| Home > 1994 Unified Agenda > ua14no94 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)...
ua14no94 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)...
Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Costs: HUD estimates that the direct cost to the Federal Government will be about $500,000 per year to pay for inquiries to the INS save system. Some PHAs may incur additional costs for secondary verifications, hearings and evictions. Benefits: The benefits are mostly in terms of compliance with the law. It costs no more to serve an ineligible noncitizen in assisted housing than it does an ``eligible'' tenant. The main effect of the rule will be a redistribution of housing subsidy transfer payments from ineligible noncitizens to eligible tenants. Risks: A consequence of not implementing section 214 through rulemaking would be that ineligible noncitizens would continue to receive assistance ahead of eligible families. There is a risk of protracted litigation. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 53 FR 41038 10/19/88 NPRM Comment Per53 FR 41038 12/19/88 NPRM 59 FR 43900 08/25/94 NPRM Comment Period End 10/24/94 Final Action 12/00/94 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Barbara Hunter, Acting Director, Planning & Procedures (Phone: 202-708-3944) Agency Contact: Edward Whipple Director, Rental & Occupancy Branch Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing 202 708-0744 RIN: 2501-AA63 _______________________________________________________________________ HUD--Office of Housing (OH) ___________________________________________________________ FINAL RULE STAGE ___________________________________________________________ 69. <bullet> MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY DISPOSITION (FR-3715) Legal Authority: PL 102-233 CFR Citation: 24 CFR 290; 24 CFR 886 Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory. July 11,1994 Abstract: The rule amends HUD's multifamily property disposition regulations at 24 CFR 290 and 886, subpart C, to incorporate statutory amendments arising from the Multifamily Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994 affecting the foreclosure of projects with HUD-held multifamily mortgages, the disposition of HUD-owned multifamily properties, and the management of HUD-owned multifamily properties and multifamily properties with HUD-held mortgages where the Secretary of HUD is mortgagee-in-possession. The new regulations use an innovative user-friendly question and answer format, as well as several charts to explain the more complicated sections. Statement of Need: The regulations at 24 CFR 290 must be conformed to changes enacted in Sections 101(b) - (d) of the Multifamily Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994 (MPDRA) (Pub. L. 102-233, approved April 11, 1994). The legislation was passed in an urgent attempt to speed HUD's sales of HUD-owned projects and foreclosure of HUD-held mortgages; to better target, and thus potentially reduce, the need for Section 8 assistance required by the prior statute; and to provide HUD with more discretion in the operation of the multifamily property disposition program. Conforming changes must be made to the regulations at 24 CFR 886 subpart C, which govern section 8 assistance for the disposition of multifamily projects. Summary of the Legal Basis: MPDRA section 101(f) requires HUD to issue interim regulations necessary to implement Section 101(b) - (d) 90 days after enactment and, following public comment, a final rule not later than 12 months after the issuance of the interim regulations. Alternatives: Rather than follow the usual format for a regulation, this regulation makes use of tables that lay out--in a more simplified and user- friendly manner--the complex provisions of the regulation, and then provides additional detail to flesh out the information in the tables with a question and answer format. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Costs: Because the revised regulations amend existing regulations to streamline and speed the process of property disposition, and should result in few or no additional monitoring or reporting burdens, additional costs to HUD are negligible. Benefits: The 1994 Act, and subsequently the revised 290 regulations, are intended to speed foreclosure sales of projects with HUD-held mortgages and sales of HUD- owned projects, and also reduce the need to provide Section 8 rent subsidies in those sales. Both actions should significantly reduce government costs and transfer payments by reducing the cost involved in HUD ownership and the amount of longer term Section 8 subsidies. Risks: The lack of a regulation implementing the 1994 Act may result in increased government holding costs and unnecessary expenditures of Section 8 funds. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ Interim Final Rule 10/00/94 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Frank Malone Director, Office of Preservation & Property Disposition Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Housing 202 708-3555 RIN: 2502-AG30 _______________________________________________________________________ HUD--OH 70. PREFERENCE FOR ELDERLY FAMILIES IN CERTAIN SECTION 8 HOUSING; AND RESERVATION OF UNITS FOR DISABLED FAMILIES (FR-3465) Legal Authority: 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 13604 to 13614; 42 USC 1437 CFR Citation: 24 CFR 886; 24 CFR 880; 24 CFR 881; 24 CFR 883; 24 CFR 884 Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, April 28, 1993. Abstract: Subtitle D of title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (HCD Act of 1992) allows an owner of a covered Section 8 housing project to elect to provide preferences to elderly families in selecting tenants for available units in the project, subject to certain statutory requirements. (The 1992 Act defines elderly families to mean families whose heads, spouses or sole members are persons 62 years of age or older (``seniors'').) An owner of a covered Section 8 project who elects to provide preferences to elderly families also must reserve a percentage of units, not to be less than the percentage determined according to a formula set out in the statute, for disabled families who are not elderly or near-elderly. Subtitle D provides that a covered Section 8 housing project is one that is originally designed primarily for occupancy by seniors. On May 3, l994, HUD published an interim rule that amended HUD's Section 8 regulations to provide for the system of occupancy preferences authorized by subtitle D. The interim rule adopts the statutory requirements without change. The rule supplements the statutory provisions by including a provision that describes the types of documents that an owner of a covered Section 8 project should produce to support a claim that the owner's project was originally designed primarily for occupancy by elderly families. Development of the final rule will have the benefit of insights that will be gained at one or more informal consumer forums where staff from HUD's Multifamily Division will meet with residents of HUD-assisted housing who represent both elderly persons and nonelderly persons with disabilities. These forums will be held in early fall 1994. Statement of Need: The rule is needed to update HUD's Section 8 regulations to reflect the system of occupancy preferences authorized by subtitle D of the HCD Act of 1992, and to provide owners with examples of the types of documents that would support a claim that a Section 8 project was originally designed primarily for occupancy by elderly families. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 686 of the HCD Act of 1992 authorizes the Secretary of HUD to issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of subtitles B through F of title VI of the HCD Act of 1992. Alternatives: Because of the controversial nature of permitting certain HUD-assisted assisted housing to give seniors a preference in occupancy, HUD determined that publication of a rule that invited public comment was necessary. The occupancy preference for elderly families authorized by subtitle D is anticipated to reduce, to some extent, housing for nonelderly persons with disabilities, which is of concern to persons with disabilities. Before enactment of the HCD Act of 1992, the definition of ``elderly persons'' in the Section 8 statute included persons with disabilities, regardless of age. The HCD Act of 1992 (1) amended the definition of ``elderly persons'' to have this term refer only to persons who are 62 years of age or older (``seniors''), and (2) provided a separate definition for persons with disabilities. Although the May 3, 1994, interim rule carefully follows the provisions of subtitle D, which are fairly prescriptive, the May 3, 1994, interim rule serves the purpose of assisting the public to more clearly identify the Section 8 projects that are eligible under subtitle D for the election of occupancy preference provided by that subtitle. Many projects that have Section 8 assistance are not ``covered'' Section 8 housing and are not eligible, under subtitle D, for the election of preference for elderly families. Additionally, the May 3, 1994, interim rule serves the purpose of describing the types of documents that owners of covered projects should produce to support a claim that their projects were originally designed primarily for occupancy by seniors, and public comment may identify additional documents that should be considered and included in the rule. Anticipated Costs and Benefits:
Other Popular 1994 Unified Agenda Documents:
|GovRecords.org presents information on various agencies of the United States Government. Even though all information is believed to be credible and accurate, no guarantees are made on the complete accuracy of our government records archive. Care should be taken to verify the information presented by responsible parties. Please see our reference page for congressional, presidential, and judicial branch contact information. GovRecords.org values visitor privacy. Please see the privacy page for more information.|
Supreme Court Decisions
104th Congressional Documents
105th Congressional Documents
106th Congressional Documents
107th Congressional Documents
108th Congressional Documents
1994 Presidential Documents