[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 199 (Friday, October 11, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53341-53342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26119]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Parts 42, 92, 215, 219, 221, 236, 290, 511, 570, 574, 576, 
582, 583, 585, 882, 885, 886, 889, 890, 906, 941, 950, 968, 970, 
and 983

[Docket No. FR-4122-P-01]
RIN 2501-AC31
Office of the Secretary


Displacement, Relocation Assistance, and Real Property 
Acquisition for HUD and HUD-Assisted Programs; Streamlining Rule

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice seeks public comment on a rulemaking HUD is 
considering. In an effort to comply with the President's regulatory 
reform initiatives, HUD is considering streamlining its regulations for 
displacement, relocation assistance, and real property acquisition by 
consolidating into one part similar provisions throughout title 24 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and by eliminating provisions 
that repeat statutory language or are otherwise unnecessary. Because of 
the scope of this effort and the potential difficulties in preparing 
one set of regulations that would be adapted for all HUD programs, HUD 
is seeking comments from users of the program regulations to determine 
whether a consolidated set of relocation regulations would be 
preferable and feasible.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by December 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to the Rules Docket Clerk, 
Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. 
Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. 
Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each 
communication submitted will be available for public inspection and 
copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Petty, Relocation Specialist, 
Relocation and Real Estate Division, Room 7168, telephone number (202) 
708-1367 (this is not a toll-free number). For legal questions, 
contact: David Polatsek, Attorney-Advisor, Community Development 
Division, Room 8158, telephone number (202) 708-2027 (this is not a 
toll-free number). For hearing- and speech-impaired persons, the 
telephone numbers may be accessed via TTY by calling the Federal 
Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. The address for both of 
these persons is: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 1995, President Clinton issued a 
memorandum to all Federal departments and agencies regarding regulatory 
reinvention. In response to this memorandum, HUD conducted a page-by-
page review of its regulations to determine which can be eliminated, 
consolidated, or otherwise improved.
    HUD is considering whether the regulations for displacement, 
relocation, and real property acquisition can be improved and 
streamlined by consolidating similar requirements throughout individual 
program regulations in title 24 of the CFR. The major part of these 
regulations would then refer to part 42 for relocation-related 
requirements, which would continue to reference the Department of 
Transportation's government-wide rule at 49 CFR part 24, as well as 
include HUD-specific requirements. Through a final rule published on 
October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51756), HUD moved into part 42 relocation 
requirements implementing section 104(d) of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(4)) (Section 104(d)), which 
requires a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan 
(RARAP) by State and local governments receiving funds under the 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Urban Development Action 
Grant (UDAG), and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs.
    Several provisions in HUD's regulations throughout title 24 of the

[[Page 53342]]

CFR repeat statutory language from the Uniform Relocation Assistance 
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-646, 84 
Stat. 1894, 42 U.S.C. 4601) (URA). Other provisions repeat language 
from the Department of Transportation's regulations implementing the 
URA. Because the requirements apply to more than one program, HUD had 
repeated the requirements in different program regulations. This 
repetition is unnecessary, and updating these scattered provisions is 
cumbersome and often creates confusion.
    HUD would like to remove language restating requirements already 
imposed by statute and replace that language with citations to the 
specific statutory provision. In addition, HUD would propose regulatory 
language as necessary that would further develop the statutory 
requirements, but that would be useful as a single-source reference for 
all HUD programs. HUD anticipates that this proposed streamlining 
effort could eliminate approximately 30 pages of unnecessary 
regulations from the CFR.
    Because the subject is complex, HUD anticipates that it will 
require considerable time and effort to craft a rule that addresses the 
concerns of a multitude of different program areas. The development of 
a streamlining proposal will require the involvement of HUD's various 
program offices to resolve issues such as what constitutes ``initiation 
of negotiations,'' what is meant by ``project'', and what should be the 
dates from which eligibility for relocation benefits will be 
recognized. Because the URA itself is so pervasive, the terms of the 
statute--and those of the governmentwide rule--are necessarily broad. 
HUD's job in streamlining its rules on relocation is to construct a 
matrix for implementation that is concise, as uniform as practical, and 
as program-specific as needed. Furthermore, any changes made in the 
regulations would have to be consistent with statutory authority and 
the Department of Transportation's government-wide rule.
    HUD's various program offices have raised a number of questions 
about the practicality of this consolidation effort. HUD will try to 
streamline current relocation provisions throughout its regulations as 
described above; however, as part of its streamlining effort HUD is 
seeking public input on the consolidation of the various relocation 
provisions into a single part of its regulations. Therefore, by this 
notice the public is invited to comment on the following questions that 
HUD's offices have raised, and any other related matters or 
suggestions, including whether such a consolidation would be helpful to 
HUD's clients:
    (1) Should HUD change the definition of ``displaced person'' to 
simplify its provisions or to expand or limit the circumstances under 
which a person will be considered displaced?
    (2) In an effort to ensure some consistency between the eligibility 
thresholds for relocation benefits at URA and Section 104(d) levels, 
HUD has defined the thresholds using the same terminology, but with 
slight differences in the requirements applicable under the alternative 
(i.e., URA vs. Section 104(d)) levels of benefits. To the extent 
possible under the statutes, should HUD standardize these eligibility 
thresholds, and if so, what is the appropriate threshold: Total Tenant 
Payment (TTP), 30 percent of gross income, Fair Market Rent (as defined 
in HUD regulations), or some other threshold?
    (3) Can HUD standardize other terminology used in the various 
program regulations on relocation? For example, can HUD define the 
following, or substitute, terms in a manner that could apply to most or 
all HUD programs: ``low-income person,'' ``low-income housing,'' 
``recipient,'' and ``initiation of negotiations''?
    (4) In particular, can HUD make the dates from which eligibility 
for relocation benefits will be recognized (a concept currently 
captured within the term ``initiation of negotiations'') clearer and 
more uniform throughout HUD's programs?
    (5) Should HUD define the term ``project''?
    (6) Under the current rule, is there confusion about who may appeal 
an agency's decision, and if so, how can HUD eliminate that confusion?
    (7) How should household income be computed for purposes of 
calculating payments under the URA and of calculating payments and 
determining eligibility for Section 104(d) relocation benefits?
    (8) How should HUD define ``eviction for cause'' when providing 
that relocation benefits do not have to be extended to persons evicted 
for cause?
    (9) Should HUD develop a uniform standard for measuring size of 
units and determining replacement housing requirements?
    (10) Do the current regulations accurately reflect the role of 
States that are CDBG grantees?
    (11) Are the regulations unclear about when benefits must be paid 
for temporary relocation and about what constitutes a ``temporary 
relocation''?
    (12) Should HUD reconsider its policy on minimizing displacement; 
if so, how should HUD change the policy; if not, what assurances should 
HUD require?
    (13) What is the effect and usefulness of the specific requirement 
that displaced persons be advised of the availability of replacement 
housing outside areas of minority concentration?
    (14) HUD is considering interpreting certain definitions in a way 
that would impose requirements for replacement of housing units and 
other relocation requirements when assisted activities result in 
displacement and the removal or reduction of housing stock through such 
events as reconfiguration of existing units and the placarding of units 
as unfit for human habitation, pursuant to local housing and occupancy 
codes under assisted code enforcement programs. Thus, for example, 
should HUD define the term ``demolition'' to recognize that such events 
may reduce the total available housing stock and displace occupants 
just as effectively as would actually razing structures?

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 4601, 5304, and 12705(b).

    Dated: October 2, 1996.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-26119 Filed 10-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P