[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53382-53392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4620]



[[Page 53381]]

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

Part IV





Department of Housing and Urban Development





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



Statutorily Mandated Designation of Difficult Development Areas for 
2008; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 18, 2007 / 
Notices  

[[Page 53382]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5169-N-01]


Statutorily Mandated Designation of Difficult Development Areas 
for 2008

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and 
Research, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document designates ``Difficult Development Areas'' 
(DDAs) for purposes of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) under 
Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) (26 U.S.C. 
42). The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) makes new DDA designations annually. The designations of 
``Qualified Census Tracts'' (QCTs) under Section 42 of the Internal 
Revenue Code published September 28, 2007, remain in effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on how areas are 
designated and on geographic definitions, contact Michael K. Hollar, 
Economist, Economic Development and Public Finance Division, Office of 
Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8234, Washington, DC 20410-
6000, telephone number (202) 402-5878, or send an e-mail to 
[email protected]. For specific legal questions pertaining to 
Section 42, contact Branch 5, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, 
Passthroughs and Special Industries, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, telephone number (202) 
622-3040. For questions about the ``HUB Zones'' program, contact 
Michael P. McHale, Assistant Administrator for Procurement Policy, 
Office of Government Contracting, Small Business Administration, 409 
Third Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416, telephone number 
(202) 205-8885, fax number (202) 205-7167, or send an e-mail to 
[email protected]. A text telephone is available for persons with hearing 
or speech impairments at (202) 708-9300. (These are not toll-free 
telephone numbers.) Additional copies of this notice are available 
through HUD User at (800) 245-2691 for a small fee to cover duplication 
and mailing costs.
    Copies Available Electronically: This notice and additional 
information about DDAs and QCTs are available electronically on the 
Internet at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/qct.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Document

    This notice designates DDAs for each of the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The designations of DDAs in this 
notice are based on final Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Fair Market Rents 
(FMRs), FY2007 income limits, and 2000 Census population counts, as 
explained below. This notice also lists those areas treated as DDAs 
under the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (GO Zone Act) (Pub. L. 109-
135; the GO Zone Act, as amended by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' 
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 
2007). Specifically, the GO Zone Act provides that areas ``determined 
by the President to warrant individual or individual and public 
assistance from the federal government under the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)'' as a 
result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma shall be treated as DDAs 
designated under subclause (I) of Internal Revenue Code section 
42(d)(5)(C)(iii) (i.e., areas designated by the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development as having high construction, land, and utility 
costs relative to area median gross income (AMGI)), and shall not be 
taken into account for purposes of applying the limitation under 
subclause II of such section (i.e., the 20 percent cap on the total 
population of designated areas). The designations of QCTs under Section 
42 of the Internal Revenue Code published September 28, 2006 (71 FR 
57234) remain in effect.

2000 Census

    Data from the 2000 Census on total population of metropolitan areas 
and nonmetropolitan areas are used in the designation of DDAs. The 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published new metropolitan area 
definitions incorporating 2000 Census data first in OMB Bulletin No. 
03-04 on June 6, 2003, and has updated them periodically through OMB 
Bulletin No. 06-01 on December 5, 2005. The FY2007 FMRs and FY2007 
income limits used to designate DDAs are based on these new MSA 
definitions, with modifications to account for substantial differences 
in rental housing markets (and, in some cases, median income levels) 
within MSAs.

Background

    The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and its Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) are authorized to interpret and enforce the 
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), including the LIHTC 
found at Section 42 of the Code. The Secretary of HUD is required to 
designate DDAs and QCTs by Section 42(d)(5)(C) of the Code. In order to 
assist in understanding HUD's mandated designation of DDAs and QCTs for 
use in administering Section 42, a summary of the section is provided. 
The following summary does not purport to bind Treasury or the IRS in 
any way, nor does it purport to bind HUD, since HUD has authority to 
interpret or administer the Code only in instances where it receives 
explicit delegation.

Summary of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

    The LIHTC is a tax incentive intended to increase the availability 
of low-income housing. Section 42 provides an income tax credit to 
owners of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated low-income 
rental housing projects. The dollar amount of the LIHTC available for 
allocation by each state (credit ceiling) is limited by population. 
Each state is allowed a credit ceiling based on a statutory formula 
indicated at Section 42(h)(3). States may carry forward unallocated 
credits derived from the credit ceiling for one year; however, to the 
extent these unallocated credits are not used by then, the credits go 
into a national pool to be redistributed to states as additional 
credit. State and local housing agencies allocate the state's credit 
ceiling among low-income housing buildings whose owners have applied 
for the credit. Besides Section 42 credits derived from the credit 
ceiling, states may also provide Section 42 credits to owners of 
buildings based on the percentage of certain building costs financed by 
tax-exempt bond proceeds. Credits provided under the tax-exempt bond 
``volume cap'' do not reduce the credits available from the credit 
ceiling.
    The credits allocated to a building are based on the cost of units 
placed in service as low-income units under particular minimum 
occupancy and maximum rent criteria. In general, a building must meet 
one of two thresholds to be eligible for the LIHTC: either 20 percent 
of the units must be rent-restricted and occupied by tenants with 
incomes no higher than 50 percent of the Area Median Gross Income 
(AMGI), or 40 percent of the units must be rent-restricted and occupied 
by tenants with incomes no higher than 60 percent of AMGI. The term 
``rent-restricted'' means that gross rent, including an allowance for 
utilities,

[[Page 53383]]

cannot exceed 30 percent of the tenant's imputed income limitation 
(i.e., 50 percent or 60 percent of AMGI). The rent and occupancy 
thresholds remain in effect for at least 15 years, and building owners 
are required to enter into agreements to maintain the low-income 
character of the building for at least an additional 15 years.
    The LIHTC reduces income tax liability dollar-for-dollar. It is 
taken annually for a term of 10 years and is intended to yield a 
present value of either: (1) 70 percent of the ``qualified basis'' for 
new construction or substantial rehabilitation expenditures that are 
not federally subsidized (i.e., financed with tax-exempt bonds or 
below-market federal loans), or (2) 30 percent of the qualified basis 
for the cost of acquiring certain existing buildings or projects that 
are federally subsidized. The actual credit rates are adjusted monthly 
for projects placed in service after 1987 under procedures specified in 
Section 42. Individuals can use the credits up to a deduction 
equivalent of $25,000 (the actual maximum amount of credit that an 
individual can claim depends on the individual's marginal tax rate). 
Individuals cannot use the credits against the alternative minimum tax. 
Corporations, other than S or personal service corporations, can use 
the credits against ordinary income tax. They cannot use the credits 
against the alternative minimum tax. These corporations can also deduct 
losses from the project.
    The qualified basis represents the product of the building's 
``applicable fraction'' and its ``eligible basis.'' The applicable 
fraction is based on the number of low-income units in the building as 
a percentage of the total number of units, or based on the floor space 
of low income-units as a percentage of the total floor space of 
residential units in the building. The eligible basis is the adjusted 
basis attributable to acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction 
costs (depending on the type of LIHTC involved). These costs include 
amounts chargeable to a capital account that are incurred prior to the 
end of the first taxable year in which the qualified low-income 
building is placed in service or, at the election of the taxpayer, the 
end of the succeeding taxable year. In the case of buildings located in 
designated DDAs or designated QCTs, eligible basis can be increased up 
to 130 percent from what it would otherwise be. This means that the 
available credits also can be increased by up to 30 percent. For 
example, if a 70 percent credit is available, it effectively could be 
increased to as much as 91 percent.
    Section 42 of the Code defines a DDA as any area designated by the 
Secretary of HUD as an area that has high construction, land, and 
utility costs relative to the AMGI. All designated DDAs in metropolitan 
areas (taken together) may not contain more than 20 percent of the 
aggregate population of all metropolitan areas, and all designated 
areas not in metropolitan areas may not contain more than 20 percent of 
the aggregate population of all nonmetropolitan areas.
    The GO Zone Act provides that areas ``determined by the President 
to warrant individual or individual and public assistance from the 
Federal Government'' under the Stafford Act by reason of Hurricanes 
Katrina, Rita, or Wilma shall be treated as DDAs designated under 
subclause I of Internal Revenue Code section 42(d)(5)(C)(iii) (i.e., 
areas designated by the Secretary of HUD as having high construction, 
land, and utility costs relative to AMGI), and shall not be taken into 
account for purposes of applying the limitation under subclause II of 
such section (i.e., the 20 percent cap on the total population of 
designated areas). This notice lists the affected areas described in 
the GO Zone Act. Because the populations of DDAs designated under the 
GO Zone Act are not counted against the statutory 20 percent cap on the 
aggregate population of DDAs, the total population of designated 
metropolitan DDAs listed in this notice exceeds 20 percent of the total 
population of all MSAs, and the population of all nonmetropolitan DDAs 
listed in this notice exceeds 20 percent of the total population of 
nonmetropolitan counties.

Explanation of HUD Designation Methodology

A. Difficult Development Areas

    This notice lists all areas ``determined by the President to 
warrant individual or individual and public assistance from the Federal 
Government'' under the Stafford Act by reason of Hurricanes Katrina, 
Rita, or Wilma as DDAs according to lists of counties and parishes from 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency Web site (http://www.fema.gov/
). Affected metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan areas are assigned 
the indicator ``[GO Zone]'' in the lists of DDAs.
    In developing the list of the remaining DDAs, HUD compared housing 
costs with incomes. HUD used 2000 Census population data and the MSA 
definitions, as published in OMB Bulletin No. 06-01 on December 5, 
2005, with modifications, as described below. In keeping with past 
practice of basing the coming year's DDA designations on data from the 
preceding year, the basis for these comparisons is the FY2007 HUD 
income limits for very low-income households (Very Low Income Limits, 
or VLILs), which are based on 50 percent of AMGI, and final FY2007 FMRs 
used for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. In formulating the 
FY2007 FMRs and VLILs, HUD modified the current OMB definitions of MSAs 
to account for substantial differences in rents among areas within each 
new MSA that were in different FMR areas under definitions used in 
prior years. HUD formed these ``HUD Metro FMR Areas'' (HMFAs) in cases 
where one or more of the parts of newly defined MSAs that previously 
were in separate FMR areas had 2000 Census base 40th-percentile recent 
mover rents that differed, by 5 percent or more, from the same 
statistic calculated at the MSA level. In addition, a few HMFAs were 
formed on the basis of very large differences in AMGIs among the MSA 
parts. All HMFAs are contained entirely within MSAs. All 
nonmetropolitan counties are outside of MSAs and are not broken up by 
HUD for purposes of setting FMRs and VLILs. (Complete details on HUD's 
process for determining FY2007 FMR areas and FMRs are available at 
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/fmrs/index.asp?data=fmr07. Complete 
details on HUD's process for determining FY2007 Income Limits are 
available at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il2007_docsys.html.)
    HUD's unit of analysis for designating metropolitan DDAs, 
therefore, consists of: entire MSAs, in cases where these were not 
broken up into HMFAs for purposes of computing FMRs and VLILs; and 
HMFAs within the MSAs that were broken up for such purposes. Hereafter 
in this notice, the unit of analysis for designating metropolitan DDAs 
will be called the HMFA, and the unit of analysis for nonmetropolitan 
DDAs will be the nonmetropolitan county or county equivalent area. The 
procedure used in making the DDA calculations follows:
    1. For each HMFA and each nonmetropolitan county, a ratio was 
calculated. This calculation used the final FY2007 two-bedroom FMR and 
the FY2007 four-person VLIL.
    a. The numerator of the ratio was the area's final FY2007 FMR. In 
general, the FMR is based on the 40th-percentile gross rent paid by 
recent movers to live in a two-bedroom apartment. In metropolitan areas 
granted an FMR based on the 50th-percentile rent for purposes of 
improving the administration of HUD's HCV program

[[Page 53384]]

(see 71 FR 5068), the 40th-percentile rent was used to ensure 
nationwide consistency of comparisons.
    b. The denominator of the ratio was the monthly LIHTC income-based 
rent limit, which was calculated as \1/12\ of 30 percent of 120 percent 
of the area's VLIL (where the VLIL was rounded to the nearest $50 and 
not allowed to exceed 80 percent of the AMGI in areas where the VLIL is 
adjusted upward from its 50 percent of AMGI base).
    2. The ratios of the FMR to the LIHTC income-based rent limit were 
arrayed in descending order, separately, for HMFAs and for 
nonmetropolitan counties.
    3. The non-GO Zone DDAs are those HMFAs and nonmetropolitan 
counties not in areas ``determined by the President to warrant 
individual or individual and public assistance from the Federal 
Government'' under the Stafford Act by reason of Hurricanes Katrina, 
Rita, or Wilma, with the highest ratios cumulative to 20 percent of the 
2000 population of all HMFAs and of all nonmetropolitan counties, 
respectively.

B. Application of Population Caps to DDA Determinations

    In identifying DDAs, HUD applied caps, or limitations, as noted 
above. The cumulative population of metropolitan DDAs not in areas 
``determined by the President to warrant individual or individual and 
public assistance from the Federal Government'' under the Stafford Act 
by reason of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma cannot exceed 20 
percent of the cumulative population of all metropolitan areas. The 
cumulative population of nonmetropolitan DDAs not in areas ``determined 
by the President to warrant individual or individual and public 
assistance from the Federal Government'' under the Stafford Act by 
reason of Katrina, Rita, or Wilma cannot exceed 20 percent of the 
cumulative population of all nonmetropolitan areas.
    In applying these caps, HUD established procedures to deal with how 
to treat small overruns of the caps. The remainder of this section 
explains the procedures. In general, HUD stops selecting areas when it 
is impossible to choose another area without exceeding the applicable 
cap. The only exceptions to this policy are when the next eligible 
excluded area contains either a large absolute population or a large 
percentage of the total population, or the next excluded area's ranking 
ratio, as described above, was identical (to four decimal places) to 
the last area selected, and its inclusion resulted in only a minor 
overrun of the cap. Thus, for both the designated metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan DDAs, there may be minimal overruns of the cap. HUD 
believes the designation of additional areas in the above examples of 
minimal overruns is consistent with the intent of the legislation. As 
long as the apparent excess is small due to measurement errors, some 
latitude is justifiable because it is impossible to determine whether 
the 20 percent cap has been exceeded. Despite the care and effort 
involved in a decennial census, the Census Bureau and all users of the 
data recognize that the population counts for a given area and for the 
entire country are not precise. Therefore, the extent of the 
measurement error is unknown. There can be errors in both the numerator 
and denominator of the ratio of populations used in applying a 20 
percent cap. In circumstances where a strict application of a 20 
percent cap results in an anomalous situation, recognition of the 
unavoidable imprecision in the census data justifies accepting small 
variances above the 20 percent limit.

C. Exceptions to OMB Definitions of MSAs and Other Geographic Matters

    As stated in OMB Bulletin 06-01 defining metropolitan areas:

    OMB establishes and maintains the definitions of Metropolitan * 
* * Statistical Areas, * * * solely for statistical purposes. * * * 
OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any non-
statistical uses that may be made of the definitions[.] In cases 
where * * * an agency elects to use the Metropolitan * * * Area 
definitions in nonstatistical programs, it is the sponsoring 
agency's responsibility to ensure that the definitions are 
appropriate for such use. An agency using the statistical 
definitions in a nonstatistical program may modify the definitions, 
but only for the purposes of that program. In such cases, any 
modifications should be clearly identified as deviations from the 
OMB statistical area definitions in order to avoid confusion with 
OMB's official definitions of Metropolitan * * * Statistical 
Areas.''

    Following OMB guidance, the estimation procedure for the FY2007 
FMRs incorporates the current OMB definitions of metropolitan areas 
based on the new Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) standards, as 
implemented with 2000 Census data, but makes adjustments to the 
definitions, in order to separate subparts of these areas in cases 
where FMRs (and in a few cases, VLILs) would otherwise change 
significantly if the new area definitions were used without 
modification. In CBSAs where sub-areas are established, it is HUD's 
view that the geographic extent of the housing markets are not yet the 
same as the geographic extent of the CBSAs, but may become so as the 
social and economic integration of the CBSA component areas increases.
    The geographic baseline for the new estimation procedure is the 
CBSA Metropolitan Areas (referred to as Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
or MSAs) and CBSA Non-Metropolitan Counties (non-metropolitan counties 
include the county components of Micropolitan CBSAs where the counties 
are generally assigned separate FMRs). The HUD-modified CBSA 
definitions allow for sub-area FMRs within MSAs based on the boundaries 
of ``Old FMR Areas'' (OFAs) within the boundaries of new MSAs. (OFAs 
are the FMR areas defined for the FY2005 FMRs. Collectively, they 
include June 30, 1999, OMB-definition Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
and Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (old definition MSAs/PMSAs), 
metropolitan counties deleted from old definition MSAs/PMSAs by HUD for 
FMR-setting purposes, and counties and county parts outside of old 
definition MSAs/PMSAs referred to as non-metropolitan counties.) Sub-
areas of MSAs are assigned their own FMRs when the sub-area 2000 Census 
Base FMR differs significantly from the MSA 2000 Census Base FMR (or, 
in some cases, where the 2000 Census base AMGI differs significantly 
from the MSA 2000 Census Base AMGI). MSA sub-areas, and the remaining 
portions of MSAs after sub-areas have been determined, are referred to 
as ``HUD Metro FMR Areas (HMFAs),'' to distinguish such areas from 
OMB's official definition of MSAs.
    In addition, Waller County, Texas, which is part of the Houston-
Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA, is not an area ``determined by the 
President to warrant individual or individual and public assistance 
from the Federal Government'' under the Stafford Act by reason of 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. It is, therefore, excluded from the 
definition of the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA and is assigned 
the FMR and VLIL of the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA and is 
evaluated as if it were a separate metropolitan area for purposes of 
designating DDAs. The Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA is assigned 
the indicator ``(part)'' in the list of Metropolitan DDAs.
    In the New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), HMFAs are defined according to 
county subdivisions or minor civil divisions (MCDs), rather than county 
boundaries. However, since no part of an HMFA is outside an OMB-
defined, county-based MSA, all New England nonmetropolitan counties are 
kept

[[Page 53385]]

intact for purposes of designating Nonmetropolitan DDAs.
    For the convenience of readers of this notice, the geographical 
definitions of designated Metropolitan DDAs are included in the list of 
DDAs.
    The Census Bureau provides no tabulations of 2000 Census data for 
Broomfield County, Colorado, an area that was created from parts of 
four Colorado counties when the city of Broomfield became a county in 
November 2001. Broomfield County is made up of former parts of Adams, 
Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld counties. The boundaries of Broomfield 
County are similar, but not identical to, the boundaries of the city of 
Broomfield at the time of the 2000 Census. In OMB metropolitan area 
definitions and, therefore, for purposes of this notice, Broomfield 
County is included as part of the Denver-Aurora, CO MSA. Census tracts 
in Broomfield County include the parts of the Adams, Boulder, 
Jefferson, and Weld County census tracts that were within the 
boundaries of the city of Broomfield according to the 2000 Census, plus 
parts of three Adams County tracts (85.15, 85.16, and 85.28), and one 
Jefferson County tract (98.25) that were not within any municipality 
during the 2000 Census but which, according to Census Bureau maps, are 
within the boundaries of Broomfield County. Data for Adams, Boulder, 
Jefferson, and Weld Counties and their census tracts were adjusted to 
exclude the data assigned to Broomfield County and its census tracts.

Future Designations

    DDAs are designated annually as updated income and FMR data are 
made public.

Effective Date

    For DDAs designated by reason of being in areas ``determined by the 
President to warrant individual or individual and public assistance 
from the Federal Government'' under the Stafford Act by reason of 
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma (the GO Zone Designation), the 
designation is effective:
    (1) For housing credit dollar amounts allocated and buildings 
placed in service during the period beginning on January 1, 2006, and 
ending on December 31, 2010; or
    (2) For purposes of Section 42(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 
for buildings placed in service during the period beginning on January 
1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2010, but only with respect to 
bonds issued after December 31, 2005.
    The 2008 lists of DDAs that are not part of the GO Zone Designation 
are effective:
    (1) For allocations of credit after December 31, 2007; or
    (2) For purposes of Section 42(h)(4) of the Code, if the bonds are 
issued and the building is placed in service after December 31, 2007.
    If an area is not on a subsequent list of DDAs, the 2008 lists are 
effective for the area if:
    (1) The allocation of credit to an applicant is made no later than 
the end of the 365-day period after the submission to the LIHTC-
allocating agency of a complete application by the applicant, and the 
submission is made before the effective date of the subsequent lists; 
or
    (2) For purposes of Section 42(h)(4) of the Code, if:
    (a) The bonds are issued or the building is placed in service no 
later than the end of the 365-day period after the applicant submits a 
complete application to the bond-issuing agency, and
    (b) The submission is made before the effective date of the 
subsequent lists, provided that both the issuance of the bonds and the 
placement in service of the building occur after the application is 
submitted.
    An application is deemed to be submitted on the date it is filed if 
the application is determined to be complete by the credit-allocating 
or bond-issuing agency. A ``complete application'' means that no more 
than de minimis clarification of the application is required for the 
agency to make a decision about the allocation of tax credits or 
issuance of bonds requested in the application.
    In the case of a ``multiphase project,'' the DDA or QCT status of 
the site of the project that applies for all phases of the project is 
that which applied when the project received its first allocation of 
LIHTC. For purposes of Section 42(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 
the DDA or QCT status of the site of the project that applies for all 
phases of the project is that which applied when the first of the 
following occurred: (a) The building(s) in the first phase were placed 
in service or (b) the bonds were issued.
    For purposes of this notice, a ``multiphase project'' is defined as 
a set of buildings to be constructed or rehabilitated under the rules 
of the LIHTC and meeting the following criteria:

    (1) The multiphase composition of the project (i.e., total 
number of buildings and phases in project, with a description of how 
many buildings are to be built in each phase and when each phase is 
to be completed, and any other information required by the agency) 
is made known by the applicant in the first application of credit 
for any building in the project, and that applicant identifies the 
buildings in the project for which credit is (or will be) sought;
    (2) The aggregate amount of LIHTC applied for on behalf of, or 
that would eventually be allocated to, the buildings on the site 
exceeds the one-year limitation on credits per applicant, as defined 
in the QAP of the LIHTC-allocating agency, or the annual per capita 
credit authority of the LIHTC allocating agency, and is the reason 
the applicant must request multiple allocations over 2 or more 
years; and
    (3) All applications for LIHTC for buildings on the site are 
made in immediately consecutive years.

    Members of the public are hereby reminded that the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, or the Secretary's designee, has sole 
legal authority to designate DDAs and QCTs by publishing lists of 
geographic entities as defined by, in the case of DDAs, the several 
states and the governments of the insular areas of the United States 
and, in the case of QCTs, by the Census Bureau; and to establish the 
effective dates of such lists. The Secretary of the Treasury, through 
the IRS thereof, has sole legal authority to interpret, and to 
determine and enforce compliance with, the Internal Revenue Code and 
associated regulations, including Federal Register notices published by 
HUD for purposes of designating DDAs and QCTs. Representations made by 
any other entity as to the content of HUD notices designating DDAs and 
QCTs that do not precisely match the language published by HUD should 
not be relied upon by taxpayers in determining what actions are 
necessary to comply with HUD notices.

Interpretive Examples of Effective Date

    For the convenience of readers of this notice, interpretive 
examples are provided below to illustrate the consequences of the 
effective date in areas that gain or lose DDA status. The term 
``regular DDA,'' as used below, refers to DDAs that are designated by 
the Secretary of HUD as having high construction, land, and utility 
costs relative to AMGI. The term ``GO Zone DDA'' refers to areas 
``determined by the President to warrant individual or individual and 
public assistance from the Federal Government'' under the Stafford Act 
by reason of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. The examples covering 
regular DDAs are equally applicable to QCT designations.
    (Case A) Project A is located in a 2008 regular DDA that is NOT a 
designated regular DDA in 2009. A complete

[[Page 53386]]

application for tax credits for Project A is filed with the allocating 
agency on November 15, 2008. Credits are allocated to Project A on 
October 30, 2009. Project A is eligible for the increase in basis 
accorded a project in a 2008 regular DDA because the application was 
filed BEFORE January 1, 2009 (the assumed effective date for the 2009 
regular DDA lists), and because tax credits were allocated no later 
than the end of the 365-day period after the filing of the complete 
application for an allocation of tax credits.
    (Case B) Project B is located in a 2008 regular DDA that is NOT a 
designated regular DDA in 2009. A complete application for tax credits 
for Project B is filed with the allocating agency on December 1, 2008. 
Credits are allocated to Project B on March 30, 2010. Project B is NOT 
eligible for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2008 regular 
DDA because, although the application for an allocation of tax credits 
was filed BEFORE January 1, 2009 (the assumed effective date of the 
2009 regular DDA lists), the tax credits were allocated later than the 
end of the 365-day period after the filing of the complete application.
    (Case C) Project C is located in a 2008 regular DDA that was not a 
DDA in 2007. Project C was placed in service on November 15, 2007. A 
complete application for tax-exempt bond financing for Project C is 
filed with the bond-issuing agency on January 15, 2008. The bonds that 
will support the permanent financing of Project C are issued on 
September 30, 2008. Project C is NOT eligible for the increase in basis 
otherwise accorded a project in a 2008 DDA because the project was 
placed in service BEFORE January 1, 2008.
    (Case D) Project D is located in an area that is a regular DDA in 
2008, but is NOT a regular DDA in 2009. A complete application for tax-
exempt bond financing for Project D is filed with the bond-issuing 
agency on October 30, 2008. Bonds are issued for Project D on April 30, 
2009, but Project D is not placed in service until January 30, 2010. 
Project D is eligible for the increase in basis available to projects 
located in 2008 regular DDAs because: (1) The first of the two events 
necessary for triggering the effective date for buildings described in 
Section 42(h)(4)(B) of the Code (the two events being bonds issued and 
buildings placed in service) took place on April 30, 2009, within the 
365-day period after a complete application for tax-exempt bond 
financing was filed, (2) the application was filed during a time when 
the location of Project D was in a regular DDA, and (3) both the 
issuance of the bonds and placement in service of project D occurred 
after the application was submitted.
    (Case E) Project E is located in a GO Zone DDA. The bonds used to 
finance project E are issued on July 1, 2010, and project E is placed 
in service July 1, 2011. Project E is NOT eligible for the increase in 
basis available to projects in GO Zone DDAs because it was not placed 
in service during the period that began on January 1, 2006, and ends on 
December 31, 2010.
    (Case F) Project F is located in a GO Zone DDA. The bonds used to 
finance project F were issued July 1, 2005, and project F is placed in 
service on July 1, 2008. Project F is NOT eligible for the increase in 
basis available to projects in GO Zone DDAs because the bonds used to 
finance project F were issued BEFORE December 31, 2005.
    (Case G) Project G is a multiphase project located in a 2007 
regular DDA that is NOT a designated regular DDA in 2008. The first 
phase of Project G received an allocation of credits in 2007, pursuant 
to an application filed March 15, 2007, which describes the multiphase 
composition of the project. An application for tax credits for the 
second phase Project G is filed with the allocating agency by the same 
entity on March 15, 2008. The second phase of Project G is located on a 
contiguous site. Credits are allocated to the second phase of Project G 
on October 30, 2008. The aggregate amount of credits allocated to the 
two phases of Project G exceeds the amount of credits that may be 
allocated to an applicant in one year under the allocating agency's QAP 
and is the reason that applications were made in multiple phases. The 
second phase of Project G is therefore eligible for the increase in 
basis accorded a project in a 2007 regular DDA because it meets all of 
the conditions to be a part of a multiphase project.
    (Case H) Project H is a multiphase project located in a 2007 
regular DDA that is NOT a designated regular DDA in 2008. The first 
phase of Project H received an allocation of credits in 2007, pursuant 
to an application filed March 15, 2007, which does not describe the 
multiphase composition of the project. An application for tax credits 
for the second phase Project H is filed with the allocating agency by 
the same entity on March 15, 2009. Credits are allocated to the second 
phase of Project H on October 30, 2009. The aggregate amount of credits 
allocated to the two phases of Project H exceeds the amount of credits 
that may be allocated to an applicant in one year under the allocating 
agency's QAP. The second phase of Project H is, therefore, NOT eligible 
for the increase in basis accorded a project in a 2007 regular DDA 
because it does not meet all of the conditions for a multiphase 
project, as defined in this notice. The original application for 
credits for the first phase did not describe the multiphase composition 
of the project. Also, the application for credits for the second phase 
of Project H was not made in the year immediately following the first 
phase application year.

Findings and Certifications

Environmental Impact

    In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council 
on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6) of HUD's regulations, 
the policies and procedures contained in this notice provide for the 
establishment of fiscal requirements or procedures that do not 
constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of 
specific project areas or building sites and, therefore, are 
categorically excluded from the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, except for extraordinary circumstances, and 
no Finding of No Significant Impact is required.

Federalism Impact

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency 
from publishing any policy document that has federalism implications if 
the document either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 
state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the 
document preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation 
and funding requirements of section 6 of the executive order. This 
notice merely designates DDAs as required under Section 42 of the 
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, for the use by political 
subdivisions of the states in allocating the LIHTC. This notice also 
details the technical methodology used in making such designations. As 
a result, this notice is not subject to review under the order.

    Dated: August 31, 2007.
Darlene F. Williams,
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

[[Page 53387]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18SE07.028


[[Page 53388]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18SE07.029


[[Page 53389]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18SE07.030


[[Page 53390]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18SE07.031


[[Page 53391]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18SE07.032


[[Page 53392]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18SE07.033

[FR Doc. 07-4620 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-C