual vibrations,
leaks, or abnormal
noise. Examples may
include, but are not
limited to: screeching,
squealing, banging,
shaking, etc.
A dishwasher or garbage
disposal, if provided,
does not function.
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
This is a definitional
change that simplifies
the definition of the deficiency to focus on just
carpeting.
This is a modification and
clarification of the deficiency definition to reflect
FHEO and other Federal
requirements as they relate to handicapped accessibility.
This is a clarification aimed
at simplifying the deficiency language for
Level 2 and 3 deficiencies for decaying
subfloors.
This is a clarification of the
deficiency language.
This definitional change allows for the inclusion of
examples of deficiencies
to help give the inspector
a better understanding of
specific types of damage
to the property.
This is a clarification of the
definition.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
63651
Inspectable area
Inspectable item
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
Proposed definition
Change rationale
19. Common
Areas.
Walls .................
Damaged ..........
You see punctures in the
wall surface that may or
may not penetrate completely. Panels or tiles
may be missing or damaged.
Note: This does not include
small holes from hanging
pictures, etc.
This change is a technical
modification to the definition of a wall deficiency.
The change makes it
clear that cracks are
considered a deficiency
and that control/construction joints are not considered a deficiency.
20. Common
Areas.
Range Hood/Exhaust Fans.
Excessive
Grease/Inoperable.
The apparatus that draws
out cooking exhaust
does not function as it
should.
You see cracks and/or
punctures in the wall surface that may or may not
penetrate completely.
Panels or tiles may be
missing or damaged.
Note:
1. This does not include
small holes from hanging
pictures, etc.
2. Control joints/construction joints should not be
recorded as a deficiency.
The apparatus that draws
out cooking exhaust
does not function.
Graffiti ...............
You see crude inscriptions
or drawings scratched,
painted, or sprayed on a
building surface, retaining wall.
21. Common
Areas.
You see crude inscriptions
or drawings scratched,
painted, or sprayed on
an interior building surface at one location. An
interior surface includes
but is not limited to walls,
doors, ceiling, and floors.
A location is defined as
one general area in a
building such as one
hallway in a 10 story
building or one floor of a
stairwell in a 5 story
building.
Note: There is a difference
between art forms and
graffiti. If there by design
in accordance with proper authorization, do not
consider full wall murals
and other art forms as
graffiti.
You see a component of
You see a component of
the system with deteriothe system with deterioration from oxidation or
ration from oxidation or
corrosion of system parts.
corrosion of system
parts. Deterioration is
defined as rust, and/or
formations of metal oxides, flaking, or discoloration, or a pit or
crevice.
The heating, cooling, or
The heating, cooling, or
ventilation system does
ventilation system does
not function.
not function.
HVAC ................
General Rust/
Corrosion.
23. Units ...........
HVAC System ..
Inoperable ........
24. .....................
Units .................
HVAC ................
Misaligned Chimney/Ventilation.
The exhaust system on a
gas-fired unit is misaligned.
25. Units ...........
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22. Units ...........
Kitchen .............
Range Hood/Exhaust Fans—
Excessive
grease/inoperable.
The apparatus that draws
out cooking exhaust
does not function as it
should.
The apparatus that draws
out cooking exhaust
does not function.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
This clarification modifies
the Level 1 definition to
include other conditions
that could impede air
flow.
This definition change adds
to the definition in order
to specify the number
and location of occurrences of graffiti as well
as exclude certain types
of sanctioned wall art.
This change adds language that clearly and
adequately defines the
definition for deterioration.
This is simply the addition
of a word to the Level 3
deficiency to correct a
grammatical error.
The exhaust system on either a gas, oil fired, or
coal unit is misaligned.
This is a definitional
change that includes the
oil fired and coal fired
chimney units within the
scope of this deficiency.
The definition is modified
for a Level 1 deficiency
to include other conditions that could impede
air flow.
63652
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Inspectable item
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
26. Units ...........
Call-for-Aid ........
Inoperable ........
The system does not function as it should.
27. Site .............
Fencing and
Gates.
Holes/Missing
Sections/Damaged/Falling/
Leaning.
A fence or gate is rusted,
deteriorated, or uprooted
which may threaten security, health, or safety.
Note: Gates for swimming
pool fences are covered
in another section,
‘‘Common Areas—Pools
and Related Structures’’.
28. Site .............
Fencing and
Gates.
Holes ................
29. Site .............
Grounds ............
Ponding/Site
Drainage.
30. Site .............
Parking Lots/
Driveways/
Roads.
Cracks ..............
There is an opening or
penetration in any fence
or gate designed to keep
intruders out or children
in. Look for holes that
could allow animals to
enter or could threaten
the safety of children.
Water or ice has collected
in a depression or on
ground where ponding
was not intended.
There are visible faults in
the pavement: longitudinal, lateral, alligator,
etc.
31. Site .............
Parking Lots/
Driveways/
Roads.
Ponding ............
Water or ice has accumulated in a depression on
an otherwise flat plane.
32. Site .............
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Inspectable area
Parking Lots/
Driveways/
Roads.
Potholes/Loose
Material .............
A hole caused by road surface failure -orLoose, freestanding aggregate material caused by
deterioration.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed definition
Change rationale
The system does not func- This clarification informs
tion
the inspector on the seNote: Inspector should
quencing of their inspecverify that the Call-fortion of the Call-for-Aid
Aid only alerts local entiand removes an unnecties (on-site) prior to testessary and confusing
ing.
phrase.
Anon-security/non-safety This definitional change
(example: Privacy/Decosplits the fence defirative) fence or gate is
ciency definition into two
rusted, deteriorated, updistinct types of fences:
rooted, missing or connontains holes.
security/non-safety
Notes:
fences and security/safe1. Gates for swimming pool
ty type fences or gates.
fences are covered in
This definition incoranother section, ‘‘Site
porates the deficiency
Fencing and Gates—Sedefinition entitled ‘Fenccurity’’.
ing and Gates—Holes’.
2. Fences designed for Security/Safety are addressed under Security
Fences: A security/safety
(i.e.: Perimeter/Security)
fence or gate is rusted,
deteriorated, uprooted or
missing such that it may
threaten security, health
or safety.
A security/safety (i.e.: Perimeter/Security) fence or
gate is rusted, deteriorated, uprooted or missing such that it may
threaten security, health
or safety.
This definition no longer
This previous stand-alone
stands alone because it
definition is incorporated
was included in the preinto the deficiency definivious definition: Site
tion entitled ‘Fencing
Fencing and Gates—
and Gates—Holes/
Holes/Missing Sections/
Missing Sections/DamDamaged/Falling/Leaning.
aged/Falling/Leaning’.
Water or ice has collected
in a depression or on
ground where ponding
was not intended.
There are visible faults in
the pavement: longitudinal, lateral, alligator,
etc. The pavement sinks
or rises because of the
failure of sub base materials.
Water or ice has accumulated in a depression on
an otherwise flat plane.
Definition consolidated into
a new definition entitled
‘‘Damaged Paving’’.
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
This definitional change
specifies area parameters in Level 2 and 3
definitions.
This definition is now incorporated into a new definition entitled ‘‘Damaged Paving’’.
This definitional change removes a note considered
obsolete and also more
clearly states Level 2
and 3 definitions to more
clearly specify water
depth parameters.
This definition is now incorporated into a new definition entitled ‘‘Damaged Paving’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Inspectable item
33. Site .............
Parking Lots/
Driveways/
Roads.
Settlement/
Heaving
34. Site .............
Retaining Walls
Damaged/Falling/Leaning.
35. Site .............
Walkways and
Steps.
Cracks/Settlement/Heaving.
36. Health and
Safety.
Air Quality .........
Mold and Mildew.
37. Health and
Safety.
Air Quality .........
38. Health and
Safety.
39. Health and
Safety.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Inspectable area
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
Proposed definition
Change rationale
The pavement sinks or
rises because of the failure of sub base materials.
Note: If you see that water
or ice has collected in
the depression, record
this under Ponding.
A retaining wall structure is
deteriorated, damaged,
falling, or leaning.
Definition consolidated into
a new definition entitled
‘‘Damaged Paving’’.
This definition is now incorporated into a new definition entitled ‘‘Damaged Paving’’.
A retaining wall structure is
deteriorated, damaged,
falling, or leaning.
The Level 2 deficiency has
been lowered to a Level
1 deficiency since it indicates only superficial deterioration to the retaining wall and not compromised structural integrity.
The definition now no
longer would include
Note 4, since it was
vague and did not always apply.
Visible faults in the pavement: longitudinal, lateral, alligator, etc. -orPavement that sinks or
rises because of the failure of sub base materials.
You see evidence of mold
or mildew, especially in
bathrooms and air outlets.
Visible faults in the pavement: longitudinal, lateral, alligator, etc. -orPavement that sinks or
rises because of the failure of sub base materials.
You see evidence of water
infiltration or other moisture producing condition
that causes mold, or mildew.
Note: If the area has at
least 1 square foot of
mold or mildew, record it
as a deficiency.
Sewer Odor Detected.
You detect sewer odors
that could pose a health
risk if inhaled for prolonged periods.
You detect sewer odors. ....
Electrical Hazards.
Exposed Wires/
Open Panels.
You see exposed bare
wires or openings in
electrical panels.
Note: If the accompanying
authority has identified
abandoned wiring,
capped wires do not
pose a risk and should
not be recorded as a deficiency.
Emergency/Fire
Exits.
Missing Exit
Signs.
Exit signs that clearly identify all emergency exits
are missing. -orThere is no illumination in
the area of the sign.
You see exposed bare
wires or openings in
electrical panels
Note:
1. If the accompanying
property representative
has identified abandoned
wiring, capped wires do
not pose a risk and
should not be recorded
as a deficiency. They
must be enclosed in a
junction box as defined
in Note 2 below.
2. If the capped wires are
not properly enclosed in
a junction box, record as
a deficiency.
Exit signs that clearly identify all emergency exits
are missing. -orThere is no adjacent or
other internal illumination in operation on or
near the sign.
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
63653
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
This is a definitional
change that includes
other causes of moisture
such as water infiltration,
which would ultimately
lead to the growth of
mold or mildew. It also
clarifies the area and extent of damage necessary to record the deficiency.
This simplifies the definition
to allow for any sewer
odor to be considered a
deficiency, instead of requiring the inspector to
make a subjective judgment on whether the
odor could pose a health
risk.
This clarification adds additional notes on conditions under which
capped wires would be
considered a deficiency
and which can be accepted.
This clarification defines
more explicitly what
types of illumination exit
signs ought to have (adjacent or internal) instead
of the vague phrase
‘area’.
63654
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 198 / Thursday, October 13, 2011 / Notices
Inspectable area
Inspectable item
40. Health and
Safety.
Flammable Materials.
41. Health and
Safety.
Hazards ............
Deficiency
Current 2.3 definition
Proposed definition
Improperly
Stored.
Flammable materials are
improperly stored, causing the potential risk of
fire or explosion.
Tripping .............
You see any physical defect that poses a tripping
risk, generally in walkways or other traveled
areas.
Note: This does not include
tripping hazards from
elevators that do not
level properly. For this
deficiency, see Elevator—Tripping, under
Health and Safety.
Flammable or combustible
materials are improperly
stored near a heat or
electrical source, causing
the potential risk of fire
or explosion.
Note: Flammable or combustible materials may
include but are not limited to Gasoline, Paint
Thinners, Kerosene, Propane, paper, boxes, etc.
You see any physical defect that poses a tripping
risk, generally in walkways or other traveled
areas. Typically, the defect must present at
least a three-quarter
inch deviation.
Note: This does not include
tripping hazards from
elevators that do not
level properly. For this
deficiency, see Elevator—Tripping, under
Health and Safety.
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
https://www.gomr.boem.gov/homepg/
pubinfo/MapsandSpatialData.html.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dated: October 5, 2011.
L. Renee Orr,
Chief, Strategic Resources.
[FR Doc. 2011–26516 Filed 10–12–11; 8:45 am]
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
[FR Doc. 2011–26503 Filed 10–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
Outer Continental Shelf Official
Protraction Diagram, Lease Maps, and
Supplemental Official Outer
Continental Shelf Block Diagrams
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), Interior.
ACTION: Availability of revised North
American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27)
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Official
Protraction Diagram (OPD), Lease Maps,
and Supplemental Official OCS Block
Diagrams (SOBDs); Correction.
AGENCY:
BOEM (formerly the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement) published
a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR
54787) on September 2, 2011, entitled
‘‘OCS Official Protraction Diagram,
Lease Maps, and Supplemental Official
OCS Shelf Block Diagrams’’ that
contained an error. This notice corrects
the address of the Web site where the
revised maps can be found.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Textoris, Acting Chief, Leasing
Division at (703) 787–1223 or via email
at Steven.Textoris@boem.gov.
Correction: Copies of the revised OPD,
Lease Maps, and SOBDs are available
for download in .pdf format from
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Oct 12, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Request for Nominations of Members
To Serve on the Bureau of Indian
Education Advisory Board for
Exceptional Children
Bureau of Indian Education,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Request for
Nominations.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.,
Appendix 2, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA) of 2004, (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.)
the Bureau of Indian Education requests
nominations of individuals to serve on
the Advisory Board for Exceptional
Children (Advisory Board). There are
seven positions available. The Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE) will consider
nominations received in response to this
Request for Nominations, as well as
other sources. The SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for this notice
provides Advisory Board and
membership criteria.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Change rationale
This clarification adds a
Note to the definition to
provide guidance on
what may constitute
flammable materials.
This clarification adds language to provide a clear
understanding of how
large the deviation within
a walkway must be to be
considered a tripping
hazard.
Nominations must be received
on or before November 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations
to Sue Bement, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), Bureau of Indian
Education, Albuquerque Service Center,
Division of Performance and
Accountability, P.O. Box 1088,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103–1088.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue
Bement, Education Specialist, telephone
(505) 563–5274.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Advisory Board was established in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, Public Law 92–463. The
following provides information about
the Advisory Board, the membership
and the nomination process.
DATES:
Objective and Duties
(a) Members of the Advisory Board
will provide guidance, advice and
recommendations with respect to
special education and related services
for children with disabilities in Bureaufunded schools in accordance with the
requirements of IDEA of 2004.
(b) The Advisory Board will:
(1) Provide advice and
recommendations for the coordination
of services within the BIE and with
other local, state and Federal agencies;
(2) Provide advice and
recommendations on a broad range of
policy issues dealing with the provision
of educational services to American
Indian children with disabilities;
(3) Serve as advocates for American
Indian students with special education
E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM
13OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63640-63654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26516]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5526-N-01]
Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS): Proposed Physical
Condition Interim Scoring Notice
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice provides additional information to public housing
agencies (PHAs) and members of the public about HUD's process for
issuing scores under the Physical Condition Indicator of the PHAS under
the PHAS Physical Condition Scoring Process notice published on
February 23, 2011. This notice provides information to the public about
the implementation of a point loss cap in the scoring process. This
notice also proposes changes to definitions in the Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions that is an appendix to the PHAS notice on the
physical condition scoring process. These proposed changes would affect
the physical condition inspections process for both multifamily and
public housing properties. This notice also provides information about
the updated inspection software that will be used by inspector when
conducting inspection. The changes made in this notice are discussed in
the Supplementary Information section below.
DATES: Comment Due Date: November 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this
notice and the revised Definitions to be included in the Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions, attached to this notice as an appendix, to the
Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC
20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and
title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All
submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment,
ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters
and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must
be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again,
all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the
rule.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the
above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters
building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be
scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is
not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments
may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service,
toll-free, at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are
available for inspection and downloading at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia J. Yarus, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing,
Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC), 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100,
Washington, DC 20410 at 202-475-8830 (this is not a toll-free number).
Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose of This Notice
The purpose of this notice is to describe the physical condition
scoring process for the PHAS physical condition indicator. This notice
is different from,
[[Page 63641]]
and supersedes, the February 23, 2011 notice in that it: (1) Describes
the change to the scoring process through the implementation of a point
loss cap; (2) proposes changes to certain definitions in the Dictionary
of Deficiency Definitions; and (3) describes the updated inspection
software that will be used by inspectors when conducting REAC
inspections of HUD insured and assisted properties.
II. Background
1. Initial Changes to the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions
Since 2001, when the conference report on that fiscal year's
appropriations bill (H.R. Conf. Rep. 106-988) directed HUD to ``assess
the accuracy and effectiveness of the PHAS system and to take whatever
remedial steps may be needed,'' and to perform a statistically valid
test of PHAS, HUD has engaged in an extensive effort to ensure that the
dictionary of deficiency definitions were responsive to industry
concerns. HUD engaged a contractor, the Louis Berger group (the
contractor) to perform the requested study; the contractor produced a
final report in June, 2001, identifying 47 definitions in the
Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions, published as Appendix 2 to the
Public Housing Assessment System Physical Condition Scoring Process
notice published on November 26, 2001 (66 FR 59084) and recommended
modifications and minor changes to each.
From 2001 to 2002, HUD and the contractor met with representatives
from the multifamily industry, the public housing industry, and HUD's
own multifamily and public housing staff to conduct informal
discussions on proposed changes to various definitions in the
Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions. It was emphasized to the
participants that HUD was not seeking their opinions as a group or any
official recommendations. Informed by these discussions, HUD then
drafted the revisions to the definitions it proposed in a 2004 Federal
Register Notice for public comment (see 69 FR 12474, March 16, 2004).
The definitions for which changes were proposed were those that had
been identified as causing the greatest inconsistency among contract
inspectors. These proposed changes would affect the physical condition
inspection process for both multifamily and public housing properties.
2. System Development and Changes to PASS and the Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions
From 2004 to the present, HUD conducted an ongoing deliberative
process to develop an updated physical inspection system, including an
updated electronic system, that would incorporate the proposed changes
to the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions as well as an additional
equity principle. To that end, HUD utilized the information obtained
from the earlier consultations with industry groups. Accordingly, the
system development process began with the incorporation of the revised
Dictionary of Definitions, which the industry and other HUD
stakeholders supported. The process was furthered by repeated informal
industry contacts from 2004 to the present, which demonstrated to HUD
that these changes, while proposed in 2004, are still desired by the
industry and still address key areas of interest for the major actors.
This repeated confirmation has led HUD to conclude that the newly
developed system should incorporate the revised Dictionary of
Definitions, as well as an additional principle into the scoring
methodology and an updated inspection software tool.
3. Point Loss Cap
One of the major changes made in this notice is the addition of a
point loss cap. With the point loss cap, the scoring methodology would
take into account the disproportionate effect on scoring that a single
deficiency can have when there are relatively few buildings or units
that are inspected in a project. Until this point, the scoring
methodology has not accounted for this disproportionate effect in the
physical inspections scores. This is an issue that has been the subject
of repeated comments. These comments have been made consistently in the
appeals of PASS scores under the original PHAS Rule, in informal
communications with industry, and during industry conferences and
meetings in which HUD staff are represented and they continue to be
made by the industry members. In order to lessen this impact, HUD
developed a mechanism to cap the number of points that would be
deducted from the project score for any one deficiency.
This mechanism, a point loss cap set at the inspectable area level,
was developed in an effort to more precisely account for the impact of
a single deficiency on a property score. These long standing comments
on this component of the current scoring methodology, along with HUD's
internal analysis of the impact of the proposed change in scoring, has
led to the decision by HUD to add a point loss cap to the physical
inspection system.
4. DCD 4.0 Inspection Software
The DCD 4.0 is an updated inspection software that will replace the
aging DCD 2.3.3 software originally developed in 1997. In addition to
taking advantage of advances in technology, the core functionality of
the inspection software has been modified to improve data collection.
It employs a decision tree model that replaces the selection-based
model of recording observed deficiencies. The inspection protocol
remains unchanged, but the overall system includes the changes made to
the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions and the inclusion of a point
loss cap determined at the inspectable area level.
Incorporation of the revised definitions and point loss cap along
with the DCD 4.0 Inspection Software has led to an overall physical
inspection system broader in scope than what was proposed in the 2004
Federal Register Notice. As a result, HUD is once again publishing
proposed revisions to the Dictionary of Definitions for comment along
with the new proposed change of a point loss cap. The proposed
revisions to the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions are included as
Appendix 1 to this notice.
III. The Revised Physical Inspection Scoring Process
Substantive revisions to the physical scoring process proposed in
this notice include:
A definition is added for ``point loss cap'' following the
definition for ``normalized sub-area weight.''
Under section 3, ``equity principles,'' a paragraph is
added on the point loss cap.
Under section 5, ``health and safety deficiencies,''
language is added reflecting both remediation and action to abate the
deficiency; language relating to a deadline for transmittal of the
deficiency report is removed.
Under the same section, it is specified that if there are
smoke detector deficiencies, the physical inspection score will include
an asterisk.
Under section 7, ``scoring using weighted averages,''
language is added related to the point loss cap.
Under section 8, ``essential weights and levels,'' the
point loss cap is added to the bulleted list.
Under section 9, the title is revised to ``normalized area
weights'' and the description of the calculation is revised.
[[Page 63642]]
Under section 12, the examples of physical condition score
calculations are substantially revised.
Section 13, ``computing PHAS physical inspection scores,''
is revised.
The examples of sampling weights for buildings in section
14 are revised.
The PHAS physical inspection generates comprehensive results,
including physical inspection scores reported at the project level;
area level scores for each of the five physical inspection areas, as
applicable; and observations of deficiencies recorded electronically by
the inspector at the time of the inspection.
1. Definitions
The following are the definitions of the terms used in the physical
condition scoring process:
Criticality means one of five levels that reflect the relative
importance of the deficiencies for an inspectable item. Appendix 1
lists all deficiencies with their designated criticality levels, which
vary from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most critical. Based on the
criticality level, each deficiency has an assigned value that is used
in scoring. Those values are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticality Level Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical.............................................. 5 5.00
Very Important........................................ 4 3.00
Important............................................. 3 2.25
Contributes........................................... 2 1.25
Slight Contribution................................... 1 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the importance of the deficiency as reflected by its
criticality value, points are deducted from the project score. For
example, a clogged drain in the kitchen is more critical than a damaged
surface on a countertop. Therefore, more points will be deducted for a
clogged drain than for a damaged surface.
Deficiencies refer to specific problems that are recorded for
inspectable items, such as a hole in a wall or a damaged refrigerator
in the kitchen.
Inspectable area means any of the five major components of the
project: site, building exteriors, building systems, common areas, and
dwelling units.
Inspectable items refer to walls, kitchens, bathrooms, and other
features that are inspected in an inspectable area. The number of
inspectable items varies for each inspectable area, from 8 to 17.
Weights are assigned to each item to reflect their relative importance
and are shown in the Item Weights and Criticality Levels tables. The
tables refer to the weight of each item as the nominal item weight,
which is also known as the amenity weight.
Normalized area weight represents weights used with area scores to
calculate project-level scores. The weights are adjusted to reflect the
inspectable items actually present at the time of the inspection. These
weights are proportional, as follows:
For dwelling units, the area score is the weighted average
of sub-area scores for each unit, weighted by the total of item weights
present for inspection in each unit, which is referred to as the
amenity weight.
For common areas, the area score is the weighted average
of sub-area common area scores weighted by the total weights for items
available for inspection (or amenity weight) in each residential
building common area or common building. Common buildings refer to any
inspectable building that contains no dwelling units. All common
buildings are inspected.
For building exteriors or building systems, the area
scores are weighted averages of sub-area scores.
For sites, the area score is calculated as follows: (1)
The amenity weights found on a site, (2) minus deductions for
deficiencies, and (3) normalized to a 100-point scale.
Normalized sub-area weight means the weight used with sub-area
scores to compute an inspectable area score. These weights are
proportional:
For dwelling units, the item weight of amenities available
in the unit at the time of inspection is the amenity weight.
For common areas, the common area amenity weight is
divided by a building's probability of being selected for inspection.
All residential buildings with common areas may not be selected for
inspection; however, all buildings with common areas are used to
determine the amenity weight.
For building exterior and building systems, the building
exterior or building system amenity weight is multiplied by the
building's size (number of units) and then divided by its probability
of being selected for inspection.
For the site, there is no sub-area score. For each
project, there is a single site.
Note that dividing by a building's probability of being selected
for inspection is the same as multiplying by the probability weight
since the probability weight is 1 divided by the probability of being
selected for inspection.
Point loss cap is the maximum number of points that a single
deficiency can count against the overall property score. The point loss
cap for each inspectable area is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum point
deduction for a
Inspectable area single
deficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site.................................................. 7.5
Building Exterior..................................... 10.0
Building System....................................... 10.0
Common Areas.......................................... 10.0
Dwelling Units........................................ 5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project is used synonymously with the term ``property.''
Severity means one of three levels that reflect the extent of
damage associated with each deficiency, with values assigned as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity level Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..................................................... 1.00
2..................................................... 0.50
1..................................................... 0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Item Weights and Criticality Levels tables show the severity
levels that are possible for each deficiency. Based on the severity of
each deficiency, the score is reduced. Points deducted are calculated
by multiplying the item weight by the values for criticality and
severity, as described below. For specific definitions of each severity
level, see the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions.
Score means a number between 0 and 100 that reflects the physical
condition of a project, inspectable area, or sub-area. A property score
includes both an alphabetical and a numerical component. The number
represents an overall score for the basic physical condition of a
property, including points deducted for health and safety deficiencies
other than those associated with smoke detectors. The letter code
specifically indicates whether health and safety deficiencies were
detected, as shown in the chart below:
[[Page 63643]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health and safety deficiencies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No health and Life threatening Fire safety
Physical inspection score alphanumeric codes safety Non-life (LT)/exigent -------------------------------------
deficiencies threatening (NLT) health and safety No smoke detector Smoke detector
(EHS) problems problems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a........................................................ X ................. ................. X .................
a*....................................................... X ................. ................. ................. X
b........................................................ ................. X ................. X .................
b*....................................................... ................. X ................. ................. X
c........................................................ ................. ................. X X .................
c*....................................................... ................. ................. X ................. X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To record a health or safety problem, a letter is added to the
project score (a, b, or c) and to note that one or more smoke detectors
are inoperable or missing an asterisk (*) is added to the project
score. The project score for properties with LT deficiencies will have
a ``c'' whether or not there also are NLT deficiencies.
Sub-area means an area that will be inspected for all inspectable
areas except the site. For example, the building exterior for building
``2'' is a sub-area of the building exterior area. Likewise, unit ``5''
would be a sub-area of the dwelling units area. Each inspectable area
for each building in a property is treated as a sub-area.
2. Scoring Protocol
To generate accurate scores, the inspection protocol includes a
determination of the appropriate relative weights of the various
components of the inspection; that is, which components are the most
important, the next most important, and so on. For example, in the
building exterior area, a blocked or damaged fire escape is more
important than a cracked window, which is more important than a broken
light fixture. The Item Weights and Criticality Levels tables provide
the nominal weight of observable deficiencies by inspectable item for
each area/sub-area. The Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions provides a
definition for the severity of each deficiency in each area/sub-area.
3. Equity Principles
In addition to determining the appropriate relative weights,
consideration is also given to several issues concerning equity between
properties so that scores fairly assess all types of properties:
Proportionality. The scoring methodology includes an important
control that does not allow any sub-area scores to be negative. If a
sub-area, such as the building exterior for a given building, has so
many deficiencies that the sub-area score would be negative, the score
is set to zero. This control mechanism ensures that no single building
or dwelling unit can affect the overall score more than its
proportionate share of the whole.
Configuration of project. The scoring methodology takes into
account different numbers of units in buildings. To fairly score
projects with different numbers of units in buildings, the area scores
are calculated for building exteriors and systems by using weighted
averages of the sub-area scores, where the weights are based on the
number of units in each building and on the building's probability of
being selected for inspection. In addition, the calculation for common
areas includes the amenities existing in the residential common areas
and common buildings at the time of inspection.
Differences between projects. The scoring methodology also takes
into account that projects have different features and amenities. To
ensure that the overall score reflects only items that are present to
be inspected, weights to calculate area and project scores are adjusted
depending on how many items are actually there to be inspected.
Point loss cap. The scoring methodology further takes into account
that a single deficiency can have disproportionate effects on scoring
when there are relatively few buildings or units that are inspected in
a project. To mitigate any disproportionate impact, the number of
points deducted from the project score for any one deficiency is
capped. Point loss caps are set at the inspectable area level.
4. Deficiency Definitions
During a physical inspection of a project, the inspector looks for
deficiencies for each inspectable item within the inspectable areas,
such as the walls (the inspectable item) of a dwelling unit (the
inspectable area). Based on the observed condition, the Dictionary of
Deficiency Definitions defines up to the three levels of severity for
each deficiency: Level 1 (minor), Level 2 (major), and Level 3
(severe). The associated values are shown in the definition of
``severity'' in Section V.1. A specific criticality level, with
associated values as shown in that chart, is also assigned to each
deficiency. The criticality level reflects the importance of the
deficiency relative to all other possible observable deficiencies for
the inspectable area.
5. Health and Safety Deficiencies
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. As noted in the definition for the word
``score'' in the Definitions section, all H&S deficiencies are
highlighted by the addition of a letter to the numeric score. The Item
Weights and Criticality Levels tables list all H&S deficiencies with an
LT designation for those that are EHS deficiencies and an NLT
designation for those that are non-life threatening. The LT and NLT
designations apply only to severity level 3 deficiencies.
To ensure prompt correction, remedy or action to abate of H&S
deficiencies, the inspector gives the project representative a
deficiency report identifying every observed EHS deficiency before the
inspector leaves the site. The project representative acknowledges
receipt of the deficiency report by signature. HUD makes available to
all PHAs an inspection report that includes information about all of
the H&S deficiencies recorded by the inspector. The report shows:
The number of H&S deficiencies (EHS and NLT) that the
inspector observed;
All observed smoke detector deficiencies; and
A projection of the total number of H&S problems that the
inspector potentially would see in an inspection of all buildings and
all units.
If there are smoke detector deficiencies, the physical conditions
score will include an asterisk. However,
[[Page 63644]]
problems with smoke detectors do not currently affect the overall
score. When there is an asterisk indicating that the project has at
least one smoke detector deficiency, that part of the score may be
identified as ``risk;'' for example, ``93a, risk'' for 93a*, and ``71c,
risk'' for 71c*. There are six distinct letter grade combinations based
on the H&S deficiencies and smoke detector deficiencies observed: a,
a*, b, b*, c, and c*. For example:
A score of 90c* means that the project contains at least
one EHS deficiency to be corrected, including at least one smoke
detector deficiency, but is otherwise in excellent condition.
A score of 40b* means the project is in poor condition,
has at least one non-life threatening deficiency, and has at least one
missing or inoperable smoke detector.
A score of 55a means that the project is in poor
condition, even though there are no H&S deficiencies.
A project in excellent physical condition with no H&S
deficiencies would have a score of 90a to 100a.
6. Scoring Process Elements
The physical condition scoring process is based on three elements
within each project: (1) Five inspectable areas (site, exterior,
systems, common areas, and dwelling units); (2) inspectable items in
each inspectable area; and (3) observed deficiencies.
7. Scoring Using Weighted Averages
The score for a property is the weighted average of the five
inspectable area scores, where area weights are adjusted to account for
all of the inspectable items that are actually present to be inspected.
In turn, area scores are calculated by using weighted averages of sub-
area scores (e.g., building area scores for a single building or unit
scores for a single unit) for all sub-areas within an area.
For all areas except the site, normalized sub-area weights are
determined using the size of sub-areas, the items available for
inspection, and the sub-area's probability of selection for inspection.
Sub-area scores are determined by deducting points for deficiencies,
including H&S deficiencies, based on the importance (weight) of the
item, the criticality of the deficiency, and the severity of the
deficiency. The maximum deduction for a single deficiency cannot exceed
the point cap for the inspectable area where the deficiency is observed
and a sub-area score cannot be less than zero. Also, points will be
deducted only for one deficiency of the same kind within a sub-area.
For example, if multiple deficiencies for broken windows are recorded,
only the most severe deficiency observed (or one of the most severe, if
there are multiple deficiencies with the same level of severity) will
result in a point deduction.
8. Essential Weights and Levels
The process of scoring a project's physical condition depends on
the weights, levels, and associated values of the following quantities:
Weights for the 5 inspectable areas (site, building
exteriors, building systems, common areas, and dwelling units).
Weights for inspectable items within inspectable areas (8
to 17 per area).
Criticality levels (critical, very important, important,
contributes, and slight contribution) plus their associated values for
deficiencies within areas inspected.
Severity levels (3, 2, and 1) and their associated values
for deficiencies.
Health and safety deductions (exigent/fire safety and non-
life threatening for all inspectable areas).
Point loss cap, defined at the inspectable area level.
9. Normalized Area Weights
Area weights are used to obtain a weighted average of area scores.
A project's overall physical condition score is a weighted average of
all inspectable area scores. The nominal weights are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight
Inspectable area (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site....................................................... 15
Building Exterior.......................................... 15
Building Systems........................................... 20
Common Areas............................................... 15
Dwelling Units............................................. 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These weights are assigned for all inspections when all
inspectable items are present for each area and for each building and
unit. All of the inspectable items may not be present in every
inspectable area. When items are missing in an area, the area weights
are modified to reflect the missing items so that within that area they
will add up to 100 percent. Area weights are recalculated when some
inspectable items are missing in one or more area(s).
Although rare, it is possible that an inspectable area could have
no inspectable items available; for example, there could be no common
areas in the inspected residential buildings and no common buildings.
In this case, the weight of the ``common areas'' would be zero percent
and its original 15 percent weight would be equitably redistributed to
the other inspectable areas. The 15 percent is redistributed by
totaling the weights of other inspectable areas (15 + 15 + 20 + 35 =
85) and dividing the weights of each by that amount (0.85, which is 85%
expressed as a decimal). The modified weights are 17.6 percent, 17.6
percent and 23.5 percent, zero percent, and 41.2 percent for site,
building exterior, building systems, common areas, and units,
respectively, and they add up to 100 percent.
10. Area and Sub-Area Scores
For inspectable areas with sub-areas (all areas except sites), the
inspectable area score is a weighted average of the sub-area scores
within that area. The scoring protocol determines the amenity weight
for the site and each sub-area as noted in Section VI.1 under the
definition for normalized sub-area weight. For example, a property with
no fencing or gates in the inspectable area of the site would have an
amenity weight of 90 percent or 0.9 (100 percent minus 10 percent for
lack of fencing and gates), and a single dwelling unit with all items
available for inspection, except a call-for-aid would have an amenity
weight of 0.98 or 98 percent (100 percent minus 2 percent for lack of
call-for-aid). A call-for-aid is a system designed to provide elderly
residents the opportunity to call for help in the event of an
emergency.
The amenity weight excludes all health and safety items. Each
deficiency as weighted and normalized are subtracted from the sub-area
or site-weighted amenity score. Sub-area and site area scores are
further reduced for any observed health and safety deficiencies. These
deductions are taken at the site, building, or unit level. At this
point, a control is applied to prevent a negative site, building, or
unit score. The control ensures that no single building or unit can
affect an area score more than its weighted share.
11. Overall Project Score
The overall project score is the weighted average of the five
inspectable area scores, with the five areas weighted by their
normalized weights. Normalized area weights reflect both the initial
weights and the relative weights between areas of inspectable items
actually present. For reporting purposes, the number of possible points
is the normalized area weight adjusted by multiplying by 100 so that
the possible points for the five areas add up to 100. In the Physical
Inspection Report for each project that is sent to the PHA, the
following items are listed:
Normalized weights as the ``possible points'' by area;
[[Page 63645]]
The area scores, taking into account the points deducted
for observed deficiencies;
The deductions for H&S for each inspectable area; and
The overall project score.
The Physical Inspection Report allows the PHA and the project
manager to see the magnitude of the points lost by inspectable area and
the impact on the score of the H&S deficiencies.
12. Examples of Physical Condition Score Calculations
The physical inspection scoring is deficiency based. All projects
start with 100 points. Each deficiency observed reduces the score by an
amount dependent on the importance and severity of the deficiency, the
number of buildings and units inspected, the inspectable items actually
present to be inspected, and the relative weights between inspectable
items and inspectable areas.
The calculation of a physical condition score is illustrated in the
examples provided below. The examples go through a number of interim
stages in calculating the score, illustrating how sub-area scores are
calculated for a single project, how the sub-area scores are rolled up
into area scores, how the point cap is applied, and how area scores are
combined to calculate the overall project score. One particular
deficiency, missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers, is carried
through the example.
As will be seen, the deduction starts as a percent of the sub-area.
Then the area score is decreased considerably in the final overall
project score since it is averaged across other sub-areas (building
systems in the example) and then averaged across the five inspectable
areas. Last, as applicable, the points deducted due to the observance
of a particular deficiency are reduced by the application of the point
loss cap. Although interim results in the examples are rounded to one
decimal, only the final results are rounded for actual calculations.
Following this section, another example is given specifically for
public housing projects to show how project scores are rolled up into
the PHAS physical indicator score for the PHA as a whole.
Example #1. This example illustrates how the score for a sub-
area of building systems is calculated based on the following
features.
Consider a project for which the five inspectable areas are
present and during the inspection of a residential building with 28
units missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers are observed. This
deficiency has a severity level of 3, which has a severity weight of
1.00 (see Item 1 of this section); a criticality level of 5, which
has a criticality weight of 5 (see Item 1 of this section); and an
item weight of 15.5. The amount of the points deducted is the item
weight (15.5), multiplied by the criticality weight (5), multiplied
by the severity weight (1), which equals 77.5.
If this sub-area has all inspectable items, the amenity weight
for the sub-area adds to 100%. If missing/damaged/expired fire
extinguishers is the only deficiency observed, the initial
proportionate score for this sub-area (building systems in building
one) is the amenity score minus the deficiency points, normalized to
a 100-point basis. In this instance the initial proportionate sub-
area score is 100 - 77.5 = 22.5 x (100 / 100) = 22.5. Because the
point deduction for the missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers
is 77.5, this deficiency accounts for 77.5% of the sub-area score.
Additional deficiencies or H&S deficiencies would be calculated in
the same manner and further decrease the sub-area score, and if the
result is less than zero (a negative number) the score is set to
zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element Associated value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amenity Score...................... 100.0
Deficiency points.................. 77.5
Calculation for the initial 100.00 - 77.5 = 22.5
proportionate score.
Normalizing factor................. 100 / 100 = 1
Normalized Initial sub-area score.. 22.5 x 1 = 22.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example #2. This example illustrates how the building systems
inspectable area score is calculated from the sub-area score.
Consider a property with two buildings with the following
characteristics:
Building One (from example 1 above):
--28 units
--100 percent amenity weight for items that are present to be
inspected in building systems
--Building systems sub-area score is 22.5 points
Building Two:
--2 units
--62 percent amenity weight for items that are present to be
inspected in the building's systems
--Building systems sub-area score is 100.0 points
The score for the building systems area is the weighted average
of the individual scores for each building's systems. Each building
systems score is weighted by the number of units and the percent of
the weight for items present to be inspected in the building systems
inspectable area.
The building systems area score is determined as follows. First,
the unit weighted average for each building is computed by
multiplying the number of units in the building by the amenity
weight for that building. The unit weighted average for each
building then is divided by the total of the building weights for
all buildings in the property to determine the proportion of
building weight for each building. Multiplying the proportion of
building weight by the initial sub-area score for the building
produces the building systems area score. The building systems area
score for the property is the sum of the building systems area score
for each building.
In this example, the buildings systems area score for the
property is 25.7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit
Building Number of x Amenity = weighted
units weight average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One........................... 28 1.00 28.0
Two........................... 2 .62 1.24
-----------------------------------------
Total..................... 30 ......... .. 29.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of Proportion of
Unit weighted average / building = building
weights weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.0............................ 29.24 .958
1.24............................ 29.24 .042
---------------------------------
29.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63646]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building
Proportion of building weight x Initial sub- = systems area
area score score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.958......................... 22.5 21.5
.042......................... 100.0 4.2
-------------------------------------
............... 25.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the calculations above, the proportion of building
weight allocated to building one is 95.8% (28.0 / 29.24 = .958). A
building systems area score of 25.7 indicates that the point
deduction for the missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers in
building one is 74.2 points: The number of points deducted at the
sub-area (from example 1) multiplied by the proportion of
building weight allocated to building one, or 77.5 x .958 = 74.2.
Example #3. This example illustrates how the overall weighted
average for the building systems area amenity weight is calculated.
The unit weighted average of amenity weight for each building is
computed by dividing the unit weighted average for the building (as
calculated in example 2) by the total number of units in
the property. Normalizing the unit weighted average of amenity
weights for each building by multiplying by 100 results in the
overall building systems weighted average amenity weight. In this
example, the overall building systems weighted average amenity
weight for the property is 97.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall
Unit building
Unit Total weighted Normalized systems
Building weighted / units in = average of x to a 100 = weighted
average property amenity point basis average
weights amenity weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One......................... 28.0 30 .933 100 93.3
Two......................... 1.24 30 .041 100 4.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 29.24 ......... .......... ........... 97.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example #4. This example illustrates how the score for a
property is calculated. Consider a property with the following
characteristics. All of the values are presumed except for the
values buildings systems which were calculated in the preceding
examples.
Site
--Score: 90 points
--67.5 percent weighted average amenity weight
--Nominal area weight: 15 percent
Building Exteriors
--Score: 85 points
--100 percent weighted average amenity weight
--Nominal area weight: 15 percent
Building Systems (from Examples 2 and 3)
--Score: 25.7 points
--97.4 percent weighted average amenity weight
--Nominal area weight: 20 percent
Common Areas
--Score: 77 points
--20 percent weighted average amenity weight
--Nominal area weight: 15 percent
Dwelling Units
--Score: 85 points
--94 weighted average amenity weight
--Nominal area weight: 35 percent
To calculate the property score, the adjusted area weights for
all five inspectable areas are determined. The amenity weights for
each of the five inspectable areas shown in the table below are all
presumed, except for the amenity weight for building systems that
was calculated in the three examples above.
The property score is determined as follows. The amenity
weighted average is computed by multiplying the nominal area weight
for the inspectable area (see Item 1 of this Section) by the amenity
weight (presumed for the example). Next, the amenity weighted
averages for the five inspectable areas are added to determine the
total adjusted weight (80.5 in this example). to determine the
maximum possible points for the inspectable area, each amenity
weighted average is divided by the total adjusted weight and then
multiplied by 100 to normalize the result. The sum of the five
maximum inspectable area points is the total number of possible
points for the property. In this example, the maximum possible
points, 99.9, was rounded to 100.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normalized
Nominal Amenity Amenity Total to 100 Maximum
Inspectable area area x weight = weighted / adjusted x point = possible
weight average weight scale area points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site.................................................... 15 0.675 10.1 80.5 100 12.5
Building Exterior....................................... 15 1.00 15.0 80.5 100 18.6
Building Systems........................................ 20 0.974 19.5 80.5 100 24.2
Common Areas............................................ 15 0.20 3.0 80.5 100 3.7
Dwelling Units.......................................... 35 0.94 32.9 80.5 100 40.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .......... ......... 80.5 ......... .......... 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the final property score is calculated, the points
deducted for each deficiency are checked against the point loss cap
in the applicable inspectable area to assure that no single
deficiency results in the deduction of too many points. For the
missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers in building one, the
points deducted under building systems will be the result of
multiplying the number of building systems points deducted for the
deficiency (74.2 as determined in example 2) by the
proportion of total points allocated to the building systems
inspectable area (.242 from the table above). In this example, the
points deducted for this deficiency would be 74.2 x .242 = 18.0.
Because the point loss cap for building systems is 10 points, this
18.0 point deduction exceeds the cap. Therefore, the total points
deducted due to the missing/damaged/expired fire extinguishers
deficiency in building one is reduced to 10.
There are four steps to implement the point deduction in the
final score. First, the points
[[Page 63647]]
lost at the area level are set. For this property, the building
systems points deducted due to missing/damaged/expired fire
extinguishers is set by dividing the point cap (10) by the
proportion of total points allocated to building systems (.242), or
10 /.242 = 41.3.
Second, the building systems sub-area weight for building one is
set. This is determined by dividing the points lost at the area
level (41.3) by the proportion of building weight for building one
(.958), or 41.3 / .958 = 43.1
Third, the building one building systems sub-area score is
recalculated by summing the building systems deficiencies in
building one. In example 1, the missing/damaged/expired
fire extinguishers is the only deficiency in this sub-area.
Therefore, the recalculated sub-area score for building one building
systems is the amenity score (100) minus the building systems sub-
area deficiency points (43.1), or 100 - 43.1 = 56.9.
The last step in the application of the point loss cap is the
determination of the building systems area score for the property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of
Number of Amenity Unit the Initial Building
Building units x weight = weighted / building x proportionate = systems
average weights score area score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One................................................... 28 1.00 28.0 29.24 56.9 54.5
Two................................................... 2 0.62 1.24 29.24 100.0 4.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 30 ......... 29.24 ......... ............. 58.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recalculated building systems area score is 58.7 points, and
will be rounded to 59. This area score is used to calculate the
overall property score.
The nominal possible points for each inspectable area is
multiplied by the amenity weight, divided by the total adjusted
amenity weight, and normalized to a 100-point basis, in order to
produce the possible points for the inspectable area. The property
score is the sum of all weighted inspectable area scores for that
property. The example below reflects how the missing/damaged/expired
fire extinguishers deficiency from example 1 in building
systems impacts the overall property score. In this example, the
property score of 78.9 is rounded to 79.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normalized Project
Inspectable area Area x Area / to a 100 = weighted
points score point scale area scores
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site................................................. 12.5 90 100 11.2
Building Exterior.................................... 18.6 85 100 15.8
Building Systems..................................... 24.2 59 100 14.3
Common Areas......................................... 3.7 77 100 2.8
Dwelling Units....................................... 40.9 85 100 34.8
----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 100.0 ....... ........... 78.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Computing the PHAS Physical Inspection Score
The physical inspection score for the PHAS for a PHA is the
weighted average of the PHA's individual project physical inspection
scores, where the weights are the number of units in each project
divided by the total number of units in all projects for the PHA.
Example: Project 1 has a score of 79 and has 30 units (from the
example above)
Project 2 has a score of 88 and has 600 units.
The overall PHAS score is computed as follows:
Score = [79 x 30/(30+600)] + [88 x 600/(30+600)]
= 3.76 + 83.81
= 87.57 that rounds to an overall physical inspection score of
88.
14. Examples of Sampling Weights for Buildings
The determination of which buildings will be inspected is a two-
phase process. In Phase 1 of the process, all common buildings and
buildings that contain sampled dwelling units that will be inspected
are included in the sampled buildings that will be inspected. (Dwelling
units are sampled with equal probabilities at random from all
buildings.) When all buildings in a project are not selected in the
building sample through Phase 1, Phase 2 is used to increase the size
of the building sample. In Phase 2, the additional buildings that are
to be included in the sample are selected with equal probabilities so
that the total residential building sample size is the lesser of either
(1) the dwelling unit sample size, or (2) the number of residential
buildings.
To illustrate the process for sampling buildings, two examples are
provided below:
Example #1. This example illustrates a project with two
buildings for which both buildings are sampled with certainty.
Building 1 has 10 dwelling units and building 2 has 20 dwelling
units, for a total of 30 dwelling units. The target dwelling unit
sample size for a project with 30 dwelling units is 15. Thus, the
sampling ratio for this project is the total number of dwelling
units divided by the unit sample size, or 30 / 15 = 2. This means
that every second dwelling unit will be selected. The number of
residential buildings to be inspected is the minimum of 15 (the
dwelling unit sample) and 2 (the number of residential buildings).
Thus, 2 residential buildings will be inspected. Since both
buildings have at least 2 dwelling units, both buildings are certain
to be selected for inspection in Phase 1. Since all buildings were
selected in Phase 1 of sampling, Phase 2 is not invoked. Both
buildings will then have a selection probability of 1.00 and a
sampling weight of 1.00.
Example #2. This example illustrates a project with some
buildings selected in Phase 1, other buildings selected in Phase 2,
and some buildings that are not selected at all.
The project is comprised of 22 residential buildings. Two of the
buildings each have 10 dwelling units and the other 20 buildings are
single-family dwelling units, for a total of 40 dwelling units (2 x
10) + 20 = 40. The target dwelling unit sample size for a project
with 40 dwelling units is 16. The sampling ratio for this project is
the total number of units divided by the unit sample size, or 40 /16
= 2.5. In accordance with the inspection protocol of inspecting the
minimum of the dwelling unit sample (16) and the number of
residential buildings (22), 16 of the residential buildings will be
inspected for this project.
In Phase 1 of sampling, the two buildings with 10 dwelling units
are selected with certainty since each building has more than 2.5
dwelling units. Each of the single-family buildings has a 1 / 2.5 or
0.40 probability of selection in Phase 1.
Assume that both multi-unit buildings and eight of the single-
family buildings (10 buildings in all) are selected in Phase 1. This
leaves 12 single-family buildings available
[[Page 63648]]
for selection in Phase 2. Since 16 residential buildings will be
inspected, the sample of 10 buildings selected in Phase 1 falls six
buildings short of a full sample. Therefore, six buildings will be
selected in Phase 2. Since Phase 2 sampling will select 6 of the 12
previously unselected buildings, each building not selected in Phase
1 will have a six in 12 (0.50) probability of selection in Phase 2.
The two multi-unit buildings each have a sampling probability
calculated as follows:
Sampling probability = 1.00 + ((1.00-1.00) x 0.50) = 1.00. The
sampling weight for these buildings is 1.
The single-family buildings each have a sampling probability
calculated as follows:
Sampling probability = 0.40 + ((1.00-0.40) x 0.50) = 0.70. The
sampling weight of selected single-family buildings is 1 / 0.70 =
1.43.
15. Accessibility Questions
HUD reviews particular elements during the physical inspection to
determine possible indications of noncompliance with the Fair Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 794). More specifically, during the physical
inspection, the inspector will record if: (1) There is a wheelchair-
accessible route to and from the main ground floor entrance of the
buildings inspected; (2) the main entrance for every building inspected
is at least 32 inches wide, measured between the door and the opposite
door jamb; (3) there is an accessible route to all exterior common
areas; and (4) for multi-story buildings that are inspected, the
interior hallways to all inspected units and common areas are at least
36 inches wide. These items are recorded, but do not affect the score.
IV. Environmental Review
This notice provides operating instructions and procedures in
connection with activity under the Public Housing Assessment System
regulations at 24 DFR part 902 that have previously been subject to the
required environmental review. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(4),
this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Dated: September 26, 2011.
Sandra B. Henriquez,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Appendix I--Proposed Changes to Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 2.3
Inspectable area Inspectable item Deficiency definition Proposed definition Change rationale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Building Exterior....... Walls..................... Damaged Chimneys.......... The chimney, The chimney, This is a technical
including the part including the part modification to
that extends above that extends above include deficiencies
the roofline, has the roofline, has for chimney caps as
separated from the separated from the a Level 1
wall or has cracks, wall or has cracks, deficiency.
spalling, missing spalling, missing
pieces, or broken pieces, or broken
sections. sections (including
chimney caps).
2. Building Exterior....... Windows................... Window systems Window systems This provision
provide light, provide light, eliminates the
security, and security, and confusion of