[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66288-66292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-29324]



[[Page 66287]]

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

Part IV





Department of Housing and Urban Development





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



America's Affordable Communities Initiative, HUD's Initiative on 
Removal of Regulatory Barriers: Proposals for Incentive Criteria on 
Barrier Removal in HUD's Funding Allocations; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2003 / 
Notices  

[[Page 66288]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4882-N-01]


America's Affordable Communities Initiative, HUD's Initiative on 
Removal of Regulatory Barriers: Proposals for Incentive Criteria on 
Barrier Removal in HUD's Funding Allocations

AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In June 2003, HUD announced America's Affordable Communities 
Initiative, a new Departmentwide initiative that will focus on breaking 
down regulatory barriers that impede the production of affordable 
housing. As part of this effort, HUD will, among other things, analyze 
federal, state, and local regulations and procedures that are 
duplicative, contradictory, or burdensome, and work within the federal 
government and with HUD's state and local partners to break down these 
barriers. HUD will undertake activities designed to promote barrier 
removal by state and local governments and, where feasible, provide 
incentives to state and local governments to remove regulatory barriers 
to affordable housing.
    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comment from prospective 
applicants on proposals to provide incentives to barrier removal in 
HUD's funding allocations and on an initial proposal for providing 
incentive to barrier removal in HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 competitive 
funding process.
    As an initial incentive action, HUD proposes to establish in the 
majority of its FY2004 Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs), 
including HUD's SuperNOFA, a policy priority for increasing the supply 
of affordable housing through the removal of regulatory barriers. This 
new policy priority will be added to the list of policy priorities that 
HUD traditionally includes in its NOFAs. As a policy priority (and like 
the other policy priorities), higher rating points will be available to 
governmental applicants that are able to demonstrate successful efforts 
in removing regulatory barriers to affordable housing, and to 
nongovernmental applicants that are associated with jurisdictions that 
have undertaken successful efforts in removing barriers.
    This notice describes how HUD proposes to award these policy points 
in its NOFAs. HUD welcomes comments on this proposal, including the 
process described to obtain these points. While this notice describes 
one initial proposal for providing incentives to HUD grantees to 
undertake and support the removal of barriers to affordable housing, 
HUD is considering other proposals and welcomes comments from the 
public on other ideas for ways HUD can provide incentives in its 
funding processes or other mechanisms to encourage localities to remove 
barriers and increase the supply of affordable housing.

DATES: Comment Due Date: December 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 
10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Comments should refer to the above 
docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be 
available for public inspection and copying during regular business 
hours (weekdays 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at the above address. 
Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General 
Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, 
Room 10282, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone (202) 708-1793 (this 
is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments 
may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background: Policies Restricting Affordable Housing

    Increasing opportunities for affordable rental and homeownership 
housing is one of the highest priorities of the Department. Over the 
last 15 years, there has been increased recognition that unnecessary, 
duplicative, excessive or discriminatory public processes often 
significantly increase the cost of housing development and 
rehabilitation. Often referred to as ``regulatory barriers to 
affordable housing,'' many public statutes, ordinances, regulatory 
requirements, or processes and procedures significantly impede the 
development or availability of affordable housing without providing a 
commensurate or demonstrable health or safety benefit. ``Affordable 
housing'' is decent quality housing that low-, moderate-, and middle-
income families can afford to buy or rent without spending more than 
thirty percent of their income. Spending more than thirty percent of 
income on shelter may require families to sacrifice other necessities 
of life.
    Addressing these barriers to housing affordability is a necessary 
component of any overall national housing policy. However, addressing 
such barriers must be viewed as a complement, not a substitute for 
other efforts to meet affordable housing needs. For many families, 
federal, state and local subsidies are fundamental tools for meeting 
these affordable housing needs. In many instances, however, other 
sometimes well-intentioned public policies work at cross-purposes with 
subsidy programs by imposing significant constraints. From exclusionary 
zoning that keeps out affordable housing, especially multifamily 
housing, to other regulations and requirements that unnecessarily raise 
the costs of construction, the need to address this issue is clear. For 
example, affordable rehabilitation is often constrained by outmoded 
building codes that require excessive renovation. Barrier removal will 
not only make it easier to find and get approval for affordable housing 
sites but it will also allow available subsidies to go further in 
meeting these needs. For housing for moderate-income families often 
referred to as ``work force'' housing, barrier removal can be the most 
essential component of meeting housing needs.
    The Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable 
Housing in its 1991 report ``Not in My Backyard: Removing Barriers to 
Affordable Housing'', http://www.huduser.org/bibliodb/Bibliography.asp?id=5806, estimated that these policies and procedures 
directly increase construction or rehabilitation costs by up to 35 
percent. Over the past twelve years, numerous academic studies have 
confirmed this finding. In addition to direct cost impacts, many 
policies and processes further exacerbate the problem by constraining 
overall housing supply with a general deleterious impact upon overall 
housing affordability. A 35 percent reduction in development costs 
would allow millions of American families to buy or rent housing that 
they currently cannot afford.
    In 1990, in the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act, 
Congress, for the first time, recognized the importance of public 
policies and processes to the supply of affordable housing. Section 
105(b)(4) requires state and local governments to explain as part of 
their Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)--now included 
in HUD's Consolidated Plan--

[[Page 66289]]

whether a proposed public policy affects housing affordability and 
describe the jurisdiction's strategy to remove or ameliorate negative 
effects, if any, of such policies (see 24 CFR 91.210(e) and 24 CFR 
91.310(d)). Congress, in Title XII of the 1992 Housing and Community 
Development Act, reiterated its interest in this important subject by 
authorizing grants for regulatory barrier removal and established a 
Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (see http://www.regbarriers.org). In 
the American Homeownership Act of 2000, Congress reauthorized the 
Clearinghouse and simplified procedures for a barrier removal grant 
program.

II. HUD's Incentive Proposal

    Because of the now widely recognized impact that excessive or 
exclusionary policies and processes have had upon the costs of low-, 
moderate-, and middle-income housing programs and upon overall housing 
supply and costs, the importance of reducing costs in HUD-assisted 
housing, the 13-year Congressional recognition of this issue, and the 
Department's overall commitment to increasing the supply of new and 
rehabilitated affordable housing, HUD proposes to undertake actions and 
efforts that provide incentives to governments and their constituents 
to work to remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. This 
notice advises of one proposal and seeks ideas for other mechanisms to 
encourage this priority. HUD is considering including in the list of 
policy priorities for its NOFAs, commencing in FY2004, a policy 
priority for the removal of regulatory barriers.
    The inclusion of regulatory barrier removal as a policy priority in 
HUD NOFAs would be designed to provide support and encouragement to 
applicants, including applicants that are non-governmental, to (1) 
directly undertake activities that will remove barriers to affordable 
housing within their communities or support such undertaking by units 
of government and others, (2) streamline local governmental processes 
and procedures or support such undertaking, and (3) eliminate redundant 
or excessive requirements, or statutes, regulations, and codes which 
impede the development or availability of affordable housing, or 
support such undertaking.
    This policy priority also relates to HUD's Strategic Goals for (1) 
``Increasing Homeownership Opportunities'' by making the home buying 
process less complicated and less expensive, and (2) ``Promoting Decent 
Affordable Housing'' by expanding access to affordable housing by 
making it more readily available in the community. The inclusion of 
this policy priority in HUD NOFAs would be in addition to policy 
priorities, which are currently included in HUD's NOFAs and which 
reflect the mission and strategic goals of the Department. Advance 
notice of the proposed addition of this policy priority is appropriate 
because HUD wants to initiate, in advance of its FY2004 funding round, 
discussion among state and local governments and their constituents 
(particularly those that are applicants for HUD funding) regarding 
local efforts that have been taken to remove regulatory barriers to 
affordable housing. Press coverage of affordable housing has confirmed 
the importance of this issue throughout the nation. Increasing the 
supply of affordable housing will be successful when all parties at the 
local level (governments, residents, housing providers, and nonprofit 
organizations) are involved and working together to support efforts to 
break down regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Partnerships are 
frequently formed between governments and nonprofit organizations for 
HUD funding, and this particular policy priority in NOFAs is directed 
to further promoting those partnerships, and promoting the 
communitywide efforts to remove barriers to affordable housing.

III. Programs Covered by the NOFA Incentive Proposal

    The programs that HUD proposes to be subject to the questions, 
evaluation and rating system described in Section IV of this notice, 
may include, but not necessarily be limited to the HUD programs and 
initiatives listed in this Section III, which are those for which 
Congress generally appropriates funding on an annual basis and for 
which HUD generally issues a NOFA to make funding available. Programs 
may be added depending upon appropriations for FY2004 or administrative 
decision on the part of the Department, and programs may be removed 
from the list depending upon the Department's determination of the 
appropriateness of applying this policy priority to a particular 
program.

[sbull] Lead Hazard Control Program
[sbull] Healthy Homes Demonstration
[sbull] Youthbuild
[sbull] Rural Housing and Economic Development
[sbull] Continuum of Care
    [sbull] Supportive Housing Program (SHP)
    [sbull] Shelter Plus Care (S+C)
    [sbull] Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program for Homeless 
Individuals
    [sbull] Shelter Plus Care Renewals
    [sbull] Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
    [sbull] Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly
    [sbull] Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons With 
Disabilities
    [sbull] Assisted Living Conversion Program
    [sbull] Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Program
    [sbull] ROSS for Resident Service Delivery Models--Elderly
    [sbull] ROSS for Resident Service Delivery Models--Family
    [sbull] ROSS for Neighborhood Networks
    [sbull] ROSS for Homeownership Supportive Services
    [sbull] Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing
    [sbull] Community Outreach Partnership Centers
    [sbull] Housing Counseling
    [sbull] Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration
    [sbull] HUD Urban Scholars Fellowship Program
    [sbull] Early Doctoral Student Research Grant Program
    [sbull] Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant Program
    [sbull] HOPE VI
    [sbull] Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
    For HUD's Self-Help Housing Opportunities Program (SHOP) and 
programs that may be similar to SHOP in which large national or 
regional organizations distribute HUD funds on a competitive basis 
among organizations to facilitate the funded-programs' eligible 
activities, the larger organizations will implement the policy priority 
through their funding availability documents. That is, the 
organizations competing for the HUD funds made available by the larger 
organizations will have the opportunity, through their application for 
funds, to claim the points made available for this policy priority.
    The list of proposed programs that would be covered by this option 
reflects the Department's objective to apply this policy priority to as 
many HUD-funded programs as possible. As will be more fully discussed 
in the sections of this notice that follow the application of the 
policy priority is not directed only to state, local, and tribal 
governments involved in efforts to remove barriers to affordable 
housing, but also to those organizations and individuals that reside in 
areas for which state, local, or tribal governments have undertaken 
such efforts. Successful efforts to remove regulatory barriers to 
affordable

[[Page 66290]]

housing are those in which residents and organizations are working with 
and supporting the efforts and actions of their local governments to 
remove barriers to affordable housing. Although the Department has 
worked to make this policy priority applicable to as many applicants 
for HUD funding as possible, there is recognition that this policy 
priority may not be one for which all applicants will be eligible for 
the higher points made available, but that is the case for all of the 
policy priorities listed in HUD NOFAs. HUD has strived not only to make 
the information to be provided by applicants to obtain the incentive 
points easily obtainable, but also to promote dialogue between housing 
advocates and their governments on removal of regulatory barriers.

IV. Evaluation Criteria

    Although the policies and processes that affect housing 
affordability are many and diverse, the following evaluative questions 
have been determined to be significantly important and have broad-based 
applicability to measure state, local, and tribal government efforts at 
regulatory reform so as to be considered good ``markers'' for effective 
regulatory reform.
    All applicants submitting applications in response to FY2004 NOFAs 
will be invited to address the questions below to be eligible to 
receive points allocated for the policy priority of regulatory barrier 
removal.
    Local jurisdictions applying for funding, as well as housing 
authorities, nonprofit organizations, and other qualified applicants 
applying for funding for a project located in an incorporated 
jurisdiction, are invited to answer the 12 questions in Part A and may 
be asked to provide supporting statements, references, and 
documentation. The references or documentation to support the 
affirmative statements may be provided as hard copy, or Web site URLs 
where the information may be found. An applicant that scores at least 3 
in Column 2 will receive one point in the NOFA evaluation. An applicant 
that scores 6 or greater in Column 2 will receive two points in the 
evaluation.
    State agencies or departments applying for funding, as well as 
housing authorities, nonprofit organizations and other qualified 
applicants applying for funds for projects located in unincorporated 
areas will be invited to answer the 6 questions in Part B and may be 
asked to provide supporting statements, references, and documentation. 
The references or documentation to support the affirmative statements 
may be provided as hard copy, or Web site URLs where the information 
may be found. An applicant that scores at least 2 in Column 2 will 
receive one point in the NOFA evaluation. An applicant that scores 3 or 
greater will receive two points in the respective evaluation.
    Applicants that will be providing services in multiple 
jurisdictions can choose to address the questions in either Part A or 
Part B for that jurisdiction in which the preponderance of services 
will be performed if an award is made. In no case can an applicant 
receive for this policy priority greater than two points for barrier 
removal activities. For applicants that are tribes or Tribally 
Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs), the tribes or TDHEs can choose to 
complete either Part A or Part B based upon a determination by the 
tribes or TDHE as to whether the tribe's or the TDHE's association with 
the local jurisdiction or the state would be the more advantageous for 
its application.
    HUD invites careful review of these questions and welcomes comments 
on whether these questions address the significant governmental 
regulatory areas relative to affordable housing, and are sufficiently 
broad-based to measure governmental efforts at regulatory reform. The 
questions are also designed to motivate nongovernmental applicants to 
take notice of the regulatory reform efforts of their governments (or 
lack of such efforts) promote regulatory barrier reform where there are 
no such efforts, and support and encourage continued efforts where 
efforts at barrier removal have been undertaken.

     A. Local Jurisdictions and Other Applicants Applying for Projects Located in Incorporated Jurisdictions
                                               (``Jurisdiction'')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       1.               2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(a). Does your Jurisdiction's comprehensive plan (or in the case of a tribe            No----          Yes----
 or TDHE, a local Indian Housing Plan) include a ``housing element'' which
 estimates current and anticipated housing needs for all existing and future
 residents for at least the next ten years, including various types of housing
 such as multifamily housing and housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-
 income residents, and does the housing element provide for policies and
 procedures to address that need?.............................................
1(b). Does your zoning ordinance and map or other land use regulations conform          No----          Yes----
 to the Jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and provide sufficient land use and
 density categories to address existing and future housing needs, including
 low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing, and is sufficient land zoned or
 mapped ``as of right'' in these categories to meet all existing and future
 housing needs? (For purposes of this notice, ``as-of-right,'' as applied to
 zoning, means uses and development standards that are determined in advance
 and specifically authorized by the zoning ordinance. The ordinance is largely
 self-enforcing because little or no discretion occurs in its administration.)
2. Does your Jurisdiction impose development impact fees?.....................         Yes----           No----
3. If yes to 2 above, does your Jurisdiction provide waivers of these fees for          No----          Yes----
 affordable housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing?...........
4. Has your Jurisdiction adopted specific building code language regarding              No----          Yes----
 housing rehabilitation that encourages the continued use or reuse of legally
 existing buildings through various degrees of housing rehabilitation? Such a
 code establishes gradated regulatory requirements applicable as different
 levels of work are performed in existing buildings. Such a code increases
 regulatory requirements in proportion to the extent of rehabilitation that an
 owner/developer chooses to do on a voluntary basis and the additional
 improvements required as a matter of regulatory policy. For further
 information see HUD publication: ``Smart Codes in Your Community: A Guide to
 Building Rehabilitation Codes'' (http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/smartcodes.html).............................................................

[[Page 66291]]

 
5. Does your Jurisdiction use a recent version (i.e. published within the last          No----          Yes----
 5 years) of one of the nationally recognized model building codes (i.e. the
 International Code Council (ICC), the Building Officials Code Administrators
 (BOCA), the Southern Building Code International (SBCI), the International
 Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), the National Fire Protection
 Association (NFPA)) without significant amendment or modification, or
 alternatively in the case of a tribe or TDHE, has adopted a building code
 that is substantially equivalent to one or more of the recognized model
 building codes?..............................................................
6. Does your Jurisdiction's zoning ordinance or land use regulations permit             No----          Yes----
 manufactured and modular housing ``as of right'' in all residential districts
 and zoning classifications in which similar site-built housing is permitted
 subject to design, density, building size and other similar requirements
 applicable to all housing in that district irrespective of the method of
 production?..................................................................
7. Within the past five years, has the Jurisdiction official (i.e., chief               No----          Yes----
 executive, mayor, county chairman, city manager, administrator, or a tribally
 recognized official, etc.), the local legislative body, or planning
 commission, directly or in partnership with major private or public
 stakeholders, convened or funded comprehensive studies, commissions, or
 panels to review, or the Jurisdiction has established an ongoing process to
 review the rules, regulations, development standards, and processes of the
 jurisdiction to assess their impact on the supply of affordable housing and
 have major regulatory or other reforms been implemented as a result of that
 study?.......................................................................
8. Within the past five years has your Jurisdiction modified infrastructure             No----          Yes----
 requirements (e.g. water, sewer, sidewalks street width) to significantly
 reduce the cost of new housing development or rehabilitation?................
9. Does your Jurisdiction give ``as-of-right'' density bonuses as an incentive          No----          Yes----
 for any market rate residential development that includes a portion of
 housing for low-, moderate-, or middle-income housing? (As applied to density
 bonuses, ``as of right'' means a density bonus granted for a fixed percentage
 or number of additional market rate dwelling units in exchange for the
 provision of a fixed number of affordable dwelling units and without the use
 of discretion in determining the number of additional market rate units.)....
10. Has your Jurisdiction established a single, consolidated permit                     No----          Yes----
 application process for housing development that includes building, zoning,
 engineering, environmental, and related permits?.............................
11. Does your Jurisdiction, as a matter of public policy, provide for                   No----          Yes----
 expedited or ``fast track'' permitting and approvals for all affordable
 housing projects in your community?..........................................
12. Has your Jurisdiction established time limits for government review and             No----          Yes----
 approval or disapproval of development permits in which failure to act by the
 government within the designated time period deems the project approved?.....
13. Does your Jurisdiction explicitly allow ``accessory apartments'' either             No----          Yes----
 as: (1) a special exception or conditional use in all single-family
 residential zones or, (2) ``as of right'' in a significant number of
 residential districts otherwise zoned for single-family housing?.............
                                                                               ------------------
    Total Points..............................................................            ----             ----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   B. State Agencies and Departments or Other Applicants Applying for Projects Located in Unincorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       1.               2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Does your State, either in its planning and zoning enabling legislation or           No----          Yes----
 in any other legislation, require a ``housing element'' in all local
 jurisdictions'' comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances which estimates
 current and anticipated housing needs for all existing and future residents
 for at least the next ten years, including low-, moderate- and middle-income
 residents, and does the housing element require local policies and procedures
 to address that need?........................................................
2. Does your state have an agency or office that includes a specific mission            No----          Yes----
 to determine whether local governments have policies or procedures that are
 raising costs or otherwise discouraging affordable housing?..................
3. Does your state have a legal or administrative requirement that local                No----          Yes----
 governments undertake periodic regulatory and barrier removal self-evaluation
 to encourage the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing?.......
4. Does your state have a technical assistance or education program for local           No----          Yes----
 jurisdictions on identifying regulatory barriers and recommending strategies
 to local governments for their removal?......................................
5. Does your state provide significant grant programs to local governments for          No----          Yes----
 housing, community development and/or transportation funding linked or
 prioritized on the basis of regulatory barrier removal? If yes, what are
 they?........................................................................
6. Within the past five years has your state made any changes to its own
 processes or requirements to significantly reduce the cost of new housing
 development or rehabilitation including......................................
    (a) streamlining or consolidating the state's own approval processes
     involving permits for water or wastewater, environmental review, or other
     State-administered permits or programs involving housing development; or
    (b) any other requirement for local jurisdictions regarding permitting,             No----          Yes----
     land use, building or subdivision regulations, or related administrative
     procedures involving housing development? If yes, describe.
                                                                               ------------------
        Total Points..........................................................          No----          Yes----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 66292]]

    To assist NOFA applicants in reviewing their state and local 
regulatory environments so they can effectively address the questions 
above that are proposed to be incorporated in all FY2004 NOFAs, the 
Department recommends visiting HUD's Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse 
(RBC) at http://www.huduser.org/rbc/. This Web site was created to 
support state, local, and tribal governments and other organizations 
seeking information about laws, regulations, and policies affecting the 
development, maintenance, improvement, availability and cost of 
affordable housing. To encourage better understanding of the impact of 
regulatory issues on housing affordability the Web site includes an 
extensive bibliography of major studies and guidance materials to 
assist state, local and tribal governments in fashioning solutions and 
approaches to expanding housing affordability through regulatory reform 
at http://www.huduser.org/rbc/relevant_publications.html.

V. Solicitation of Public Comment

    Again, HUD welcomes comments from prospective applicants that may 
be eligible for the higher rating points offered under this initial 
proposal, from other applicants, and from other interested members of 
the public. HUD seeks comments on the process for obtaining the points 
as proposed in this notice, and alternative ideas or suggestions on how 
this priority matter may be addressed through HUD's NOFA or other 
processes, such as HUD's Consolidated Plan. HUD also invites comments 
as to whether the regulatory barrier questions being posed to 
applicants would be accurate indicators of regulatory reform. HUD also 
invites comments as to whether there are other changes in local 
government developmental approval processes, land use or building 
regulations, subdivision regulations, or administrative procedures that 
can significantly reduce the cost of new housing development or 
rehabilitation that have not been included. During the public comment 
period, HUD may meet with representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governmental officials, as well as nonprofit organizations, to discuss 
this proposal and solicit more directly views, suggestions, and 
alternatives on how incentive criteria can work effectively with 
respect to HUD's award and allocation of funds or other processes.
    HUD will publish a second notice advising of the responses to the 
solicitation of public comment, and announcing if HUD intends to 
proceed with this proposal for the FY 2004 competitive funding process. 
If HUD decides to proceed with this proposal, the second notice will 
also advise of any significant changes that HUD intends to make in the 
implementation of the proposal. HUD also anticipates publishing 
additional notices on this or other methods of utilization of incentive 
criteria for removal of regulatory barriers in HUD funding allocations, 
and in this regard HUD welcomes ideas from the public on other 
proposals that should be considered.

    Dated: October 28, 2003.
A. Bryant Applegate,
Senior Counsel and Director of America's Affordable Communities 
Initiative.
[FR Doc. 03-29324 Filed 11-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P