Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing, 71762-71769 [2015-29346]
Download as PDF
71762
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
transportation, storage, or wholesale or
retail distribution of such device; or
(B) A practitioner, such as a
physician, licensed by law to use or
order the use of such device; and
(ii) The device must be sold only to
or on the prescription or other order of
such practitioner for use in the course
of his professional practice.
(2) The label of the device shall bear
the statement ‘‘Caution: Federal law
restricts this device to sale by or on the
order of a ____’’, the blank to be filled
with the word ‘‘physician’’ or with the
descriptive designation of any other
practitioner licensed by the law of the
State in which he practices to use or
order the use of the device.
(3) Any labeling, as defined in section
201(m) of the FD&C Act, whether or not
it is on or within a package from which
the device is to be dispensed,
distributed by, or on behalf of the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor of
the device, that furnishes or purports to
furnish information for use of the device
contains adequate information for such
use, including indications, effects,
routes, methods, and frequency and
duration of administration and any
relevant hazards, contraindications, side
effects, and precautions, under which
practitioners licensed by law to employ
the device can use the device safely and
for the purposes for which it is
intended, including all purposes for
which it is advertised or represented.
This information will not be required on
so-called reminder-piece labeling which
calls attention to the name of the device
but does not include indications or
other use information.
(4) All labeling, except labels and
cartons, bearing information for use of
the device also bears the date of the
issuance or the date of the latest
revision of such labeling.
Dated: November 10, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–29275 Filed 11–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 965 and 966
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[Docket No. FR 5597–P–02]
RIN 2577–AC97
Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
This proposed rule would
require each public housing agency
(PHA) administering public housing to
implement a smoke-free policy.
Specifically, this rule proposes that no
later than 18 months from the effective
date of the final rule, each PHA must
implement a policy prohibiting lit
tobacco products in all living units,
indoor common areas in public housing,
and in PHA administrative office
buildings (in brief, a smoke-free policy
for all public housing indoor areas). The
smoke-free policy must also extend to
all outdoor areas up to 25 feet from the
housing and administrative office
buildings. HUD proposes
implementation of smoke-free public
housing to improve indoor air quality in
the housing, benefit the health of public
housing residents and PHA staff, reduce
the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower
overall maintenance costs.
DATES: Comment Due Date: January 19,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule. All communications
must refer to the above docket number
and title. There are two methods for
submitting public comments.
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
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 comments immediately available
to the public. Comments submitted
electronically through the
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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–
708–3055 (this is not a toll-free
number). Individuals with speech or
hearing impairments may access this
number via TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
Copies of all comments submitted are
available for inspection and
downloading at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leroy Ferguson, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20410–0500;
telephone number 202–402–2411 (this
is not a toll-free number). Persons who
are deaf or hard of hearing and persons
with speech impairments may access
this number through TTY by calling the
toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–
877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
The purpose of the proposed rule is
to require PHAs to, within 18 months of
the final rule, establish a policy
prohibiting lit tobacco products, as such
term is proposed to be defined in
§ 965.653(c). inside all indoor areas of
public housing, including but not
limited to living units, indoor common
areas, electrical closets, storage units,
and PHA administrative office buildings
and in all outdoor areas within 25 feet
of the housing and administrative office
buildings (collectively, ‘‘restricted
areas’’). As further discussed in this
rule, such a policy is expected to
improve indoor air quality in public
housing, benefit the health of public
housing residents and PHA staff, reduce
the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower
overall maintenance costs.
B. Summary of Major Provisions of the
Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would apply to all
public housing, other than dwelling
units in mixed-finance buildings. PHAs
would be required, within 18 months of
the effective date of the final rule, to
establish policies prohibiting lit tobacco
products in all restricted areas. PHAs
may, but would not be required to,
further restrict smoking to outdoor
dedicated smoking areas outside the
restricted areas, create additional
restricted areas in which smoking is
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
prohibited (e.g., near a playground), or,
alternatively, make their entire grounds
smoke-free.
PHAs would also be required to
document their smoke-free policies in
their PHA plans, a process that requires
resident engagement and public
meetings. The prohibition on lit tobacco
would also be included in a tenant’s
lease, which may be done either through
an amendment process or as tenants
renew their leases annually.
C. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed
Rule
The costs to PHAs of implementing
smoke-free policies may include
training, administrative, legal, and
enforcement costs. Of these costs, HUD
expects that the expense of additional
enforcement efforts may be the highest.
The costs of implementing a smoke-free
policy as proposed by this rule are
minimized by the fact that HUD
guidance already exists on many of the
topics covered by the smoke-free policy
proposed to be required by this rule;
that hundreds of PHAs have already
voluntarily implemented smoke-free
policies; and that infrastructure already
exists for enforcement of lease
violations, and violation of the smokefree policy would be a lease violation.
In addition, time spent by PHA staff on
implementing and enforcing the smokefree policy will be partially offset by the
time that staff no longer have to spend
mediating disputes among residents
over smoking in secondhand smoke
infiltration within living units. Given
the existing HUD guidance, initial
learning costs associated with
implementation of a smoke-free policy
may not be significant. For the hundreds
of PHAs that are already implementing
voluntary smoke-free policies, there will
be minimal costs for these PHAs, and,
generally, only if their existing policies
are not consistent with the minimum
requirements for smoke-free policies
proposed by this rule.
The benefits of smoke free policies,
however, could be considerable. Over
700,000 units would be affected by this
rule (including over 500,000 units
inhabited by elderly households or
households with a non-elderly person
with disabilities), and their nonsmoking residents would have the
potential to experience health benefits
from a reduction of exposure to
secondhand smoke. PHAs will also
benefit from a reduction of damage
caused by smoking, and residents and
PHAs both gain from seeing a reduction
in injuries, deaths, and property damage
caused by fires. Estimates of these and
other rule-induced impacts are
summarized in the following table:
Impact
Source
Cost (potentially recurring but concentrated during first few years of the rule’s implementation).
Cost (recurring) ..................................................
Cost (recurring) ..................................................
Benefit (recurring) ...............................................
Benefit (recurring) ...............................................
Benefit (annualized over 10 to 50 years) ...........
PHA Compliance ..............................................
$3.2 million.
Smoker Inconvenience ....................................
Enforcement .....................................................
PHA Reduced Maintenance ............................
PHA Reduced Fire Risk ...................................
Non-Smoker Health .........................................
$209 million.
Not quantified.
$16 to $38 million.
$32 million.
Less than:
$148 to $447 million (3%)
$70 to $137 million (7%).
$96 to $275 million.
Benefit (recurring) ...............................................
Benefit (recurring) ...............................................
Partially Quantified Net Benefits (recurring) .......
For additional details on the costs and
benefits of this rule, please see the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
this rule, which can be found at
www.regulations.gov, under the docket
number for this rule. Information on
how to view the RIA is included below.
II. Background
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71763
A. The Effects of Smoking on Health
Tobacco smoking has been
determined to be a cause of diseases of
nearly all organs in the body, and
research continues to newly identify
diseases caused by smoking, including
diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis,
and colorectal cancer. In addition to
causing multiple diseases and cancers,
tobacco smoking has many other
adverse effects on the body, including
inflammation and impairment to the
immune system.1
1 Office of the Surgeon General, ‘‘The Health
Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress,’’
(2014), available at https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
Amount (discount rates in parentheses)
Non-Smoker Well-Being (PHA residents who
do not live in units with smokers).
Smoker Health .................................................
See above ........................................................
Adverse effects of tobacco use are not
limited to the smoker. The U.S. Surgeon
General estimates that exposure to
secondhand tobacco smoke (i.e., the
smoke that comes from burning tobacco
products and is exhaled by smokers) is
responsible for the death of 41,000
adults non-smokers in the United States
each year from lung cancer and heart
disease.2 Secondhand smoke (SHS)
contains hundreds of toxic chemicals
and is designated as a known human
carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. National
Toxicology Program, and the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer.3 Exposure to SHS can also
cause sudden infant death syndrome
and respiratory symptoms such as
cough and wheeze, middle ear
infections, and slowed lung growth and
reduced lung function in children, and
2 Id.
3 American Cancer Society, ‘‘Secondhand
Smoke,’’ https://www.cancer.org/cancer/
cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Not quantified.
Less than: ¥$19 to $302 million (3%) ¥$97
to ¥$8 million (7%)
increased risk of stroke in adults.4 The
Surgeon General has concluded that
there is no risk-free level of exposure to
SHS, and that eliminating smoking in
indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers
from exposure to secondhand smoke.
Separating smokers from nonsmokers,
cleaning the air, and ventilating
buildings cannot eliminate exposures of
nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.5
The effects of SHS are especially
damaging in children and unborn
fetuses. The Surgeon General estimates
that SHS is responsible for the death of
hundreds of newborns from Sudden
Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) each
year.6 Lead in SHS is also a significant
source of lead in house dust and
children’s blood. The CDC confirmed
the association between SHS exposure
4 2014
Surgeon General’s Report, footnote 1.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, ‘‘The
Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to
Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General,’’
(2006), available at https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fullreport.pdf.
6 Id.
5 U.S.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
71764
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and blood-lead levels in youth and
adults, concluding that youth with SHS
exposure had blood lead levels high
enough to result in adverse cognitive
outcomes.7
Approximately half of the U.S.
population is protected from SHS
exposure through statewide, municipal,
and federal laws prohibiting smoking in
indoor areas of public places and
worksites, including bars and
restaurants. However, an estimated 58
million Americans remain exposed to
secondhand smoke, including 15
million children ages 3 to 11. The home
is the primary source of exposure for
children.8 Because SHS moves
throughout buildings, individuals living
in multiunit housing can be exposed to
SHS even if no one smokes in their
households. Surveys of multiunit
housing residents indicate that 26 to 64
percent of residents reported SHS
incursions into their units from external
sources (e.g., hallways or adjacent
apartments), and 65 to 90 percent of the
residents experiencing such incursions
were bothered by them.9
The movement of contaminants from
SHS within buildings has also been
documented through direct
measurements of fine particles (an
environmental marker of SHS) in indoor
air. SHS can move both from external
hallways into apartments and between
adjacent units.10 A study of public
housing documented lower
concentrations of SHS contaminants in
buildings covered by smoke-free
policies (i.e., policies prohibiting the
smoking of tobacco products in all
indoor spaces) compared to buildings
without these policies.11 Analysis of
7 Patricia Richter et al., ‘‘Trends in Tobacco
Smoke Exposure and Blood Lead Levels Among
Youth and Adults in the United States: The
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
1999–2008,’’ Preventing Chronic Disease,
(December 19, 2013), available at https://
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/pdf/13_0056.pdf.
8 2006 Surgeon General’s Report, footnote 5;
David M. Homa et al., ‘‘Vital Signs: Disparities in
Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke—
United States, 1999–2012,’’ Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (February 6, 2015), available at
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
mm6404a7.htm?s_cid=mm6404a7_w.
9 Kimberly Snyder et al., ‘‘Smoke-free Multiunit
Housing: A Review of the Scientific Literature,’’
Tobacco Control (2015), available at https://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2015/01/07/
tobaccocontrol-2014-051849.short?rss=1.
10 Brian A. King et al., ‘‘Secondhand Smoke
Transfer in Multiunit Housing,’’ 12 Nicotine and
Tobacco Research 1133 (2010), available at https://
ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/11/1133.
11 Elizabeth T. Russo, et al., ‘‘Comparison of
Indoor Air Quality in Smoke-Permitted and SmokeFree Multiunit Housing: Findings from the Boston
Housing Authority,’’ 10 Nicotine and Tobacco
Research 1093 (2014), available at https://
ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/25/
ntr.ntu146.abstract?utm_source=rss&utm_
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
data from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) demonstrated evidence of
greater SHS exposure among children
(aged 6 to 18) living in multiunit
housing through measurements of
cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) in
their blood.12 The study demonstrated
that children living in non-smoking
households in apartments had 45
percent higher levels of cotinine in their
blood compared to children living in
non-smoking households in detached
homes. CDC researchers analyzed
NHANES data over the period from
1999–2012 and reported that one of four
nonsmokers (approximately 58 million
people) continue to be exposed to SHS,
with the highest exposures among
children, non-Hispanic blacks, renters,
and those living in poverty.13
The Surgeon General concluded in
2006 that separating smokers and
nonsmokers, building ventilation, and
cleaning the air cannot eliminate
exposure to SHS; that can only be
accomplished by eliminating smoking
from indoor spaces.14
B. The Financial Costs of Smoking
Beyond the increased costs associated
with higher healthcare expenses,
tobacco smoking can have profound
financial impacts on PHAs and owners
of other multiunit properties. Smoking
is the leading cause of fire deaths in
multiunit properties.15 In 2011, smoking
caused 17,600 residential fires resulting
in 490 civilian deaths, 1,370 injuries,
and $516 million in direct property
damage.16 Smoking is especially
dangerous in units where a household
member is receiving oxygen for medical
purposes. Research conducted by the
U.S. Fire Protection Association found
that for fire deaths during the period
from 2007–2011 in which oxygen
medium=rss&utm_campaign=comparison-ofindoor-air-quality-in-smoke-permitted-and-smokefree-multiunit-housing-findings-from-the-bostonhousing-authority.
12 Karen M. Wilson et al., ‘‘Tobacco-Smoke
Exposure in Children Who Live in Multiunit
Housing,’’ 127 Pediatrics 85 (2011), available at
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/
1/85.full.pdf+html.
13 David M. Homa et al., ‘‘Disparities in
Nonsmokers Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in the
United States, 1999–2012,’’ Mortality and Morbidity
Weekly Report, Early Release, 64 (February 3,
2015), available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/
wk/mm64e0203a1.pdf.
14 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. See
footnote note 2.
15 U.S. Fire Administration, Residential Structure
and Building Fires, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/
downloads/pdf/publications/residential_structure_
and_building_fires.pdf.
16 Marty Ahrens, Ntl. Fire Protection Assn.,
‘‘Home Structure Fires,’’ (April 2013), available at
https://www.nfpa.org/∼/media/Files/Research/
NFPA%20reports/Occupancies/oshomes.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
administration equipment was cited as
being involved in the ignition, 82
percent involved smoking materials as
the heat source.17
Smoking is also associated with
higher maintenance costs for landlords
of multiunit housing. Smoking indoors
increases the cost of rehabilitating a
housing unit because of the need for
additional cleaning, painting, and repair
of damaged items at unit turnover
compared to non-smoking units. The
cost of cleaning and renovating a
smoking unit adds up quickly, and
smaller properties generally pay more
per unit than larger properties when
repairing smoking damage. A survey of
public and subsidized housing
managers found that the additional cost
of rehabilitating the units of smokers
averaged $1,250 to $2,955 per unit,
depending on the intensity of
smoking.18 A study conducted in
California found that the owners of
multiunit housing could save over $18
million per year if the operators of all
multiunit housing in the state adopted
smoke-free building policies.19
Researchers from the CDC estimated
that a nationwide smoke-free public
housing policy would result in an
estimated annual cost savings of
$152.91 million, including $42.99
million in reduced renovation costs and
$15.92 million in averted fire losses.20
Self-imposed rules prohibiting
smoking in individual households
(referred to as smoke-free home rules)
are becoming increasingly common in
the United States. CDC researchers
found that the prevalence of smoke-free
home rules among U.S. households
increased from 43 percent in 1992–1993
to 83 percent in 2010–2011, including
an increase among households with at
least one adult smoker, implying that
the smokers in these households agree
to smoke outside of the home.21 Two
17 John R. Hall, Jr., Ntl. Fire Protection Assn.,
‘‘The Smoking-Material Fire Problem,’’ (July 2013),
available at https://www.nfpa.org/∼/media/Files/
Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/
ossmoking.pdf.
18 Ntl. Ctr. For Healthy Hsg., ‘‘Reasons to Explore
Smoke-Free Housing,’’ (Early Fall 2009), available
at https://www.nchh.org/portals/0/contents/nchh_
green_factsheet_smokefree.pdf.
19 Michael K. Ong et al, ‘‘Estimates of SmokingRelated Properties Costs in California Multiunit
Housing,’’ 102 Am J Public Health 490 (2012),
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC3487653/.
20 Brian King et al., ‘‘National and State Cost
Savings Associated With Prohibiting Smoking in
Subsidized and Public Housing in the United
States,’’ Preventing Chronic Disease (October 2014),
available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/
pdf/14_0222.pdf.
21 Brian A. King et al., ‘‘Prevalence of Smokefree
Home Rules—United States, 1992–1993 and 2010–
2011,’’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
national surveys discussed by the CDC
researchers identified voluntary smokefree home rules among residents of
multiunit housing in over 70 percent of
those surveyed. Additionally, CDC
researchers, reviewing published
studies, found that the majority of
residents in multiunit housing
expressed support for a complete
smoke-free building policy in six of
eight reviewed studies.22 The findings
from these national and local surveys
suggest that a smoke-free rule will be
supported by a majority of public
housing residents and will help those
residents who already have a smoke-free
home rule in place achieve the desired
goal of eliminating the presence of SHS
in their homes.
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Moving to Smoke-Free Public
Housing Units
HUD determined that the advantages
of smoke-free housing policies were
sufficient to warrant action by HUD to
promote the voluntary adoption of
smoke-free policies by PHAs and the
owners/operators of federally
subsidized multifamily properties. In
2009, HUD’s Office of Public and Indian
Housing published a notice that strongly
encouraged PHAs to adopt smoke-free
policies in at least some of the
properties that they managed (this
notice was reissued in 2012).23 HUD’s
Office of Housing issued a similar
program notice in 2010 that encouraged
owners/operators of subsidized
multifamily properties to adopt smokefree policies (also reissued in 2012).24
The notices describe the advantages of
smoke-free policies, identify required
and recommended actions in
implementing smoke-free policies, and
provide links to resources (e.g., smoking
cessation assistance for residents). In
June 2012, HUD published more
detailed information on smoke-free
housing policies for residents and the
providers of subsidized housing,
referred to as ‘‘smoke-free toolkits.’’ 25
In October 2012, HUD also published
a Federal Register notice that solicited
feedback on the HUD’s smoke-free
(Sept. 5, 2014), available at https://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a1.htm.
22 Kimberly Snyder et al., supra note 9.
23 PIH Notices 2009–21, ‘‘Non-Smoking Policies
in Public Housing’’ and 2012–25, ‘‘Smoke-Free
Policies in Public Housing’’, available at https://
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_
offices/administration/hudclips/notices/pih.
24 Housing Notices 2010–21, ‘‘Optional SmokeFree Housing Policy Implementation’’ and 2012–22,
‘‘Further Encouragement for O/As to Adopt
Optional Smoke-Free Housing Policies,’’ available
at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/administration/hudclips/notices/
hsg.
25 See: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/smokefreetoolkits1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
housing initiative, specifically seeking
information on topics such as best
practices and practical strategies from
housing providers who have
implemented smoke-free policies,
potential obstacles to policy
implementation and how these could be
overcome, suggestions for supporting
housing providers and residents to
facilitate policy implementation, and
feedback from housing providers who
have decided not to implement smokefree policies.26 HUD received many
comments in response to this
solicitation, largely from public health
organizations and State and local health
departments, expressing support for the
concept and citing the great health risks
posed by smoking and SHS.27
In 2014, HUD released additional
guidance for PHAs and owners/agents of
subsidized multifamily properties on
implementing smoke-free policies. This
guidance incorporates some of the
feedback that HUD received from the
2012 Federal Register notice and
includes summaries of interviews with
nine early implementers of smoke-free
housing policies, including
administrators of public housing,
subsidized multifamily housing, and
market rate housing.28 The guidance
includes best practices around
enforcement, especially graduated
enforcement to assist residents with
compliance and prevent evictions.
As a result of these combined actions,
over 500 PHAs have implemented
smoke-free policies in at least one of
their buildings. While this voluntary
effort has been highly successful, it has
also resulted in a scattered distribution
of smoke-free policies, with the greatest
concentration in the Northeast, West,
and Northwest, which also results in
unequal protection from SHS for public
housing residents. HUD recognizes that
additional action is necessary to truly
eliminate the risk of SHS exposure to
public housing residents, reduce the
risk of catastrophic fires, lower overall
maintenance costs, and implement
uniform requirements to ensure that all
public housing residents are equally
protected.
Therefore, HUD is proposing to
require PHAs to implement smoke-free
policies within public housing except
for dwelling units in a mixed-finance
26 77 FR 60712, ‘‘Request for Information on
Adopting Smoke-Free Policies in PHAs and
Multifamily Housing’’ (October 4, 2012).
27 All public comments submitted on the October
4, 2012, notice can be found under docket 5597–
N–01 in the www.regulations.gov portal at https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-20120103.
28 See: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
documents/huddoc?id=SFGuidanceManual.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71765
project. Public housing is defined as
low-income housing, and all necessary
appurtenances (e.g., community
facilities, public housing offices, day
care centers, and laundry rooms)
thereto, assisted under the U.S. Housing
Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act), other than
assistance under section 8 of the 1937
Act.
While the smoke-free policy will also
apply to scattered sites and single
family properties, this requirement
would not extend to public housing
units that are part of a mixed-finance
project because the PHA may not be the
primary owner, and non-public housing
units may be contained within the
building. While smoking in single
family units does not lead to smoke
intrusion to adjacent units, the risk of
fire and the increased unit turnover
costs remain. Further, including all
public housing units covered by this
proposed rule means that all tenants
will be treated equally and be subject to
the same lease requirements. This
prohibition on smoking would cover all
types of lit tobacco products, including
but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, and
pipes. While the prohibition does not
specifically cover waterpipe tobacco
smoking (referred to as hookahs), such
smoking involves lit charcoal and
results in heating tobacco to
temperatures high enough to produce
secondhand smoke that contains
harmful toxins.29 For this reason, HUD
is seeking comment on whether to
include a prohibition on waterpipe
tobacco in the final rule.
The prohibition on the use of lit
tobacco products in this proposal does
not include electronic nicotine delivery
systems (ENDS), including electronic
cigarettes (‘‘e-cigarettes’’). The absence
of a prohibition on the use of ecigarettes in this rule should not be read
as an endorsement of e-cigarettes as an
acceptable health alternative to
cigarettes. The aerosol from ENDS
typically contains nicotine derived from
tobacco plants, and may contain other
hazardous and potentially hazardous
constituents such as formaldehyde and
lead.30 Accidental ingestion of nicotine
liquid used in ENDS can cause acute
nicotine toxicity in children, accounting
29 See World Health Organization. Advisory note:
waterpipe tobacco smoking: 2nd edition (2015),
available at https://www.who.int/tobacco/
publications/prod_regulation/
waterpipesecondedition/en/.
30 See Offerman, F.J. The hazards of e-cigarettes.
June, 2014. ASHRAE Journal. See also National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
‘‘Promoting Health and Preventing Disease and
Injury Through Workplace Tobacco Policies,’’
Current Intelligence Bulletin 67 (2015), available at
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2015-113/pdfs/
fy15_cib-67_2015-113_v3.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71766
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for an increasing proportion of exposure
calls to poison control centers.31 ENDS
may also present an additional
enforcement challenge for PHAs that are
implementing smoke-free policies
because the user may appear to be
smoking a conventional cigarette. In
light of growing health concerns
regarding exposure to the aerosol of
these products among non-users,
especially children and pregnant
women, HUD is seeking additional
comments on the issue of ENDS, and
may prohibit the use of these products
in public housing in the final rule. HUD
encourages PHAs that already have
smoke-free policies to consider whether
ENDS should be included in their
smoke-free policies.
In proposing this policy, it is
important for HUD to clarify that HUD’s
proposal does not prohibit individual
PHA residents from smoking. PHAs
should continue leasing to persons who
smoke. This rule is not intended to
contradict HUD’s goals to end
homelessness and help all Americans
secure quality housing. Rather, HUD is
proposing a prohibition on smoking
inside public housing living units and
indoor common areas, public housing
administrative office buildings, public
housing community rooms or
community facilities, public housing
day care centers and laundry rooms, in
outdoor areas within 25 feet of the
housing and administrative office
buildings, and in other areas designated
by a PHA as smoke-free (collectively,
‘‘restricted areas’’). PHAs will have the
discretion to establish outside
designated smoking locations outside of
the required 25 feet perimeter, which
may include partially enclosed
structures, to accommodate smoking
residents, to establish additional smokefree areas (such as around a
playground), or, alternatively, to make
their entire grounds smoke-free. In
addition, section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act
provides the participant the right to seek
a reasonable accommodation, including
requests from residents with mobilityimpairment or mental disability. A
request for a reasonable accommodation
from an eligible participant must at least
be considered, and granted in
appropriate circumstances. To assist
PHAs, HUD will work with its Office of
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to
develop guidance on accommodating
persons with a disability related to
31 CDC. Notes from the field: Calls to Poison
Centers for Exposures to Electronic Cigarettes—
United States, September 2010–February 2014.
MMWR 2014;63:292–93.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
smoke-free policies. The guidance will
be informed by comments on the
proposed rule and issued in advance of
the final rule.
The benefits of this proposed
regulatory action may be substantial,
and beneficiaries include both PHAs
and residents of public housing. Over
700,000 units would be affected by this
rule (including over 500,000 units
inhabited by elderly households or
households with a non-elderly person
with disabilities), and their residents
would have the potential to experience
health benefits from a reduction of
exposure to secondhand smoke. There
are also over 775,000 children in these
units. PHAs will benefit from a
reduction of damage and renovation
costs caused by smoking. Both residents
and PHAs will gain from reducing
deaths, injuries, and property damage
caused by fires. The costs to PHAs of
implementing the smoke-free policy
proposed by this rule may include
training, administrative, legal, and
enforcement costs. Of these costs to
PHAs, HUD expects that the expense of
additional enforcement efforts may be
the highest. The costs of implementing
the smoke-free policy proposed by this
rule are minimized by the fact that HUD
guidance already exists on many of the
topics covered by the proposed
regulatory changes, and that over 500
PHAs have already implemented smokefree policies. Given the existence of this
HUD guidance, initial learning costs
associated with implementation of a
smoke-free policy as proposed by this
rule may not be significant.
There may be costs to residents as a
result of eviction, particularly for
persons with disabilities, and especially
those with mobility impairments. HUD
recognizes that this rule could adversely
impact those with mobility impairment
or particular frailties that prevent them
from smoking in designated areas. As
mentioned above, HUD will develop
guidance on reasonable accommodation,
and HUD solicits public comment on
how to mitigate these potential adverse
impacts.
HUD recognizes that PHAs
developing smoke-free housing policies
may need technical assistance in writing
the policies, engaging residents, and
assisting residents who want to stop
smoking. HUD will continue to provide
free webinars and training sessions
addressing these and related topics.
PHAs are encouraged to work with their
State HUD office, State and local
tobacco prevention and cessation
programs, state and community health
organizations, and the Environmental
Protection Agency’s community-based
asthma program network
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(www.asthmacommunitynetwork.org).
CDC provides funding and technical
assistance to State tobacco prevention
and control programs and prevention
and smoking cessation programs in
every state and the District of Columbia
(see https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/
stateandcommunity/
tobacco_control_programs/ntcp/
index.htm). Contact information for
local organizations will be provided
through HUD’s Web site on a page
dedicated to smoke-free resources that is
under development.
D. Discussions With Stakeholders
In addition to the October 2012
Federal Register notice soliciting
information on adopting smoke-free
policies in HUD subsidized housing, in
March 2015, HUD reached out to
organizations representative of the
interests and concerns of PHAs to solicit
feedback on moving forward with
smoke-free policies in public housing.
The organizations expressed support for
smoke-free policies but also requested
that any regulations requiring smokefree policies allow sufficient flexibility
for PHAs to tailor such policies to their
local conditions. In this rule, HUD has
strived to provide such flexibility.
III. This Proposed Rule—Summary of
Changes
Applicability (§ 965.651)
As stated above, this proposal would
apply to all PHAs of any size and
Moving-to-Work (MTW) agencies, but it
would only apply to public housing,
and would not apply to dwelling units
in a mixed-finance project. Public
housing is defined as low-income
housing, and all necessary
appurtenances (e.g., community
facilities, public housing offices, day
care centers and laundry rooms) assisted
under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (the
1937 Act), other than assistance under
section 8 of the 1937 Act.
Requirements (§ 965.653)
In § 965.653, HUD provides that a
PHA’s smoke-free policy must prohibit
all ‘‘lit tobacco products.’’ HUD
proposes to define ‘‘lit tobacco
products’’ as all lit tobacco products
that involve the ignition and burning of
tobacco leaves such as cigarettes, cigars,
and pipes. HUD is proposing to require
that PHAs prohibit all lit tobacco
products not only in dwelling units, but
also within indoor common areas and in
outdoor areas within 25 feet of the
housing and any PHA administrative
office buildings (the ‘‘restricted areas’’).
Outside of these areas, PHAs would be
permitted to limit smoking to outdoor
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
designated smoking areas, which may
include partially enclosed structures to
accommodate residents who smoke, or,
alternatively, to make their entire
grounds smoke-free. PHAs that are not
making the entire grounds smoke-free
are encouraged to work with their
residents to identify outdoor designated
smoking areas that are accessible within
the grounds of the public housing or
administrative office buildings, that are
not frequented by children (e.g., not a
playground), and that are situated in a
way that minimizes nonsmoking
residents’ exposure to secondhand
smoke. While not required, a designated
smoking area with shade and benches
may assist residents with compliance.
smoking in the leases each tenant must
sign. This will allow PHAs to use
enforcement mechanisms already in
place and provide an additional
notification of the policy to tenants.
HUD expects PHAs to follow the PIH
administrative grievance procedures
during enforcement of their smoke-free
housing policies. Because some tenants
may not be recertified before the policy
takes effect, PHAs may require that all
remaining leases be amended, or may
establish their own schedule for lease
amendments, provided that all leases
are amended by the effective date of the
policy.
Implementation (§ 965.653)
HUD is proposing to provide PHAs 18
months from the effective date of the
final rule to implement smoke-free
public housing, as proposed by this
rule. HUD believes that 18 months will
provide PHAs sufficient time to conduct
resident engagement, to hold any public
meetings that are required to amend
their PHA plans, and to incorporate the
required new lease provisions during
tenants’ recertifications or at a date
before the policy is fully effective. PHAs
that already have a smoke-free policy in
effect will be required to review their
existing policies for compliance with
the requirements of this rule, as
presented in the final rule, and amend
their policies as necessary in the same
timeframe of 18 months from the
effective date of the final rule in order
to implement smoke-free public
housing, consistent with the
requirements of the final rule.
In addition, HUD is proposing to
require PHAs to amend their PHA plans
to incorporate the smoke-free policy. If
the PHA determines the imposition of a
smoke-free policy is a significant
amendment to the PHA plan, the PHA
must conduct public meetings in
accordance with standard PHA Plan
amendment procedures, and these
meetings must be held in accessible
buildings and provided in accessible
formats, as necessary, for persons with
disabilities and those who are limited in
English proficiency. HUD would
recommend that all PHAs conduct
meetings with residents to fully explain
the smoke-free building requirements
and to best determine which outside
areas, if any, to designate as smoking
areas and to accommodate the needs of
all residents.
While HUD welcomes comments on
all aspects of this proposed rule, HUD
is seeking specific comment on the
following questions:
1. What barriers that PHAs could
encounter in implementing smoke-free
housing? What costs could PHAs incur?
Are there any specific costs to enforcing
such a policy?
2. Does this proposed rule adequately
address the adverse effects of smoking
and secondhand smoke on PHAs and
PHA residents?
3. Does this proposed rule create
burdens, costs, or confer benefits
specific to families, children, persons
with disabilities, owners, or the elderly,
particularly if any individual or family
is evicted as a result of this policy?
4. For those PHAs that have already
implemented a smoke-free policy, what
exceptions to the requirements have
been granted based on tenants’ requests?
5. For those PHAs that have already
implemented a smoke-free policy, what
experiences, lessons, or advice would
you share based on your experiences
with implementing and enforcing the
policy?
6. For those PHAs that have already
implemented a smoke-free policy, what
tobacco cessation services were offered
to residents to assist with the change?
Did you establish partnerships with
external groups to provide or refer
residents to these services?
7. Are there specific areas of support
that HUD could provide PHAs that
would be particularly helpful in the
implementation of the proposed rule?
8. Should the policy extend to
electronic nicotine delivery systems,
such as e-cigarettes?
9. Should the policy extend to
waterpipe tobacco smoking? Does such
smoking increase the risk of fire or
property damage?
Lease Provisions (§ 966.4)
HUD believes that the best way to
implement smoke-free policies is to
incorporate the prohibition on indoor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
IV. Specific Questions for Comments
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71767
V. Findings and Certifications
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reviewed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 12866 (entitled
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’).
OMB determined that this rule was
economically significant under the
order. The docket file is available for
public inspection in the Regulations
Division, Office of General Counsel,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room
10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500.
The initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) prepared for this rule is also
available for public inspection in the
Regulations Division and may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov,
under the docket number above, or on
HUD’s Web site at https://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/
administration/hudclips/ia/. 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) 708–
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 at (800) 877–8339.
Information Collection Requirements
The information collection
requirements contained in this proposed
rule have been submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) and
assigned OMB control number 2577–
0226. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless the collection
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes
requirements for federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
This rule will not impose any federal
mandates on any state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector within
the meaning of UMRA.
Environmental Review
A Finding of No Significant Impact
with respect to the environment has
been made in accordance with HUD
regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
71768
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
implement section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The
Finding is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to
security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, please schedule
an appointment to review the Finding
by calling the Regulations Division at
202–708–3055 (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 at 800–877–8339.
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires
an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule
prohibits smoking of tobacco in all
indoor areas of and within 25 feet of any
public housing and administrative office
buildings for all PHAs, regardless of
size.
There are 2334 ‘‘small’’ PHAs
(defined as PHAs with fewer than 250
units), which make up 75 percent of the
public housing stock across the country.
Of this number, approximately 378 have
already instituted a voluntary full or
partial policy on indoor tobacco
smoking.
HUD anticipates that implementation
of the policy will impose minimal
additional costs, as creation of the
smoke-free policy only requires
amendment of leases and the PHA plan,
both of which may be done as part of
a PHA’s normal course of business.
Additionally, enforcement of the policy
will add minimal incremental costs, as
PHAs must already regularly inspect
public housing units and enforce lease
provisions. Any costs of this rule are
mitigated by the fact that PHAs have up
to 18 months to implement the policy,
allowing for costs to be spread across
that time period.
While there are significant benefits to
the smoke-free policy requirement, the
majority of those benefits accrue to the
public housing residents themselves,
not to the PHAs. PHAs will realize
monetary benefits due to reduced unit
turnover costs and reduced fire and fire
prevention costs, but these benefits are
variable according to the populations of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
each PHA and the PHA’s existing
practices.
Finally, this rule does not impose a
disproportionate burden on small PHAs.
The rule does not require a fixed
expenditure; rather, all costs should be
proportionate to the size of the PHA
implementing and enforcing the smokefree policy.
Therefore, the undersigned certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Notwithstanding HUD’s view that this
rule will not have a significant effect on
a substantial number of small entities,
HUD specifically invites comments
regarding any less burdensome
alternatives to this rule that will meet
HUD’s objectives as described in the
preamble.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled
‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism
implications if the rule either imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments or is not
required by statute, or the rule preempts
state law, unless the agency meets the
consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This
final rule does not have federalism
implications and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments nor
preempt state law within the meaning of
the Executive Order.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance number for the Public
Housing program is 14.872.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 965
Government procurement, Grant
programs-housing and community
development, Lead poisoning, Loan
programs-housing and community
development, Public housing, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Utilities.
24 CFR Part 966
Grant programs-housing and
community development, Public
housing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
the preamble, HUD proposes to amend
24 CFR parts 965 and 966 as follows:
PART 965—PHA-OWNED OR LEASED
PROJECTS—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR
part 965 continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1547, 1437a, 1437d,
1437g, and 3535(d). Subpart H is also issued
under 42 U.S.C. 4821–4846.
■
2. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G—Smoke-Free Public Housing
965.651 Applicability
965.653 Smoke-free public housing
965.655 Implementation
Subpart G—Smoke-Free Public
Housing
§ 965.651
Applicability.
This subpart applies to public
housing units, except for dwelling units
in a mixed-finance project. Public
housing is defined as low-income
housing, and all necessary
appurtenances (e.g., community
facilities, public housing offices, day
care centers, and laundry rooms)
thereto, assisted under the U.S. Housing
Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act), other than
assistance under section 8 of the 1937
Act.
§ 965.653
Smoke-free public housing.
(a) In general. PHAs must design and
implement a policy prohibiting the use
of lit tobacco products in all public
housing living units and interior
common areas (including but not
limited to hallways, rental and
administrative offices, community
centers, day care centers, laundry
centers, and similar structures), as well
as in outdoor areas within 25 feet from
public housing and administrative office
buildings (collectively, ‘‘restricted
areas’’) in which public housing is
located.
(b) Designated smoking areas. PHAs
may limit smoking to designated
smoking areas on the grounds of the
public housing or administrative office
buildings, which may include partially
enclosed structures, to accommodate
residents who smoke. These areas must
be outside of any restricted areas, as
defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
Alternatively, PHAs may choose to
create additional smoke-free areas
outside the restricted areas or to make
their entire grounds smoke-free.
(c) Lit tobacco products. Lit tobacco
products are those that involve the
ignition and burning of tobacco leaves,
such cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. A
PHA’s smoke-free policy must, at a
minimum, include a prohibition on the
use of all lit tobacco products.
§ 965.655
Implementation.
(a) Amendments. PHAs are required
to implement the requirements of this
subpart by amending each of the
following:
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(1) All applicable PHA plans,
according to the provisions in 24 CFR
part 903.
(2) Tenant leases, according to the
provisions of 24 CFR 966.4.
(b) Deadline. All PHAs must be in full
compliance, with effective policy
amendments, by [INSERT, AT THE
FINAL RULE STAGE, THE DATE THAT
IS 540 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
PART 966—PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE
AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
4. In § 966.4, revise paragraphs (f) (12)
(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
■
Lease Requirements.
wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(12) * * *
(i) To assure that no tenant, member
of the tenant’s household, or guest
engages in:
(A) Criminal activity. (1) Any criminal
activity that threatens the health, safety
or right to peaceful enjoyment of the
premises by other residents;
(2) Any drug-related criminal activity
on or off the premises; or
(B) Civil activity. For any units
covered by 24 CFR part 965, subpart G,
any smoking of lit tobacco products in
restricted areas, as defined by 24 CFR
965.653(a), or in other outdoor areas
that the PHA has designated as smokefree.
(ii) To assure that no other person
under the tenant’s control engages in:
(A) Criminal activity. (1) Any criminal
activity that threatens the health, safety
or right to peaceful enjoyment of the
premises by other residents;
(2) Any drug-related criminal activity
on the premises; or
(B) Civil activity. For any units
covered by 24 CFR part 965, subpart G,
any smoking of lit tobacco products in
restricted areas, as defined by 24 CFR
965.653(a), or in other outdoor areas
that the PHA has designated as smokefree.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Nov 16, 2015
Jkt 238001
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
RIN 1545–BM86
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).
*
[FR Doc. 2015–29346 Filed 11–16–15; 8:45 am]
[REG–123640–15]
3. The authority section for 24 CFR
part 966 continues to read as follows:
■
§ 966.4
Dated: October 22, 2015.
´
Lourdes Castro Ramırez,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public and Indian Housing.
Administration of Multiemployer Plan
Participant Vote on an Approved
Suspension of Benefits Under MPRA;
Hearing
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document provides
notice of public hearing on proposed
regulations relating to the
administration of a multiemployer plan
participant vote on an approved
suspension of benefits under the
Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of
2014 (MPRA) that were issued in the
Proposed Rules section of the Federal
Register on September 2, 2015.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on Friday, December 18, 2015, at 10
a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of
the topics to be discussed at the public
hearing by Monday, November 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being
held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal
Revenue Service Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20224.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–123640–15), Room 5205, Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday to
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–132634–14),
Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
71769
Washington, DC or sent electronically
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov (IRS–2015–0041).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the regulations, the
Department of the Treasury MPRA
guidance information line at (202) 622–
1559; concerning submissions of
comments, the hearing and/or to be
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing Regina Johnson at
(202) 317–6901 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject of the public hearing is the
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
123640–15) that was published in the
Federal Register on Wednesday,
September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53068). The
rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to
the hearing. Persons who wish to
present oral comments at the hearing
and who submitted written comments
by November 2, 2015 must submit an
outline of the topics to be addressed and
the amount of time to be devoted to
each topic by Monday, November 30,
2015.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to
each person for presenting oral
comments. After the deadline for
receiving outlines has passed, the IRS
will prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. Copies of the
agenda will be made available, free of
charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom
of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR)
(Room 1621) which is located at the
11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS
will not admit visitors beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2015–29289 Filed 11–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71762-71769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29346]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 965 and 966
[Docket No. FR 5597-P-02]
RIN 2577-AC97
Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require each public housing agency
(PHA) administering public housing to implement a smoke-free policy.
Specifically, this rule proposes that no later than 18 months from the
effective date of the final rule, each PHA must implement a policy
prohibiting lit tobacco products in all living units, indoor common
areas in public housing, and in PHA administrative office buildings (in
brief, a smoke-free policy for all public housing indoor areas). The
smoke-free policy must also extend to all outdoor areas up to 25 feet
from the housing and administrative office buildings. HUD proposes
implementation of smoke-free public housing to improve indoor air
quality in the housing, benefit the health of public housing residents
and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall
maintenance costs.
DATES: Comment Due Date: January 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule. All communications must refer to the above docket
number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
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
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 comments immediately available
to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the
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 202-708-3055 (this is
not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments
may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available
for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Ferguson, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-402-2411
(this is not a toll-free number). Persons who are deaf or hard of
hearing and persons with speech impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
The purpose of the proposed rule is to require PHAs to, within 18
months of the final rule, establish a policy prohibiting lit tobacco
products, as such term is proposed to be defined in Sec. 965.653(c).
inside all indoor areas of public housing, including but not limited to
living units, indoor common areas, electrical closets, storage units,
and PHA administrative office buildings and in all outdoor areas within
25 feet of the housing and administrative office buildings
(collectively, ``restricted areas''). As further discussed in this
rule, such a policy is expected to improve indoor air quality in public
housing, benefit the health of public housing residents and PHA staff,
reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance
costs.
B. Summary of Major Provisions of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would apply to all public housing, other than
dwelling units in mixed-finance buildings. PHAs would be required,
within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule, to establish
policies prohibiting lit tobacco products in all restricted areas. PHAs
may, but would not be required to, further restrict smoking to outdoor
dedicated smoking areas outside the restricted areas, create additional
restricted areas in which smoking is
[[Page 71763]]
prohibited (e.g., near a playground), or, alternatively, make their
entire grounds smoke-free.
PHAs would also be required to document their smoke-free policies
in their PHA plans, a process that requires resident engagement and
public meetings. The prohibition on lit tobacco would also be included
in a tenant's lease, which may be done either through an amendment
process or as tenants renew their leases annually.
C. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule
The costs to PHAs of implementing smoke-free policies may include
training, administrative, legal, and enforcement costs. Of these costs,
HUD expects that the expense of additional enforcement efforts may be
the highest. The costs of implementing a smoke-free policy as proposed
by this rule are minimized by the fact that HUD guidance already exists
on many of the topics covered by the smoke-free policy proposed to be
required by this rule; that hundreds of PHAs have already voluntarily
implemented smoke-free policies; and that infrastructure already exists
for enforcement of lease violations, and violation of the smoke-free
policy would be a lease violation. In addition, time spent by PHA staff
on implementing and enforcing the smoke-free policy will be partially
offset by the time that staff no longer have to spend mediating
disputes among residents over smoking in secondhand smoke infiltration
within living units. Given the existing HUD guidance, initial learning
costs associated with implementation of a smoke-free policy may not be
significant. For the hundreds of PHAs that are already implementing
voluntary smoke-free policies, there will be minimal costs for these
PHAs, and, generally, only if their existing policies are not
consistent with the minimum requirements for smoke-free policies
proposed by this rule.
The benefits of smoke free policies, however, could be
considerable. Over 700,000 units would be affected by this rule
(including over 500,000 units inhabited by elderly households or
households with a non-elderly person with disabilities), and their non-
smoking residents would have the potential to experience health
benefits from a reduction of exposure to secondhand smoke. PHAs will
also benefit from a reduction of damage caused by smoking, and
residents and PHAs both gain from seeing a reduction in injuries,
deaths, and property damage caused by fires. Estimates of these and
other rule-induced impacts are summarized in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount (discount
Impact Source rates in
parentheses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (potentially recurring PHA Compliance...... $3.2 million.
but concentrated during
first few years of the
rule's implementation).
Cost (recurring)............ Smoker Inconvenience $209 million.
Cost (recurring)............ Enforcement......... Not quantified.
Benefit (recurring)......... PHA Reduced $16 to $38 million.
Maintenance.
Benefit (recurring)......... PHA Reduced Fire $32 million.
Risk.
Benefit (annualized over 10 Non-Smoker Health... Less than:
to 50 years). $148 to $447 million
(3%)
$70 to $137 million
(7%).
Benefit (recurring)......... Non-Smoker Well- $96 to $275 million.
Being (PHA
residents who do
not live in units
with smokers).
Benefit (recurring)......... Smoker Health....... Not quantified.
Partially Quantified Net See above........... Less than: -$19 to
Benefits (recurring). $302 million (3%) -
$97 to -$8 million
(7%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional details on the costs and benefits of this rule,
please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule, which
can be found at www.regulations.gov, under the docket number for this
rule. Information on how to view the RIA is included below.
II. Background
A. The Effects of Smoking on Health
Tobacco smoking has been determined to be a cause of diseases of
nearly all organs in the body, and research continues to newly identify
diseases caused by smoking, including diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid
arthritis, and colorectal cancer. In addition to causing multiple
diseases and cancers, tobacco smoking has many other adverse effects on
the body, including inflammation and impairment to the immune
system.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of the Surgeon General, ``The Health Consequences of
Smoking--50 Years of Progress,'' (2014), available at https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse effects of tobacco use are not limited to the smoker. The
U.S. Surgeon General estimates that exposure to secondhand tobacco
smoke (i.e., the smoke that comes from burning tobacco products and is
exhaled by smokers) is responsible for the death of 41,000 adults non-
smokers in the United States each year from lung cancer and heart
disease.\2\ Secondhand smoke (SHS) contains hundreds of toxic chemicals
and is designated as a known human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.\3\ Exposure to SHS can
also cause sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory symptoms such
as cough and wheeze, middle ear infections, and slowed lung growth and
reduced lung function in children, and increased risk of stroke in
adults.\4\ The Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-free
level of exposure to SHS, and that eliminating smoking in indoor spaces
fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating
smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings
cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
\3\ American Cancer Society, ``Secondhand Smoke,'' https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke.
\4\ 2014 Surgeon General's Report, footnote 1.
\5\ U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, ``The Health
Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of
the Surgeon General,'' (2006), available at https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fullreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of SHS are especially damaging in children and unborn
fetuses. The Surgeon General estimates that SHS is responsible for the
death of hundreds of newborns from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
each year.\6\ Lead in SHS is also a significant source of lead in house
dust and children's blood. The CDC confirmed the association between
SHS exposure
[[Page 71764]]
and blood-lead levels in youth and adults, concluding that youth with
SHS exposure had blood lead levels high enough to result in adverse
cognitive outcomes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ Patricia Richter et al., ``Trends in Tobacco Smoke Exposure
and Blood Lead Levels Among Youth and Adults in the United States:
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2008,''
Preventing Chronic Disease, (December 19, 2013), available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/pdf/13_0056.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately half of the U.S. population is protected from SHS
exposure through statewide, municipal, and federal laws prohibiting
smoking in indoor areas of public places and worksites, including bars
and restaurants. However, an estimated 58 million Americans remain
exposed to secondhand smoke, including 15 million children ages 3 to
11. The home is the primary source of exposure for children.\8\ Because
SHS moves throughout buildings, individuals living in multiunit housing
can be exposed to SHS even if no one smokes in their households.
Surveys of multiunit housing residents indicate that 26 to 64 percent
of residents reported SHS incursions into their units from external
sources (e.g., hallways or adjacent apartments), and 65 to 90 percent
of the residents experiencing such incursions were bothered by them.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 2006 Surgeon General's Report, footnote 5; David M. Homa et
al., ``Vital Signs: Disparities in Nonsmokers' Exposure to
Secondhand Smoke--United States, 1999-2012,'' Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report (February 6, 2015), available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6404a7.htm?s_cid=mm6404a7_w.
\9\ Kimberly Snyder et al., ``Smoke-free Multiunit Housing: A
Review of the Scientific Literature,'' Tobacco Control (2015),
available at https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2015/01/07/tobaccocontrol-2014-051849.short?rss=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The movement of contaminants from SHS within buildings has also
been documented through direct measurements of fine particles (an
environmental marker of SHS) in indoor air. SHS can move both from
external hallways into apartments and between adjacent units.\10\ A
study of public housing documented lower concentrations of SHS
contaminants in buildings covered by smoke-free policies (i.e.,
policies prohibiting the smoking of tobacco products in all indoor
spaces) compared to buildings without these policies.\11\ Analysis of
data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
demonstrated evidence of greater SHS exposure among children (aged 6 to
18) living in multiunit housing through measurements of cotinine (a
metabolite of nicotine) in their blood.\12\ The study demonstrated that
children living in non-smoking households in apartments had 45 percent
higher levels of cotinine in their blood compared to children living in
non-smoking households in detached homes. CDC researchers analyzed
NHANES data over the period from 1999-2012 and reported that one of
four nonsmokers (approximately 58 million people) continue to be
exposed to SHS, with the highest exposures among children, non-Hispanic
blacks, renters, and those living in poverty.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Brian A. King et al., ``Secondhand Smoke Transfer in
Multiunit Housing,'' 12 Nicotine and Tobacco Research 1133 (2010),
available at https://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/11/1133.
\11\ Elizabeth T. Russo, et al., ``Comparison of Indoor Air
Quality in Smoke-Permitted and Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing:
Findings from the Boston Housing Authority,'' 10 Nicotine and
Tobacco Research 1093 (2014), available at https://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/25/ntr.ntu146.abstract?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=comparison-of-indoor-air-quality-in-smoke-permitted-and-smoke-free-multiunit-housing-findings-from-the-boston-housing-authority.
\12\ Karen M. Wilson et al., ``Tobacco-Smoke Exposure in
Children Who Live in Multiunit Housing,'' 127 Pediatrics 85 (2011),
available at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/1/85.full.pdf+html.
\13\ David M. Homa et al., ``Disparities in Nonsmokers Exposure
to Secondhand Smoke in the United States, 1999-2012,'' Mortality and
Morbidity Weekly Report, Early Release, 64 (February 3, 2015),
available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm64e0203a1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Surgeon General concluded in 2006 that separating smokers and
nonsmokers, building ventilation, and cleaning the air cannot eliminate
exposure to SHS; that can only be accomplished by eliminating smoking
from indoor spaces.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. See footnote note
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Financial Costs of Smoking
Beyond the increased costs associated with higher healthcare
expenses, tobacco smoking can have profound financial impacts on PHAs
and owners of other multiunit properties. Smoking is the leading cause
of fire deaths in multiunit properties.\15\ In 2011, smoking caused
17,600 residential fires resulting in 490 civilian deaths, 1,370
injuries, and $516 million in direct property damage.\16\ Smoking is
especially dangerous in units where a household member is receiving
oxygen for medical purposes. Research conducted by the U.S. Fire
Protection Association found that for fire deaths during the period
from 2007-2011 in which oxygen administration equipment was cited as
being involved in the ignition, 82 percent involved smoking materials
as the heat source.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Fire Administration, Residential Structure and
Building Fires, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/residential_structure_and_building_fires.pdf.
\16\ Marty Ahrens, Ntl. Fire Protection Assn., ``Home Structure
Fires,'' (April 2013), available at https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/
Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Occupancies/oshomes.pdf.
\17\ John R. Hall, Jr., Ntl. Fire Protection Assn., ``The
Smoking-Material Fire Problem,'' (July 2013), available at https://
www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Major%20Causes/
ossmoking.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking is also associated with higher maintenance costs for
landlords of multiunit housing. Smoking indoors increases the cost of
rehabilitating a housing unit because of the need for additional
cleaning, painting, and repair of damaged items at unit turnover
compared to non-smoking units. The cost of cleaning and renovating a
smoking unit adds up quickly, and smaller properties generally pay more
per unit than larger properties when repairing smoking damage. A survey
of public and subsidized housing managers found that the additional
cost of rehabilitating the units of smokers averaged $1,250 to $2,955
per unit, depending on the intensity of smoking.\18\ A study conducted
in California found that the owners of multiunit housing could save
over $18 million per year if the operators of all multiunit housing in
the state adopted smoke-free building policies.\19\ Researchers from
the CDC estimated that a nationwide smoke-free public housing policy
would result in an estimated annual cost savings of $152.91 million,
including $42.99 million in reduced renovation costs and $15.92 million
in averted fire losses.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ntl. Ctr. For Healthy Hsg., ``Reasons to Explore Smoke-Free
Housing,'' (Early Fall 2009), available at https://www.nchh.org/portals/0/contents/nchh_green_factsheet_smokefree.pdf.
\19\ Michael K. Ong et al, ``Estimates of Smoking-Related
Properties Costs in California Multiunit Housing,'' 102 Am J Public
Health 490 (2012), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487653/.
\20\ Brian King et al., ``National and State Cost Savings
Associated With Prohibiting Smoking in Subsidized and Public Housing
in the United States,'' Preventing Chronic Disease (October 2014),
available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/pdf/14_0222.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-imposed rules prohibiting smoking in individual households
(referred to as smoke-free home rules) are becoming increasingly common
in the United States. CDC researchers found that the prevalence of
smoke-free home rules among U.S. households increased from 43 percent
in 1992-1993 to 83 percent in 2010-2011, including an increase among
households with at least one adult smoker, implying that the smokers in
these households agree to smoke outside of the home.\21\ Two
[[Page 71765]]
national surveys discussed by the CDC researchers identified voluntary
smoke-free home rules among residents of multiunit housing in over 70
percent of those surveyed. Additionally, CDC researchers, reviewing
published studies, found that the majority of residents in multiunit
housing expressed support for a complete smoke-free building policy in
six of eight reviewed studies.\22\ The findings from these national and
local surveys suggest that a smoke-free rule will be supported by a
majority of public housing residents and will help those residents who
already have a smoke-free home rule in place achieve the desired goal
of eliminating the presence of SHS in their homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Brian A. King et al., ``Prevalence of Smokefree Home
Rules--United States, 1992-1993 and 2010-2011,'' Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report (Sept. 5, 2014), available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a1.htm.
\22\ Kimberly Snyder et al., supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Moving to Smoke-Free Public Housing Units
HUD determined that the advantages of smoke-free housing policies
were sufficient to warrant action by HUD to promote the voluntary
adoption of smoke-free policies by PHAs and the owners/operators of
federally subsidized multifamily properties. In 2009, HUD's Office of
Public and Indian Housing published a notice that strongly encouraged
PHAs to adopt smoke-free policies in at least some of the properties
that they managed (this notice was reissued in 2012).\23\ HUD's Office
of Housing issued a similar program notice in 2010 that encouraged
owners/operators of subsidized multifamily properties to adopt smoke-
free policies (also reissued in 2012).\24\ The notices describe the
advantages of smoke-free policies, identify required and recommended
actions in implementing smoke-free policies, and provide links to
resources (e.g., smoking cessation assistance for residents). In June
2012, HUD published more detailed information on smoke-free housing
policies for residents and the providers of subsidized housing,
referred to as ``smoke-free toolkits.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ PIH Notices 2009-21, ``Non-Smoking Policies in Public
Housing'' and 2012-25, ``Smoke-Free Policies in Public Housing'',
available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/notices/pih.
\24\ Housing Notices 2010-21, ``Optional Smoke-Free Housing
Policy Implementation'' and 2012-22, ``Further Encouragement for O/
As to Adopt Optional Smoke-Free Housing Policies,'' available at
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/notices/hsg.
\25\ See: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/smokefreetoolkits1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2012, HUD also published a Federal Register notice that
solicited feedback on the HUD's smoke-free housing initiative,
specifically seeking information on topics such as best practices and
practical strategies from housing providers who have implemented smoke-
free policies, potential obstacles to policy implementation and how
these could be overcome, suggestions for supporting housing providers
and residents to facilitate policy implementation, and feedback from
housing providers who have decided not to implement smoke-free
policies.\26\ HUD received many comments in response to this
solicitation, largely from public health organizations and State and
local health departments, expressing support for the concept and citing
the great health risks posed by smoking and SHS.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 77 FR 60712, ``Request for Information on Adopting Smoke-
Free Policies in PHAs and Multifamily Housing'' (October 4, 2012).
\27\ All public comments submitted on the October 4, 2012,
notice can be found under docket 5597-N-01 in the
www.regulations.gov portal at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2012-0103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, HUD released additional guidance for PHAs and owners/
agents of subsidized multifamily properties on implementing smoke-free
policies. This guidance incorporates some of the feedback that HUD
received from the 2012 Federal Register notice and includes summaries
of interviews with nine early implementers of smoke-free housing
policies, including administrators of public housing, subsidized
multifamily housing, and market rate housing.\28\ The guidance includes
best practices around enforcement, especially graduated enforcement to
assist residents with compliance and prevent evictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=SFGuidanceManual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of these combined actions, over 500 PHAs have
implemented smoke-free policies in at least one of their buildings.
While this voluntary effort has been highly successful, it has also
resulted in a scattered distribution of smoke-free policies, with the
greatest concentration in the Northeast, West, and Northwest, which
also results in unequal protection from SHS for public housing
residents. HUD recognizes that additional action is necessary to truly
eliminate the risk of SHS exposure to public housing residents, reduce
the risk of catastrophic fires, lower overall maintenance costs, and
implement uniform requirements to ensure that all public housing
residents are equally protected.
Therefore, HUD is proposing to require PHAs to implement smoke-free
policies within public housing except for dwelling units in a mixed-
finance project. Public housing is defined as low-income housing, and
all necessary appurtenances (e.g., community facilities, public housing
offices, day care centers, and laundry rooms) thereto, assisted under
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act), other than assistance
under section 8 of the 1937 Act.
While the smoke-free policy will also apply to scattered sites and
single family properties, this requirement would not extend to public
housing units that are part of a mixed-finance project because the PHA
may not be the primary owner, and non-public housing units may be
contained within the building. While smoking in single family units
does not lead to smoke intrusion to adjacent units, the risk of fire
and the increased unit turnover costs remain. Further, including all
public housing units covered by this proposed rule means that all
tenants will be treated equally and be subject to the same lease
requirements. This prohibition on smoking would cover all types of lit
tobacco products, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, and
pipes. While the prohibition does not specifically cover waterpipe
tobacco smoking (referred to as hookahs), such smoking involves lit
charcoal and results in heating tobacco to temperatures high enough to
produce secondhand smoke that contains harmful toxins.\29\ For this
reason, HUD is seeking comment on whether to include a prohibition on
waterpipe tobacco in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See World Health Organization. Advisory note: waterpipe
tobacco smoking: 2nd edition (2015), available at https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/waterpipesecondedition/en/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prohibition on the use of lit tobacco products in this proposal
does not include electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including
electronic cigarettes (``e-cigarettes''). The absence of a prohibition
on the use of e-cigarettes in this rule should not be read as an
endorsement of e-cigarettes as an acceptable health alternative to
cigarettes. The aerosol from ENDS typically contains nicotine derived
from tobacco plants, and may contain other hazardous and potentially
hazardous constituents such as formaldehyde and lead.\30\ Accidental
ingestion of nicotine liquid used in ENDS can cause acute nicotine
toxicity in children, accounting
[[Page 71766]]
for an increasing proportion of exposure calls to poison control
centers.\31\ ENDS may also present an additional enforcement challenge
for PHAs that are implementing smoke-free policies because the user may
appear to be smoking a conventional cigarette. In light of growing
health concerns regarding exposure to the aerosol of these products
among non-users, especially children and pregnant women, HUD is seeking
additional comments on the issue of ENDS, and may prohibit the use of
these products in public housing in the final rule. HUD encourages PHAs
that already have smoke-free policies to consider whether ENDS should
be included in their smoke-free policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Offerman, F.J. The hazards of e-cigarettes. June, 2014.
ASHRAE Journal. See also National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, ``Promoting Health and Preventing Disease and Injury
Through Workplace Tobacco Policies,'' Current Intelligence Bulletin
67 (2015), available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2015-113/pdfs/fy15_cib-67_2015-113_v3.pdf.
\31\ CDC. Notes from the field: Calls to Poison Centers for
Exposures to Electronic Cigarettes--United States, September 2010-
February 2014. MMWR 2014;63:292-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing this policy, it is important for HUD to clarify that
HUD's proposal does not prohibit individual PHA residents from smoking.
PHAs should continue leasing to persons who smoke. This rule is not
intended to contradict HUD's goals to end homelessness and help all
Americans secure quality housing. Rather, HUD is proposing a
prohibition on smoking inside public housing living units and indoor
common areas, public housing administrative office buildings, public
housing community rooms or community facilities, public housing day
care centers and laundry rooms, in outdoor areas within 25 feet of the
housing and administrative office buildings, and in other areas
designated by a PHA as smoke-free (collectively, ``restricted areas'').
PHAs will have the discretion to establish outside designated smoking
locations outside of the required 25 feet perimeter, which may include
partially enclosed structures, to accommodate smoking residents, to
establish additional smoke-free areas (such as around a playground),
or, alternatively, to make their entire grounds smoke-free. In
addition, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act provides the participant the right to
seek a reasonable accommodation, including requests from residents with
mobility-impairment or mental disability. A request for a reasonable
accommodation from an eligible participant must at least be considered,
and granted in appropriate circumstances. To assist PHAs, HUD will work
with its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to develop
guidance on accommodating persons with a disability related to smoke-
free policies. The guidance will be informed by comments on the
proposed rule and issued in advance of the final rule.
The benefits of this proposed regulatory action may be substantial,
and beneficiaries include both PHAs and residents of public housing.
Over 700,000 units would be affected by this rule (including over
500,000 units inhabited by elderly households or households with a non-
elderly person with disabilities), and their residents would have the
potential to experience health benefits from a reduction of exposure to
secondhand smoke. There are also over 775,000 children in these units.
PHAs will benefit from a reduction of damage and renovation costs
caused by smoking. Both residents and PHAs will gain from reducing
deaths, injuries, and property damage caused by fires. The costs to
PHAs of implementing the smoke-free policy proposed by this rule may
include training, administrative, legal, and enforcement costs. Of
these costs to PHAs, HUD expects that the expense of additional
enforcement efforts may be the highest. The costs of implementing the
smoke-free policy proposed by this rule are minimized by the fact that
HUD guidance already exists on many of the topics covered by the
proposed regulatory changes, and that over 500 PHAs have already
implemented smoke-free policies. Given the existence of this HUD
guidance, initial learning costs associated with implementation of a
smoke-free policy as proposed by this rule may not be significant.
There may be costs to residents as a result of eviction,
particularly for persons with disabilities, and especially those with
mobility impairments. HUD recognizes that this rule could adversely
impact those with mobility impairment or particular frailties that
prevent them from smoking in designated areas. As mentioned above, HUD
will develop guidance on reasonable accommodation, and HUD solicits
public comment on how to mitigate these potential adverse impacts.
HUD recognizes that PHAs developing smoke-free housing policies may
need technical assistance in writing the policies, engaging residents,
and assisting residents who want to stop smoking. HUD will continue to
provide free webinars and training sessions addressing these and
related topics. PHAs are encouraged to work with their State HUD
office, State and local tobacco prevention and cessation programs,
state and community health organizations, and the Environmental
Protection Agency's community-based asthma program network
(www.asthmacommunitynetwork.org). CDC provides funding and technical
assistance to State tobacco prevention and control programs and
prevention and smoking cessation programs in every state and the
District of Columbia (see https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/tobacco_control_programs/ntcp/index.htm). Contact information for local
organizations will be provided through HUD's Web site on a page
dedicated to smoke-free resources that is under development.
D. Discussions With Stakeholders
In addition to the October 2012 Federal Register notice soliciting
information on adopting smoke-free policies in HUD subsidized housing,
in March 2015, HUD reached out to organizations representative of the
interests and concerns of PHAs to solicit feedback on moving forward
with smoke-free policies in public housing. The organizations expressed
support for smoke-free policies but also requested that any regulations
requiring smoke-free policies allow sufficient flexibility for PHAs to
tailor such policies to their local conditions. In this rule, HUD has
strived to provide such flexibility.
III. This Proposed Rule--Summary of Changes
Applicability (Sec. 965.651)
As stated above, this proposal would apply to all PHAs of any size
and Moving-to-Work (MTW) agencies, but it would only apply to public
housing, and would not apply to dwelling units in a mixed-finance
project. Public housing is defined as low-income housing, and all
necessary appurtenances (e.g., community facilities, public housing
offices, day care centers and laundry rooms) assisted under the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act), other than assistance under section
8 of the 1937 Act.
Requirements (Sec. 965.653)
In Sec. 965.653, HUD provides that a PHA's smoke-free policy must
prohibit all ``lit tobacco products.'' HUD proposes to define ``lit
tobacco products'' as all lit tobacco products that involve the
ignition and burning of tobacco leaves such as cigarettes, cigars, and
pipes. HUD is proposing to require that PHAs prohibit all lit tobacco
products not only in dwelling units, but also within indoor common
areas and in outdoor areas within 25 feet of the housing and any PHA
administrative office buildings (the ``restricted areas''). Outside of
these areas, PHAs would be permitted to limit smoking to outdoor
[[Page 71767]]
designated smoking areas, which may include partially enclosed
structures to accommodate residents who smoke, or, alternatively, to
make their entire grounds smoke-free. PHAs that are not making the
entire grounds smoke-free are encouraged to work with their residents
to identify outdoor designated smoking areas that are accessible within
the grounds of the public housing or administrative office buildings,
that are not frequented by children (e.g., not a playground), and that
are situated in a way that minimizes nonsmoking residents' exposure to
secondhand smoke. While not required, a designated smoking area with
shade and benches may assist residents with compliance.
Implementation (Sec. 965.653)
HUD is proposing to provide PHAs 18 months from the effective date
of the final rule to implement smoke-free public housing, as proposed
by this rule. HUD believes that 18 months will provide PHAs sufficient
time to conduct resident engagement, to hold any public meetings that
are required to amend their PHA plans, and to incorporate the required
new lease provisions during tenants' recertifications or at a date
before the policy is fully effective. PHAs that already have a smoke-
free policy in effect will be required to review their existing
policies for compliance with the requirements of this rule, as
presented in the final rule, and amend their policies as necessary in
the same timeframe of 18 months from the effective date of the final
rule in order to implement smoke-free public housing, consistent with
the requirements of the final rule.
In addition, HUD is proposing to require PHAs to amend their PHA
plans to incorporate the smoke-free policy. If the PHA determines the
imposition of a smoke-free policy is a significant amendment to the PHA
plan, the PHA must conduct public meetings in accordance with standard
PHA Plan amendment procedures, and these meetings must be held in
accessible buildings and provided in accessible formats, as necessary,
for persons with disabilities and those who are limited in English
proficiency. HUD would recommend that all PHAs conduct meetings with
residents to fully explain the smoke-free building requirements and to
best determine which outside areas, if any, to designate as smoking
areas and to accommodate the needs of all residents.
Lease Provisions (Sec. 966.4)
HUD believes that the best way to implement smoke-free policies is
to incorporate the prohibition on indoor smoking in the leases each
tenant must sign. This will allow PHAs to use enforcement mechanisms
already in place and provide an additional notification of the policy
to tenants. HUD expects PHAs to follow the PIH administrative grievance
procedures during enforcement of their smoke-free housing policies.
Because some tenants may not be recertified before the policy takes
effect, PHAs may require that all remaining leases be amended, or may
establish their own schedule for lease amendments, provided that all
leases are amended by the effective date of the policy.
IV. Specific Questions for Comments
While HUD welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rule,
HUD is seeking specific comment on the following questions:
1. What barriers that PHAs could encounter in implementing smoke-
free housing? What costs could PHAs incur? Are there any specific costs
to enforcing such a policy?
2. Does this proposed rule adequately address the adverse effects
of smoking and secondhand smoke on PHAs and PHA residents?
3. Does this proposed rule create burdens, costs, or confer
benefits specific to families, children, persons with disabilities,
owners, or the elderly, particularly if any individual or family is
evicted as a result of this policy?
4. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free
policy, what exceptions to the requirements have been granted based on
tenants' requests?
5. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free
policy, what experiences, lessons, or advice would you share based on
your experiences with implementing and enforcing the policy?
6. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free
policy, what tobacco cessation services were offered to residents to
assist with the change? Did you establish partnerships with external
groups to provide or refer residents to these services?
7. Are there specific areas of support that HUD could provide PHAs
that would be particularly helpful in the implementation of the
proposed rule?
8. Should the policy extend to electronic nicotine delivery
systems, such as e-cigarettes?
9. Should the policy extend to waterpipe tobacco smoking? Does such
smoking increase the risk of fire or property damage?
V. Findings and Certifications
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this proposed
rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''). OMB determined that this rule was economically significant
under the order. The docket file is available for public inspection in
the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410-0500. The initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
prepared for this rule is also available for public inspection in the
Regulations Division and may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov,
under the docket number above, or on HUD's Web site at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/ia/. 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) 708-3055 (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 at (800) 877-8339.
Information Collection Requirements
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed
rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and
assigned OMB control number 2577-0226. In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. This rule will not impose any federal mandates on
any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within
the meaning of UMRA.
Environmental Review
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that
[[Page 71768]]
implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding is available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to
security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an
appointment to review the Finding by calling the Regulations Division
at 202-708-3055 (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 at 800-877-8339.
Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule prohibits smoking of tobacco in all indoor areas of and
within 25 feet of any public housing and administrative office
buildings for all PHAs, regardless of size.
There are 2334 ``small'' PHAs (defined as PHAs with fewer than 250
units), which make up 75 percent of the public housing stock across the
country. Of this number, approximately 378 have already instituted a
voluntary full or partial policy on indoor tobacco smoking.
HUD anticipates that implementation of the policy will impose
minimal additional costs, as creation of the smoke-free policy only
requires amendment of leases and the PHA plan, both of which may be
done as part of a PHA's normal course of business. Additionally,
enforcement of the policy will add minimal incremental costs, as PHAs
must already regularly inspect public housing units and enforce lease
provisions. Any costs of this rule are mitigated by the fact that PHAs
have up to 18 months to implement the policy, allowing for costs to be
spread across that time period.
While there are significant benefits to the smoke-free policy
requirement, the majority of those benefits accrue to the public
housing residents themselves, not to the PHAs. PHAs will realize
monetary benefits due to reduced unit turnover costs and reduced fire
and fire prevention costs, but these benefits are variable according to
the populations of each PHA and the PHA's existing practices.
Finally, this rule does not impose a disproportionate burden on
small PHAs. The rule does not require a fixed expenditure; rather, all
costs should be proportionate to the size of the PHA implementing and
enforcing the smoke-free policy.
Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding HUD's view that this rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD
specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome
alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described
in the preamble.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency
from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have
federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local governments nor preempt state law
within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the Public
Housing program is 14.872.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 965
Government procurement, Grant programs-housing and community
development, Lead poisoning, Loan programs-housing and community
development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Utilities.
24 CFR Part 966
Grant programs-housing and community development, Public housing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes
to amend 24 CFR parts 965 and 966 as follows:
PART 965--PHA-OWNED OR LEASED PROJECTS--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 965 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1547, 1437a, 1437d, 1437g, and 3535(d).
Subpart H is also issued under 42 U.S.C. 4821-4846.
0
2. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--Smoke-Free Public Housing
965.651 Applicability
965.653 Smoke-free public housing
965.655 Implementation
Subpart G--Smoke-Free Public Housing
Sec. 965.651 Applicability.
This subpart applies to public housing units, except for dwelling
units in a mixed-finance project. Public housing is defined as low-
income housing, and all necessary appurtenances (e.g., community
facilities, public housing offices, day care centers, and laundry
rooms) thereto, assisted under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937
Act), other than assistance under section 8 of the 1937 Act.
Sec. 965.653 Smoke-free public housing.
(a) In general. PHAs must design and implement a policy prohibiting
the use of lit tobacco products in all public housing living units and
interior common areas (including but not limited to hallways, rental
and administrative offices, community centers, day care centers,
laundry centers, and similar structures), as well as in outdoor areas
within 25 feet from public housing and administrative office buildings
(collectively, ``restricted areas'') in which public housing is
located.
(b) Designated smoking areas. PHAs may limit smoking to designated
smoking areas on the grounds of the public housing or administrative
office buildings, which may include partially enclosed structures, to
accommodate residents who smoke. These areas must be outside of any
restricted areas, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
Alternatively, PHAs may choose to create additional smoke-free areas
outside the restricted areas or to make their entire grounds smoke-
free.
(c) Lit tobacco products. Lit tobacco products are those that
involve the ignition and burning of tobacco leaves, such cigarettes,
cigars, and pipes. A PHA's smoke-free policy must, at a minimum,
include a prohibition on the use of all lit tobacco products.
Sec. 965.655 Implementation.
(a) Amendments. PHAs are required to implement the requirements of
this subpart by amending each of the following:
[[Page 71769]]
(1) All applicable PHA plans, according to the provisions in 24 CFR
part 903.
(2) Tenant leases, according to the provisions of 24 CFR 966.4.
(b) Deadline. All PHAs must be in full compliance, with effective
policy amendments, by [INSERT, AT THE FINAL RULE STAGE, THE DATE THAT
IS 540 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
PART 966--PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
0
3. The authority section for 24 CFR part 966 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).
0
4. In Sec. 966.4, revise paragraphs (f) (12) (i) and (ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 966.4 Lease Requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(12) * * *
(i) To assure that no tenant, member of the tenant's household, or
guest engages in:
(A) Criminal activity. (1) Any criminal activity that threatens the
health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other
residents;
(2) Any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises; or
(B) Civil activity. For any units covered by 24 CFR part 965,
subpart G, any smoking of lit tobacco products in restricted areas, as
defined by 24 CFR 965.653(a), or in other outdoor areas that the PHA
has designated as smoke-free.
(ii) To assure that no other person under the tenant's control
engages in:
(A) Criminal activity. (1) Any criminal activity that threatens the
health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other
residents;
(2) Any drug-related criminal activity on the premises; or
(B) Civil activity. For any units covered by 24 CFR part 965,
subpart G, any smoking of lit tobacco products in restricted areas, as
defined by 24 CFR 965.653(a), or in other outdoor areas that the PHA
has designated as smoke-free.
* * * * *
Dated: October 22, 2015.
Lourdes Castro Ram[iacute]rez,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2015-29346 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P