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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.