I blinked and January flew by, thus this is the first Newsletter of 2021 – Happy New Year!
In this February edition of our HUD-REAC newsletter, I am sounding the alarm for your feedback to HUD.
NSPIRE (National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate) will be replacing the current REAC protocol.
If any of you have attended my NSPIRE Webinar, you have heard me begging for your feedback over and over as they create this new program and NOW is the time!
On January 13, 2021, HUD posted a proposed rule for NSPIRE asking for public comments and suggestions. There has been only ONE COMMENT so far! This is absolutely unacceptable because this new program affects each and every one of you.
If you do not get involved in developing the rules for NSPIRE now, you cannot complain when the rules negatively impact you and your property later.
Key Points
- Comment due date is March 15, 2021
- The document can be found here:
- How to submit your feedback:
- Click here: https://www.regulations.gov/
- Input the following into the Search bar: HUD-2021-0005
- Click “Comment Now!”
- There are 24 questions HUD would like feedback on
- Be concise but support your claims
- Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted
- There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment
- If you disagree with a proposed action, suggest an alternative and include an explanation/analysis of how the alternative might meet the same objective or be more effective
- Identify credentials and experience that may distinguish your comments from others
- See here for other tips/suggestions on effective feedback https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf
Questions (Top 10 of the 24 that will impact you most)
Question for Comment #2:
HUD has the following questions regarding water safety:
(a) How can HUD best define what is meant by safe or potable water?
(b) Should “safe” mean water provided by a public water system that is in compliance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) as implemented by the EPA?
(c) How should HUD monitor whether water is safe?
(d) What elements should be reviewed during the physical inspection to determine water
safety?
(e) Should inspectors verify that a municipal water supply authority is in compliance with
EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act? How would they best do this?
Question for Comment #3:
HUD is specifically seeking comment on whether the site and neighborhood standards as found in 24 CFR 982.401(l), should be included in the regulation or only in the inspection standards? HUD also seeks comments on whether all of the explicit standards should be included or if there are certain site and neighborhood standards that HUD should consider changing?
Question for Comment #13:
HUD is considering adding certain affirmative requirements at the final rule stage. Currently under consideration are related to ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI), an arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI); Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); Guardrail; and Lighting-Interior. In alignment with HUD’s prioritization of resident safety, HUD welcomes public comment on all issues, but is specifically seeking feedback regarding implementing the following:
- Electrical Outlet and Switch—HUD is considering adding a deficiency under the Electrical Outlet and Switch Standard regarding an inadequate number of outlets (i.e.,either 2 working outlets or 1 working outlet and a permanent light) within all habitable rooms due to potential safety hazards, usability barriers, and inadequate illumination.
- GFCI & AFCI—HUD is considering adding a deficiency under the GFCI & AFCI Standard regarding the lack of GFCI protection where required (e.g.,within 6 feet of sinks, tubs, showers; or exterior, garage, or unfinished basement areas) due to potential safety hazards, such as shock or electrocution.
- HVAC—HUD is considering adding a deficiency under the HVAC Standard regarding the lack of a permanently installed heating source due to potential health safety hazards, such as fire or carbon monoxide exposure.
- Guardrail—HUD is considering adding a deficiency under the Guardrail Standard to require a guardrail when there is an elevated walking surface with a drop off of 30 inches or greater measured vertically.
- Lighting—Interior—HUD is considering adding a deficiency under the Lighting—Interior Standard regarding the absence of a permanently mounted light fixture in the kitchen or bathroom due to potential safety hazards and inadequate illumination.
Question for Comment #14:
HUD is soliciting comment on the risk-based annual inspection requirement expansion from 2 to 5 years. Is a different range merited? If so, what should HUD consider in setting and adjusting the ranges?
Question for Comment #15:
HUD is soliciting comment on how to involve tenants in helping REAC identify poor performing properties. For example, could tenants provide a “1-5 rating” of their units with “1” being “poor” and “5” being “excellent?” Could tenants recommend their units for inspection separate from the statistical sample for scoring purposes to inform HUD’s risk analysis of the property?
Question for Comment #16:
HUD is soliciting comment on how the clarification to self-inspect all HUD housing units in certain programs to ensure that units are being maintained in accordance with HUD housing quality standards will impact the operations of PHAs, owners and agents? What advantages and disadvantages would arise from extending this self-inspection requirement to the programs that do not explicitly require an annual self-inspection of all units (such as HCV, PBV, Moderate Rehabilitation, and CPD programs)?
Question for Comment #17:
Is there an alternative to the self-inspection protocol (§ 5.707 Uniform self-inspection requirement and report) that would allow HUD to achieve the objective that families live in safe and habitable units, and what are the risks and benefits of that alternative?
Question for Comment #18: In alignment with HUD’s desire to increase clarity and decrease ambiguity, HUD is considering definitions for kitchens and sanitary facilities. HUD seeks public input on the following:
- Should HUD define what constitutes a kitchen and its related components required for functional adequacy (e.g.,cooking appliance, means of refrigeration, food preparation and storage)?
- Should HUD define what constitutes a sanitary facility and its related components required for functional adequacy (e.g.,bathtub or shower, toilet, ventilation, sink)?
With regard to tenant-induced damage, HUD is requesting public comments on the following questions:
Question for Comment #19:
HUD is soliciting comment on how to fairly approach tenant-induced damage to units and properties in such a way that it will have a positive impact on HUD-assisted properties. What could be used as incentives or disincentives to discourage tenant-induced damage?
Question for Comment #20:
HUD seeks input on the scoring threshold that should be used to refer a property to the Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC): What factors should be considered by HUD in setting the threshold, and whether should this be a stationary threshold or one that is updated periodically?