Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Correction to Standards Governing Prohibited Financial Interests, 56127-56129 [2013-22214]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56127
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 78, No. 177
Thursday, September 12, 2013
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
5 CFR Part 7501
[Docket No. FR–5722–F–01]
RIN 2501–AD61
Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Correction to Standards
Governing Prohibited Financial
Interests
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
HUD (or Department), with
the concurrence of the Office of
Government Ethics (OGE), amends its
Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct, which are regulations for HUD
officers and employees that supplement
the Standards of Ethical Conduct for
Employees of the Executive Branch
(Standards) issued by OGE. In its final
rule published on August 6, 2012, HUD
did not comprehensively describe an
exception to the provision that prohibits
Department employees from directly or
indirectly receiving, acquiring, or
owning certain financial interests that
may be subsidized by the Department.
This final rule corrects this omission
and establishes that HUD employees
may not hold a financial interest in any
grant, loan, cooperative agreement, or
other form of assistance provided by the
Department, including the insurance or
guarantee of a loan, except to the extent
that such interest represents assistance
on the employee’s principal residence.
This final rule codifies current policy
and practice.
DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert H. Golden, Assistant General
Counsel, Ethics and Appeals Division,
telephone number 202–402–6334, or
Peter J. Constantine, Associate General
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
Counsel for Ethics Appeals and
Personnel Law, Office of General
Counsel, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, telephone
number 202–402–2377. 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: On August
6, 2012 (77 FR 46601), HUD published
a final rule revising its Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation.
HUD revised its Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation
to ensure that its ethics program
reflected the significant statutory
changes to HUD’s programs and
operations enacted subsequent to 1996,
the year that HUD issued its original
Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct regulation. In this regard, HUD
stated that the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) (Pub. L.
110–289, approved July 20, 2008)
transferred regulatory authority over the
Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie
Mac) (collectively known as
Government-Sponsored Enterprises or
GSEs) from HUD to the Federal Housing
Finance Agency. Based on this transfer
of regulatory authority, HUD removed
provisions of its Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct that
prohibited all HUD employees from
owning financial interests issued by the
GSEs. HUD also removed a provision
that limited employees whose official
duties included the regulation or
oversight of the GSEs from owning
financial interests in certain mortgage
institutions. HUD also issued its August
6, 2012, final rule to clarify and
streamline several sections of its
Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct.
One section that HUD revised in the
August 6, 2012, final rule was
§ 7501.104, entitled ‘‘Prohibited
financial interests.’’ Specifically, HUD
revised this section to remove reference
to covered employees under § 7501.106
and to remove paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, that, respectively,
prohibited HUD employees from
directly or indirectly receiving,
acquiring, or owning securities issued
by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. HUD
removed these provisions consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with the transfer of regulatory authority
over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
under HERA.
HUD also revised and reorganized
what was § 7501.104(a)(4) for clarity.
This section prohibited employees, their
spouses, or minor children, from
directly or indirectly receiving,
acquiring, or owning stock or another
financial interest in a multifamily
project or single-family dwelling,
cooperative unit, or condominium unit
which is owned or subsidized by the
Department or which is subject to a note
or mortgage or other security interest
insured by the Department, except to
the extent that the stock or other interest
represents the employee’s principal
residence.
Specifically, HUD’s August 6, 2012,
final rule revised § 7501.104(a)(4) by
redesignating it as § 7501.104(a)(2).
HUD also removed the phrase, ‘‘in a
multifamily project or single family
dwelling, cooperative unit or
condominium unit’’ and substituted the
term ‘‘project.’’ HUD intended that this
change would cover all HUD projects
that exist or that may come into
existence in the future. In revising this
section, however, HUD did not retain in
the redesignated paragraph the language
that establishes an exception to the
prohibition; specifically, ‘‘to the extent
that the stock or other interest
represents the employee’s principal
residence.’’
To correct this omission, HUD is
revising, in this rule, its Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation
by defining ‘‘Subsidized by the
Department’’ in § 7501.102. Specifically,
HUD is defining this term to mean ‘‘any
grant, loan, cooperative agreement, or
other form of assistance provided by the
Department, including the insurance or
guarantee of a loan.’’ This definition is
intended to ensure that HUD’s
Supplemental Standards of Conduct
regulation comprehensively covers all
HUD programs. In addition, this rule
revises § 7501.104(a)(2) by restoring the
exception to the prohibition that HUD
employees, their spouses, or minor
children may not receive, acquire, or
own financial interests in projects,
including any single-family dwelling or
unit that is subsidized by the
Department, ‘‘except to the extent that
such subsidy represents assistance on
the employee’s principal residence.’’
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
56128
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Providing an exception that permits
HUD employees to hold a financial
interest in a project, including a singlefamily dwelling or unit, that is
subsidized by the Department to the
extent that such interest assists the
employee’s principal residence is not
new. As noted in this preamble, such an
exception existed since 1996, when
HUD issued its original Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct. This longstanding exception recognizes that HUD
employees remain subject to ethical
requirements that ensure the public’s
confidence in the impartiality and
objectivity with which HUD programs
are administered. These requirements
include 18 U.S.C. 208, a federal criminal
statute, which prohibits employees from
participating personally and
substantially in any particular matters
that will have a direct and predictable
effect on the employee’s financial
interests, and 5 CFR 2635.502, which
provides that an employee should not
participate in a particular matter when
the employee or the agency designee
determines that the circumstances may
cause a reasonable person with
knowledge of the relevant facts to
question his or her impartiality in the
matter. Additionally, HUD employees
must also adhere to the procedures
established by the HUD Assistant
Secretary with responsibility for the
program in order to participate in the
program.
provided by the Department, including
the insurance or guarantee of a loan,
except to the extent that such interest
represents assistance on the employee’s
principal residence. To this extent, it
relates solely to agency organization,
procedure, and practices and is exempt
from the provision of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.)
requiring notice and opportunity for
public comment.
Justification for Final Rulemaking
In general, HUD publishes a rule for
public comment before issuing a rule for
effect, in accordance with HUD’s
regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR
part 10. Part 10, however, provides, in
§ 10.1, for exceptions from that general
rule when HUD finds good cause to
omit advance notice and public
participation. The good cause
requirement is satisfied when the prior
public procedure is ‘‘impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’
HUD finds that good cause exists to
publish this rule for effect without
soliciting public comment, on the basis
that public procedure is unnecessary.
This rule does not substantively change
HUD’s Supplemental Standards of
Ethical Conduct regulation but is
technical in nature, reflecting longstanding policy and practice and
correcting an omission in HUD’s August
6, 2012, final rule. Specifically, it
restores to HUD’s Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation
the language that establishes that HUD
employees may not hold a financial
interest in any grant, loan, cooperative
agreement, or other form of assistance
Environmental Impact
In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of
the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and 24 CFR
50.20(k) of HUD regulations, the
policies and procedures contained in
this rule relate only to internal
administrative procedures whose
content does not constitute a
development decision nor affect the
physical condition of project areas or
building sites, and therefore, are
categorically excluded from the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
Matters of Regulatory Procedure
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if the regulation is
necessary, to select the regulatory
approach that maximizes net benefits.
Because this rule relates solely to the
internal operations of HUD, this rule
was determined to be not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and therefore was
not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Information Collection Requirements
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) does not apply to
this regulation because it does not
contain information collection
requirements subject to the approval of
OMB.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled
‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, an
agency from promulgating a regulation
that has federalism implications and
either imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local
governments and is not required by
statute or preempts state law, unless the
relevant requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order are met. This rule does
not have federalism implications and
does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
governments or preempt state law
within the meaning of the Executive
Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements
for federal agencies to assess the effects
of their regulatory actions on state,
local, and tribal governments, and on
the private sector. Since it is only
directed toward HUD employees, this
rule would not impose any federal
mandates on any state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector,
within the meaning of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 7501
Conflicts of interests.
Accordingly, for the reasons described
in the preamble, HUD, with the
concurrence of OGE, amends 5 CFR part
7501, as follows:
PART 7501—SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT
FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 7501
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7301, 7351, 7353;
5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of
1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989
Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55
FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR
2635.105, 2635.203(a), 2635.403(a), 2635.803,
2635.807.
2. In § 7501.102, add in alphabetical
order a definition of ‘‘Subsidized by the
Department’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 7501.102
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Subsidized by the Department means
any grant, loan, cooperative agreement,
or other form of assistance provided by
the Department, including the insurance
or guarantee of a loan.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 7501.104, revise paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 7501.104
Prohibited financial interests.
(a) * * *
(2) A financial interest in a project,
including any single family dwelling or
unit, which is subsidized by the
Department, except to the extent such
subsidy represents assistance on the
employee’s principal residence. The
definition of ‘‘financial interest’’ is
found at 5 CFR 2635.403(c);
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: September 9, 2013.
Shaun Donovan,
Secretary.
Walter M. Shaub, Jr.,
Director, Office of Government Ethics.
[FR Doc. 2013–22214 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 318
[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0008]
RIN 0579–AD70
Interstate Movement of Sharwil
Avocados From Hawaii
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the Hawaii
quarantine regulations to allow the
interstate movement of untreated
Sharwil avocados from Hawaii into the
continental United States. As a
condition of movement, Sharwil
avocados from Hawaii will have to be
produced in accordance with a systems
approach that includes requirements for
registration and monitoring of places of
production and packinghouses, an
orchard trapping program, grove
sanitation, limits on harvest periods and
distribution areas, and harvesting and
packing requirements to ensure that
only intact fruit that have been
protected against infestation are
shipped. This action will allow for the
interstate movement of Sharwil
avocados from Hawaii into other States
while continuing to provide protection
against the introduction of quarantine
pests.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: October 15, 2013.
Mr.
David Lamb, Regulatory Policy
Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and
Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–2103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Background
Under the regulations in 7 CFR part
318, ‘‘State of Hawaii and Territories
Quarantine Notices’’ (referred to below
as the regulations), the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA or the Department) prohibits or
restricts the interstate movement of
fruits, vegetables, and other products
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Sep 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and Guam to the
continental United States to prevent the
spread of plant pests that occur in
Hawaii and the territories.
Among other things, the regulations
allow interstate movement of Sharwil
avocados from Hawaii to the continental
United States only if the avocados
undergo fumigation, or combined
fumigation and cold treatment for fruit
flies. The treatments currently required
for the movement of Sharwil avocados
can have unacceptable adverse effects
on the quality of the fruit.
On February 7, 2013, we published in
the Federal Register (78 FR 8987–8992,
Docket No. APHIS–2012–0008) a
proposal 1 to amend the regulations to
allow the interstate movement of
untreated Sharwil avocados from
Hawaii into the continental United
States under a systems approach. The
proposed conditions included that
Sharwil avocados from Hawaii would
have to be produced in accordance with
a systems approach that includes
requirements for registration and
monitoring of places of production and
packinghouses, an orchard trapping
program, grove sanitation, limits on
harvest periods and distribution areas,
and harvesting and packing
requirements to ensure that only intact
fruit that have been protected against
infestation are shipped.
We solicited comments concerning
the proposed rule for 60 days ending
April 8, 2013, and received 30
comments by that date. They were from
avocado growers and grower
associations, researchers, members of
Congress, a State plant regulatory
agency, and an organization
representing State plant regulatory
agencies. These comments are discussed
below by topic.
Support for the Proposed Rule
Many commenters stated that they
were confident that Sharwil avocados
could safely move to the mainland in
accordance with the requirements of the
proposed rule and that the strengthened
mitigation measures would prevent
shipment of any fruit with viable fruit
fly larvae. Many commenters also stated
that the proposed rule would benefit
Hawaii avocado growers, the economy
of Hawaii, and consumers on the
mainland.
Trapping in Production Areas
Two commenters addressed actions to
be taken if traps find Bactrocera
1 To view the proposed rule, supporting
documents, and the comments we received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0008.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56129
dorsalis, the Oriental fruit fly, in the
production area. The proposed rule
states ‘‘Consistent with the
recommendations of the RMD [risk
management document], the compliance
agreement would initially require bait
sprays approved by APHIS to be used to
control fruit flies in the orchard if B.
dorsalis is detected by the trapping at a
rate above 0.4 flies per trap per day.’’
One commenter stated that a detection
rate of 0.1 flies/trap/day should be used
as the trigger for bait spray in place of
the proposed 0.4 flies/trap/day.
We are not making any change in
response to this comment. B. dorsalis is
known to exist in Hawaii’s agricultural
areas, and the purpose of the trapping
requirement is only to demonstrate a
low level of prevalence in the
immediate vicinity of the Sharwil
orchards. The suggested trapping rate of
0.1 flies/trap/day (based on the
minimum of 2 traps we proposed to
require for small orchards) would trigger
action if 2 or more flies are caught in a
week. This trigger level is more suitable
to pest free areas than to low prevalence
areas. We believe the proposed trigger of
0.4 flies/trap/day, which equates to 6
flies/week for small orchards, is a more
realistic and practical trigger. The
Sharwil avocado is considered an
extremely poor host to B. dorsalis, and
demonstrating that places of production
have a low prevalence of B. dorsalis is
an effective mitigation.
This commenter also suggested that
Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly)
population size should also be
monitored through trapping, with the
same bait spray triggers in place as for
B. dorsalis. We are not making any
change based on this comment. As
noted in the proposed rule and the pest
risk assessment, Sharwil avocado is not
a host for Medfly and movement of
Sharwil avocados is not a pathway for
introduction of Medfly. Therefore, we
have determined that restrictions
associated with Medfly in this case are
not necessary.
Another commenter stated that, in
addition to trapping and bait spray
requirements for orchards, these
requirements should also apply to
surrounding buffer areas outside the
orchard. The commenter also stated
that, if trapping triggers a bait spray
response, shipping from the orchard
should be discontinued for 30 days and
resume only after bait spray completion
and subsequent negative trapping
results.
We are not making changes in
response to these comments for the
following reasons. Buffer zones are
necessary in cases where articles are
grown in a pest-free area, or when
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56127-56129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22214]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 56127]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
5 CFR Part 7501
[Docket No. FR-5722-F-01]
RIN 2501-AD61
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Correction to Standards
Governing Prohibited Financial Interests
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: HUD (or Department), with the concurrence of the Office of
Government Ethics (OGE), amends its Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct, which are regulations for HUD officers and employees that
supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch (Standards) issued by OGE. In its final rule published
on August 6, 2012, HUD did not comprehensively describe an exception to
the provision that prohibits Department employees from directly or
indirectly receiving, acquiring, or owning certain financial interests
that may be subsidized by the Department. This final rule corrects this
omission and establishes that HUD employees may not hold a financial
interest in any grant, loan, cooperative agreement, or other form of
assistance provided by the Department, including the insurance or
guarantee of a loan, except to the extent that such interest represents
assistance on the employee's principal residence. This final rule
codifies current policy and practice.
DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert H. Golden, Assistant General
Counsel, Ethics and Appeals Division, telephone number 202-402-6334, or
Peter J. Constantine, Associate General Counsel for Ethics Appeals and
Personnel Law, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone
number 202-402-2377. 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: On August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46601), HUD
published a final rule revising its Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct regulation. HUD revised its Supplemental Standards of Ethical
Conduct regulation to ensure that its ethics program reflected the
significant statutory changes to HUD's programs and operations enacted
subsequent to 1996, the year that HUD issued its original Supplemental
Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation. In this regard, HUD stated
that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) (Pub. L. 110-
289, approved July 20, 2008) transferred regulatory authority over the
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively known as
Government-Sponsored Enterprises or GSEs) from HUD to the Federal
Housing Finance Agency. Based on this transfer of regulatory authority,
HUD removed provisions of its Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct
that prohibited all HUD employees from owning financial interests
issued by the GSEs. HUD also removed a provision that limited employees
whose official duties included the regulation or oversight of the GSEs
from owning financial interests in certain mortgage institutions. HUD
also issued its August 6, 2012, final rule to clarify and streamline
several sections of its Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct.
One section that HUD revised in the August 6, 2012, final rule was
Sec. 7501.104, entitled ``Prohibited financial interests.''
Specifically, HUD revised this section to remove reference to covered
employees under Sec. 7501.106 and to remove paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, that, respectively, prohibited HUD employees
from directly or indirectly receiving, acquiring, or owning securities
issued by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. HUD removed these provisions
consistent with the transfer of regulatory authority over Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac under HERA.
HUD also revised and reorganized what was Sec. 7501.104(a)(4) for
clarity. This section prohibited employees, their spouses, or minor
children, from directly or indirectly receiving, acquiring, or owning
stock or another financial interest in a multifamily project or single-
family dwelling, cooperative unit, or condominium unit which is owned
or subsidized by the Department or which is subject to a note or
mortgage or other security interest insured by the Department, except
to the extent that the stock or other interest represents the
employee's principal residence.
Specifically, HUD's August 6, 2012, final rule revised Sec.
7501.104(a)(4) by redesignating it as Sec. 7501.104(a)(2). HUD also
removed the phrase, ``in a multifamily project or single family
dwelling, cooperative unit or condominium unit'' and substituted the
term ``project.'' HUD intended that this change would cover all HUD
projects that exist or that may come into existence in the future. In
revising this section, however, HUD did not retain in the redesignated
paragraph the language that establishes an exception to the
prohibition; specifically, ``to the extent that the stock or other
interest represents the employee's principal residence.''
To correct this omission, HUD is revising, in this rule, its
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation by defining
``Subsidized by the Department'' in Sec. 7501.102. Specifically, HUD
is defining this term to mean ``any grant, loan, cooperative agreement,
or other form of assistance provided by the Department, including the
insurance or guarantee of a loan.'' This definition is intended to
ensure that HUD's Supplemental Standards of Conduct regulation
comprehensively covers all HUD programs. In addition, this rule revises
Sec. 7501.104(a)(2) by restoring the exception to the prohibition that
HUD employees, their spouses, or minor children may not receive,
acquire, or own financial interests in projects, including any single-
family dwelling or unit that is subsidized by the Department, ``except
to the extent that such subsidy represents assistance on the employee's
principal residence.''
[[Page 56128]]
Providing an exception that permits HUD employees to hold a
financial interest in a project, including a single-family dwelling or
unit, that is subsidized by the Department to the extent that such
interest assists the employee's principal residence is not new. As
noted in this preamble, such an exception existed since 1996, when HUD
issued its original Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct. This
long-standing exception recognizes that HUD employees remain subject to
ethical requirements that ensure the public's confidence in the
impartiality and objectivity with which HUD programs are administered.
These requirements include 18 U.S.C. 208, a federal criminal statute,
which prohibits employees from participating personally and
substantially in any particular matters that will have a direct and
predictable effect on the employee's financial interests, and 5 CFR
2635.502, which provides that an employee should not participate in a
particular matter when the employee or the agency designee determines
that the circumstances may cause a reasonable person with knowledge of
the relevant facts to question his or her impartiality in the matter.
Additionally, HUD employees must also adhere to the procedures
established by the HUD Assistant Secretary with responsibility for the
program in order to participate in the program.
Justification for Final Rulemaking
In general, HUD publishes a rule for public comment before issuing
a rule for effect, in accordance with HUD's regulations on rulemaking
at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10, however, provides, in Sec. 10.1, for
exceptions from that general rule when HUD finds good cause to omit
advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is
satisfied when the prior public procedure is ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect
without soliciting public comment, on the basis that public procedure
is unnecessary. This rule does not substantively change HUD's
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation but is technical
in nature, reflecting long-standing policy and practice and correcting
an omission in HUD's August 6, 2012, final rule. Specifically, it
restores to HUD's Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct regulation
the language that establishes that HUD employees may not hold a
financial interest in any grant, loan, cooperative agreement, or other
form of assistance provided by the Department, including the insurance
or guarantee of a loan, except to the extent that such interest
represents assistance on the employee's principal residence. To this
extent, it relates solely to agency organization, procedure, and
practices and is exempt from the provision of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) requiring notice and opportunity
for public comment.
Matters of Regulatory Procedure
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the
regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits. Because this rule relates solely to the
internal operations of HUD, this rule was determined to be not a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore was not reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Information Collection Requirements
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) does not
apply to this regulation because it does not contain information
collection requirements subject to the approval of OMB.
Environmental Impact
In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.20(k) of HUD regulations, the
policies and procedures contained in this rule relate only to internal
administrative procedures whose content does not constitute a
development decision nor affect the physical condition of project areas
or building sites, and therefore, are categorically excluded from the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits, to the
extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from promulgating a
regulation that has federalism implications and either imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and
is not required by statute or preempts state law, unless the relevant
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order are met. This rule
does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state
law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and
tribal governments, and on the private sector. Since it is only
directed toward HUD employees, this rule would not impose any federal
mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 7501
Conflicts of interests.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD, with
the concurrence of OGE, amends 5 CFR part 7501, as follows:
PART 7501--SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 7501 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 7301, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App.
(Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR,
1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR,
1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.203(a), 2635.403(a),
2635.803, 2635.807.
0
2. In Sec. 7501.102, add in alphabetical order a definition of
``Subsidized by the Department'' to read as follows:
Sec. 7501.102 Definitions.
* * * * *
Subsidized by the Department means any grant, loan, cooperative
agreement, or other form of assistance provided by the Department,
including the insurance or guarantee of a loan.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 7501.104, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 7501.104 Prohibited financial interests.
(a) * * *
(2) A financial interest in a project, including any single family
dwelling or unit, which is subsidized by the Department, except to the
extent such subsidy represents assistance on the employee's principal
residence. The definition of ``financial interest'' is found at 5 CFR
2635.403(c);
* * * * *
[[Page 56129]]
Dated: September 9, 2013.
Shaun Donovan,
Secretary.
Walter M. Shaub, Jr.,
Director, Office of Government Ethics.
[FR Doc. 2013-22214 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
