[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Housing and Urban Development Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Mission of HUD
More than any other Federal agency, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) is defined by its relationship with communities 
across the Nation. Everything HUD does--enhancing homeownership 
opportunities, providing rental assistance to low-income families, 
expanding the supply of affordable housing, substantially reducing 
racial barriers to residential mobility, stimulating neighborhood 
economic activity--is geared towards supporting the development and 
maintenance of healthy, thriving communities of opportunity. This is 
why Secretary Henry G. Cisneros has defined HUD's central mission as 
``Helping People Create Communities of Opportunity.''
Upon assuming the leadership of HUD in 1993, Secretary Cisneros made 
reinvention of HUD one of his first priorities. HUD's reinvention 
efforts took place in the context of President Clinton's governmentwide 
reinvention process, the National Performance Review (NPR), under the 
leadership of Vice President Gore. Secretary Cisneros recognized, as 
did NPR, that for HUD to fulfill its mission successfully, 
restructuring of HUD was necessary--restructuring of HUD's organization 
and its programs.
HUD's Regulatory Plan for fiscal year 1996 reflects HUD's commitment to 
its mission and also its commitment to reinvention. HUD is intent on 
moving away from overly bureaucratic, top-down approaches that tell 
communities what they need and how they should go about solving their 
problems. The new HUD believes that decisionmakers at the neighborhood, 
local, and State levels should have maximum flexibility to design and 
utilize Federal resources to solve problems and promote economic 
growth, consistent with national objectives.
The Transformation to a New HUD
Through its reinvention process, HUD established the framework for (a) 
assessing the Department's internal organization; (b) determining 
whether legislation, operating procedures, and regulations contribute 
to the achievement of HUD's purposes or impede it; and (c) defining 
results-oriented performance standards against which HUD policies and 
programs could be judged and the work of HUD's offices and employees 
could be evaluated. The overall objective of the reinvention process 
was to fundamentally transform HUD from an agency driven by numerous, 
individual, uncoordinated programs administered in isolation from each 
other; unnecessary procedures; and layers of regulations into an agency 
that is a responsive, problem-solving deliverer of affordable housing, 
and of community and economic development resources.
HUD determined that one of the first steps it needed to take in its 
transformation from the old HUD to the new HUD was the consolidation 
and streamlining of funding programs. HUD recognized that its 
effectiveness had been diminished by the proliferation of dozens of 
separate, albeit similar, funding programs. By allocating funds through 
many separate programs, HUD had undercut the incentive for States and 
local governments to engage in coordinated strategic planning. 
Consolidation of HUD funding programs would eliminate the fragmented 
delivery system of assistance that operates inefficiently and, at 
times, ineffectively. With fewer programs to administer, it would be 
possible to consolidate HUD's operational and administrative support 
functions to produce economies of scale and more efficient program 
administration.
The American Community Partnerships Act--HUD's Legislative Reinvention 
Proposal
On May 1, 1995, HUD took a major step forward in the reinvention of 
HUD. On that date, HUD submitted proposed legislation, the ``American 
Community Partnerships Act,'' to the Congress. The American Community 
Partnerships Act proposes to streamline the delivery of housing and 
community development assistance to individuals and communities, and 
maximize the use of scarce Federal resources, by:
 Providing greater flexibility for State and local officials in 
            deciding how to address locally identified needs;
 Providing individual choice for those in need of housing 
            assistance, including the use of certificates for 
            homeownership, while stressing the primacy of work and 
            personal development; and
 Increasing homeownership rates through a new Federal Housing 
            Corporation that is better equipped to serve low- and 
            moderate-income homebuyers and that is in step with modern 
            banking practices and services.
The American Community Partnerships Act also proposes to consolidate 60 
separate programs into three performance-based funds: the Community 
Opportunity Fund, the Affordable Housing Fund, and the Housing 
Certificates Fund. These three funds will give communities the 
resources to address locally identified problems, free from the layers 
of Federal regulations and approvals that have characterized the scores 
of active HUD programs now on the books.
In addition to the three performance-based funds, the legislation 
proposes to provide the mechanisms to further reduce homelessness and 
transform public housing, Native American housing, and the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA).
While this legislation is under consideration, HUD is continuing to 
work on consolidating and streamlining its programs through the 
regulatory process in an effort to achieve the objectives of the 
American Community Partnerships Act, to the extent possible given 
statutory parameters and barriers.
Regulatory Reinvention
A key component of HUD's reinvention has been reinvention of HUD's 
regulatory process and its approach to rulemaking. Reinvention of HUD's 
rulemaking operations was at the forefront of HUD's reinvention efforts 
launched in 1993.
At the foundation of HUD's reform of its regulatory process is 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), issued by 
President Clinton on September 30, 1993. This order directs agencies to 
explore regulatory alternatives and, if regulations are determined to 
be necessary, to select approaches that maximize net benefits and 
involve enhanced public accessibility to and participation in the 
rulemaking process.
Under the leadership of Secretary Cisneros, public participation in 
HUD's rulemaking process has increased substantially. Consistent with 
Executive Order 12866, HUD has involved its program partners and the 
ultimate beneficiaries of HUD programs in the early stages of the rule 
development process by inviting them to participate as working groups 
and to share ideas about the issues to be addressed in a rule. HUD has 
also increased public participation in the rule development process 
through greater use of public meetings--both at the pre- and post-
publication stages of a proposed rule. In addition to increasing public 
participation, HUD streamlined its internal process for development of 
regulations and began the process of streamlining rules and program 
requirements to make the programs operate more effectively and 
efficiently.
HUD's regulatory reinvention process gained momentum under President 
Clinton's regulatory reform initiatives. On March 4, 1995, the 
President issued a directive to all Federal departments and agencies to 
focus on the following four steps as part of the Administration's 
ongoing regulatory reform initiative: (a) cut obsolete regulations; (b) 
reward results, not red tape; (c) get out of Washington and create 
grassroots partnership; and (d) negotiate, don't dictate (provide for 
increased use of negotiated rulemaking). Through HUD's own reinvention 
efforts, begun in 1993 and following the guidance provided in Executive 
Order 12866, each one of these regulatory reform initiatives had 
already been implemented in varying degrees.
HUD's efforts to create grassroots partnerships began in early 1994, 
and HUD's successes in forming such partnerships across the country and 
the accomplishments of these partnerships were described in HUD's June 
15, 1995, Summary Report to President Clinton on the President's 
Regulatory Reform Initiatives. HUD's successful efforts to involve the 
public in its rulemaking process were also described in the June 15, 
1995, report, as well as in HUD's Regulatory Plan for fiscal year 1995, 
published in the Federal Register on November 14, 1994.
Although under Executive Order 12866 HUD had begun a review of its 
existing regulations to determine which should be modified or 
eliminated, the pace of this review increased under the President's 
March 4, 1995, directive to conduct a page-by-page review of all 
existing regulations and to complete that review by June 1, 1995. By 
the completion of this review, HUD had identified 65 regulatory parts 
that could be eliminated and an additional 153 parts that could be 
simplified and streamlined.
Regulatory Successes
HUD's regulatory reinvention has yielded several successes that affect 
HUD's current operations and programs. HUD has been successful in 
reducing paperwork and information collection requirements in several 
program areas, and has moved itself and its recipients further into the 
age of technology. HUD has completed its first negotiated rulemaking 
and has transferred more power and authority for the administration and 
operation of its programs to States and to local and tribal 
governments, to provide more flexibility in the operation of the 
programs. Specific examples of these successes are as follows:
 The Consolidated Plan final rule, published on January 5, 
            1995, replaces the separate application and reporting 
            requirements for the Community Development Block Grant 
            Program, the HOME program, the Emergency Shelter Grant 
            Program, and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
            AIDS Program.
 The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Economic 
            Development Guidelines, published on January 5, 1995, 
            established guidelines to assist CDBG recipients in 
            evaluating and selecting economic development activities 
            for assistance with CDBG funds, and makes certain changes 
            to the CDBG program to facilitate the use of CDBG funds for 
            economic development objectives.
 All of the requirements for Indian Housing program development 
            and operations have been consolidated in a final rule 
            published on April 10, 1995. The rule provides greater 
            discretion and responsibility at the local level for the 
            program, and reduces regulatory requirements by 40 percent 
            for Indian Housing Authorities and tribes.
 HUD's Federal Housing Administration has streamlined 
            requirements for mortgage insurance for newly constructed 
            homes. This will reduce the paperwork burden on lenders and 
            builders by as much as 75 percent.
 Required reporting to HUD on characteristics of tenants in 
            assisted housing has been automated. Project-based 
            reporting rules were issued in 1994 and a final rule to 
            automate reporting by Public and Indian Housing Authorities 
            was issued on March 2, 1995. These new requirements will 
            substantially reduce the cost and burden of collecting this 
            information.
 HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing has streamlined the 
            requirements for submission of operating budgets by housing 
            authorities. As a result of this streamlining effort, it is 
            anticipated that 3,000 housing authorities will not be 
            required to submit operating budgets to HUD for review and 
            approval.
 Revisions to the regulatory requirements for payment of 
            Operating Subsidy for vacant units (the Vacancy rule) are 
            being developed through negotiated rulemaking, the first 
            use by HUD of this technique. HUD's proposed Vacancy rule 
            was published on July 19, 1995, and received favorable 
            public comment on the negotiated rulemaking process.
 On July 3, 1995, HUD published a final rule that combined and 
            conformed HUD regulations governing tenant-based rental 
            assistance under HUD's Rental Certificate Program and its 
            Rental Voucher Program.
 On August 1, 1955, HUD published a final rule revising its 
            regulations governing sanctions imposed by the Mortgage 
            Review Board. This rule provides for the Board to delegate 
            its hearing authority to a hearing official who will 
            conduct informal hearings under stated time limitations, 
            thereby streamlining the hearing process.
 On August 14, 1995, HUD's Government National Mortgage 
            Association (Ginnie Mae) published a final rule that 
            streamlined the existing Ginnie Mae regulations, and made 
            them more flexible and customer-friendly. The regulations 
            removed outdated parts and sections of parts to trim the 
            Association's regulations to only those necessary to 
            operate current programs.
 On September 11, 1995, (60 FR 47260), HUD published a final 
            rule that removes approximately 40 obsolete or unnecessary 
            parts and approximately 20 subparts and appendices. 
            Development and publication of this rule stems from HUD's 
            page-by-page review of its existing regulations.
Although HUD believes that it has made significant and important 
changes to its programs and operations through the regulatory process, 
it is committed to further regulatory changes to assist in the 
transformation to the new HUD.
HUD has several reinvention rules under development that will 
consolidate duplicative and repetitive program requirements to the 
extent possible given statutory parameters. To reduce the repetition of 
requirements applicable to all or the majority of HUD programs, HUD 
proposes to create a new part (and in the process eliminate other parts 
and subparts) that will contain (a) definitions that are used across 
the board in HUD programs, (b) a list of other Federal requirements 
applicable to HUD programs, (c) waiver authority (i.e., authority to 
waive regulatory provisions), (d) across-the-board funding 
requirements, and (e) admission and occupancy requirements. The 
consolidation into one part of all the above-noted provisions will help 
create uniformity in HUD grant programs that will benefit participants 
in these programs.
HUD also proposes to consolidate into a single rule, to the extent 
possible, the following nondiscrimination rules in 24 CFR: Parts 1 and 
2--Nondiscrimination Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(Nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in 
HUD-assisted programs) and Practice and Procedure for Hearings Under 
Part 1 (Nondiscrimination hearing procedures); Part 8--
Nondiscrimination in HUD-Assisted Programs (Nondiscrimination on the 
basis of disability in HUD-assisted programs); Part 107--
Nondiscrimination Under Executive Order 11063 (Nondiscrimination and 
equal opportunity in the sale, rental, or leasing of property owned by 
the Federal Government); Part 108--Compliance Procedures for 
Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing (Review of fair housing marketing 
plans); and Part 146--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age. These 
parts contain several identical or near-identical sections.
The Role of Regulations in the New HUD
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the President's March 4, 
1995, directive, and Secretary Cisneros' internal regulatory 
directives, HUD is committed to exploring alternatives to regulations, 
and to regulate only when necessary to achieve essential objectives or 
where mandated by statute to do so. Where regulations are required, HUD 
is committed to these regulatory principles.
HUD will ensure that its rules are consistent with HUD's reinvention 
objectives and that the rules are sensible, understandable, cost-
effective, customer-friendly, and minimally burdensome. HUD will 
continue to consult with the public, using informal working groups, 
public meetings, regulatory negotiation, and other innovative 
techniques to increase public participation.
HUD will continue to work closely with other Federal agencies where 
regulatory matters overlap. HUD's noncitizens final rule, published 
March 20, 1995, reflects HUD's consultation with the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. HUD's Base Closure rule, discussed more fully 
in this regulatory plan, reflects HUD's close working relationship with 
the Department of Defense. HUD is working closely with the Federal 
Highway Administration on a rule relating to standards for tires that 
transport manufactured homes.
HUD will continue to provide oversight and enforce the law in a number 
of key areas, including civil rights, operation of government-sponsored 
enterprises, real estate settlement processes, regulation of interstate 
land sales, and the establishment and enforcement of lead-based paint 
standards and manufactured housing. Changing the way that HUD fulfills 
its mission does not eliminate the need for HUD to continue to provide 
regulatory oversight in these key areas. However, HUD recognizes that 
its role as a regulator can be improved--that it can work more in 
partnership with the entities and individuals it regulates and other 
interested parties to achieve together the objectives of the regulatory 
authority (e.g., fair housing, safe manufactured housing, lead-based 
paint free housing, and protection of consumers).
Regulatory Priorities
For fiscal year 1996, HUD will focus its resources on regulatory 
actions that promote HUD's reinvention and HUD's mission, as 
demonstrated by the description of the following priority rules. 
Although the following rules reflect essential elements of HUD's 
reinvention efforts and a commitment to its mission, other regulations 
described in HUD's Semiannual Agenda of Regulations also reflect these 
efforts and commitment.
Priority: Reducing Homelessness
Reduce the number of homeless Americans through partnerships with local 
governments and private-sector nonprofit groups that help people gain 
access to housing and the services they need.
In early July 1995, HUD announced $900 million in grants to help the 
homeless. HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development issued 800 
grants in 228 cities to help communities carry out a comprehensive plan 
to help homeless families and individuals. The award was the largest 
level of homeless assistance ever awarded and is a critical part of 
HUD's priority to help communities forge a comprehensive approach to 
break the cycle of homelessness. The following regulatory action is 
consistent with HUD's activities to date to work as a partner with 
communities to develop a coordinated strategy to aid the homeless 
population.
Regulatory Action: Use Base Closure Properties to Assist the Homeless
This interim rule, developed jointly with the Department of Defense 
(DoD), implements the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless 
Assistance Act of 1994 and creates a new community-based process 
wherein homeless assistance providers work directly with local 
redevelopment authorities on the reuse of former military 
installations. This rule assists HUD's efforts to reduce homelessness 
by providing a process by which former military properties may be used 
to address the needs of homeless individuals and families. Final 
regulatory action will establish the definitive procedures to be 
followed to maximize use of base closure property to assist the 
homeless.
Priority: Turning Around Public Housing
Make public housing a source of pride to communities by encouraging 
resident participation in its management; downsizing large 
developments; restoring deteriorating buildings; offering residents 
opportunities to move to low-poverty areas; giving residents incentives 
to work and lift themselves economically; and ensuring that public 
housing sites become safe, healthy, and attractive places to live and 
raise children.
HUD is vigorously pursuing its efforts to transform America's worst 
public housing into communities where families can build a better 
future. On July 31, 1995, Secretary Cisneros joined local officials in 
Charlotte, North Carolina, as the Earle Village, a 307-unit public 
housing development in deteriorating condition, was toppled by a 
bulldozer to make room for affordable housing. During the weekend of 
July 29, 1995, the demolition of the final buildings of the Raymond 
Rosen public housing complex in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, occurred. 
This public housing complex had become an uninhabitable eyesore for the 
community. On August 21, 1995, the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 
Maryland, began the demolition of Lafayette Courts, the city's worst 
public housing development. With a grant from HUD, the city prepares to 
revitalize the neighborhood by building garden-style townhouses to 
serve the needs of the Lafayette community.
The following regulatory actions continue HUD's efforts to turn around 
public housing.
Regulatory Action: Revision of the Public Housing Management Assessment 
Program
The Public Housing Management Assessment Program is the major tool for 
assessing the performance of public housing authorities. However, the 
current system includes some process-oriented, staff-intensive 
reporting requirements that are thought to be not necessarily accurate 
or objective measures of results. This rule will eliminate unnecessary 
paperwork and provide better measures of performance and program 
results to promote better management of public housing developments. 
The rule incorporates recommendations made as a result of a 
comprehensive review of the program regulations.
Regulatory Action: Public Housing Development Program Redesign
The current public housing development program regulations are outdated 
and contain unnecessary restrictions on the flexibility of housing 
authorities. This rule will revise the public housing development 
regulations to provide more flexibility for all participants with even 
greater flexibility to the best performers. ``High performer'' PHAs 
will have maximum latitude to develop public housing within very broad 
parameters and with minimal HUD oversight (with the exception of those 
elements that HUD, by statute, must perform). Remaining PHAs will be 
given broadened responsibility commensurate with their abilities and 
areas of expertise. HUD will retain the option of reviewing any PHA 
action, thus minimizing risk to the Department.
Streamlining the program will help to reduce a substantial 
preconstruction pipeline and expedite the provision of replacement 
housing for developments that should be fully or partially replaced. 
The rule will reflect the recommendations resulting from a 
comprehensive review of the public housing program.
Regulatory Action: Public/Private Partnerships for Mixed-Finance 
Development of Public Housing Units
This rule will authorize a public housing authority to enter into a 
partnership with an entity (or entities) for the purpose of developing 
and owning public housing properties. The resulting partnership would 
also be authorized to use a combination of public and private financing 
mechanisms, which may include borrowing public housing development 
funds from the PHA and/or the sale of low-income housing tax credits, 
to develop projects.
Conventional methods of public housing development are time-consuming 
and costly; by permitting PHAs to enter into partnerships with 
nonpublic entities, the development process can be expedited, with 
resulting savings in both financing and construction costs.
Priority: Expanding Housing Opportunities
Expand Housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income people 
through partnerships with State and local governments, private 
developers, lending institutions, and nonprofit agencies, and 
reestablish the Federal Housing Administration as an active facilitator 
of homeownership for low- and moderate-income families.
On November 5, 1994, President Clinton directed Secretary Cisneros to 
develop, in cooperation with the most significant members of the 
housing industry and all levels of government, a plan to boost 
homeownership to an all-time high in the United States--a strategy that 
recommits America to homeownership, that will add millions of new 
homeowners by the end of the century.
In response, HUD established a National Homeownership Partnership, 
bringing together the resources and commitments of the housing 
industry's major public, private, and nonprofit organizations. HUD's 
partners include the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie 
Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the 
National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of 
Realtors, Habitat for Humanity and the National League of Cities. The 
partners recognized that the goal of the partnership will not be 
achieved without substantially increasing homeownership opportunities 
to moderate-income families, members of minority groups, newcomers to 
the United States, and residents of communities who aspire to own their 
own homes but whose needs have not been met by the conventional 
mortgage market.
On June 5, 1995, Secretary Cisneros joined President Clinton, Vice 
President Gore, and members of the National Homeownership Partnership 
to announce a national homeownership strategy that will add up to 8 
million new families to the nation's homeownership rolls by the end of 
the year 2000. The strategy, announced at the June 5, 1995, meeting, 
does not require new government programs or new funds from Congress. 
Instead, national, State, and local groups will work together to make 
it less expensive to buy a home and easier to get a mortgage, and to 
eliminate obstacles to homeownership.
On July 26, 1995, Secretary Cisneros reported that recent Census Bureau 
data showed that the national homeownership rate grew one-half 
percentage point during the first six months of 1995, the strongest 
short-term gain in many months. At the end of June 1994, the 
homeownership rate was 64.2 percent. At the end of June 1995, the 
overall rate had increased to 64.7 percent.
The following regulatory action also reflects HUD's efforts to expand 
housing opportunities.
Regulatory Action: Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 
Soundness Act of 1992--Implementing Regulations
This final rule will establish housing goals for FNMA and FHLMC for 
1995 and beyond, fair-lending requirements, guidelines for new program 
approval, regulations for proprietary information, reporting 
requirements, and other issues. The rule will focus additional effort 
by FNMA and FHLMC on underserved areas and lower-income families facing 
affordability problems. It will provide final guidance to replace the 
Interim Notice under which the program is currently operating.
Prior to issuance of the proposed rule, published on February 16, 1995, 
(FR 60 9154) HUD met many times with the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac) to discuss issues relating to the Interim Notice under which the 
GSEs were operating. HUD also held two roundtables to discuss the 
definition of ``underserved'' used in establishing the central cities, 
rural areas, and other underserved areas goal. Roundtable participants 
included the GSEs, researchers, other Federal agencies (Department of 
Agriculture, Farmers Home, Census Bureau), the Congressional Budget 
Office, and public-interest groups.
In developing the final rule, HUD considered the experience gained and 
lessons learned while operating under the interim notice during the 
transition period of 1993-1995, and held additional roundtable 
discussions. HUD also conducted extensive analysis and research to 
determine the appropriate changes to the housing goals.
Priority: Opening Housing Markets
Open housing markets to minorities through vigorous enforcement of fair 
housing laws and support for creative metropolitan-wide housing and 
urban development initiatives.
In addition to expanding housing opportunities, HUD is committed to 
opening housing markets by working to eliminate discrimination. Housing 
discrimination and segregation undermine the health and vitality of our 
Nation's communities. Discrimination denies minority families full and 
free choice about where to live, while denying minority neighborhoods 
the services and resources they need to thrive and grow.
HUD's reinvention approach to fair housing and equal opportunity is 
designed to strike a balance between enforcement and compliance. In an 
effort to obtain broad compliance with fair lending standards, HUD has 
encouraged mortgage companies to sign a voluntary fair-lending best 
practices agreement. Under this agreement, a lender voluntarily agrees 
to establish a set of policies and procedures that will ensure fair and 
equal treatment of all potential homebuyers. The objective is to 
provide an environment that increases lending and homeownership 
opportunities for historically underserved buyers. To date, 
approximately 10 mortgage entities have signed the agreement, including 
the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The following regulatory actions continue HUD's efforts to open housing 
markets, and will be developed with the participation and assistance of 
the real estate industry.
Regulatory Action: Methods of Proof of Discrimination under the Fair 
Housing Act.
This rule will describe the standards that HUD will apply in 
determining whether policies and practices in real estate-related 
transactions violate the Fair Housing Act. The standards used in making 
those determinations include overt discrimination, disparate treatment, 
and discriminatory effect. This rule will help promote compliance by 
those engaged in real estate-related transactions, eliminate 
uncertainty, and reduce litigation.
Regulatory Action: Fair Housing Council Regulation
This rule will describe the functions, organization, and operations of 
the President's Fair Housing Council; the Council's programs and 
activities; the responsibilities and obligations of member departments 
and agencies in ensuring that programs and activities related to 
housing and urban development are administered and executed in a manner 
that furthers fair housing; the responsibilities and obligations of 
applicants, participants, and other persons and entities involved in 
furthering the goal of fair housing; and a method to identify 
impediments in programs or activities that restrict fair housing choice 
and implement incentives that will maximize the achievements of 
practices that further fair housing.
Priority: Provide Maximum Flexibility to States and Local Governments 
to Design and Utilize Federal Resources
Empower communities by supporting local efforts to transform 
neighborhoods, by reinvigorating economic development programs and 
creating new opportunities for people and businesses, and by supporting 
community-based organizations.
In December 1994, President Clinton announced the designation of 72 
areas as Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC). These 
designations followed issuance of the EZ/EC rule and notice inviting 
applications, published in January 1994. The EZ/EC designations mean 
that distressed communities receive special tax, regulatory, and other 
forms of relief and incentives, plus seed money, to enact their own 
visionary plans for revitalization. The EZ/EC designations help to 
restore economic opportunity to distressed neighborhoods and enable 
communities to take responsibility for their own futures.
The EZ/EC rule and designations reflect one way in which HUD empowers 
communities to plan for and take charge of their own future. The 
following regulatory action also reflects HUD's efforts to vest more 
authority in States and local governments so that they will have better 
control over activities and resources.
Regulatory Action: Environmental Review Procedures
This proposed rule streamlines and updates current environmental 
procedures for entities assuming HUD environmental responsibilities for 
carrying out the environmental review in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the other related Federal 
environmental laws and authorities. This rule will ease the 
administration of environmental review responsibilities by recipients 
that are permitted to assume such responsibilities.
Regulatory Action: Final Rule Implementing the HOME Investment 
Partnerships Program
Improved administration of the HOME Program to increase its 
effectiveness as a vehicle for providing housing opportunities in 
communities has been a priority of the Department. This final rule will 
streamline and improve HOME Program operations at the State and local 
level by drawing upon public comments that were solicited as each HOME 
interim rule was published, upon HUD's experience in administering the 
program, and upon the input of program participants at numerous 
training sessions across the country.
Other Priority Regulations
The following rule supports a specific legislative initiative.
Regulatory Action: Revision of Lead-Based Paint Rules
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 made significant 
revisions to the requirements on the evaluation and control of lead-
based paint hazards in federally assisted and federally owned housing. 
The regulations to be issued will specify what must be done, when, and 
by whom, in each housing program, and they will state minimum standards 
for how the activities must be done. The purpose of the requirements is 
to reduce childhood exposure to lead without reducing the supply of 
affordable housing.
These regulations consolidate a number of different requirements for 
different programs to control lead-based paint hazards. In the past, 
there were sometimes conflicting requirements for different programs. 
Lead-based paint regulations will now be targeted to controlling 
exposures and not necessarily to removal of all lead-based paint or to 
mere repainting. The requirements will be targeted to those dwellings 
most likely to poison children. They will now be consistent across all 
programs and will vary depending on the degree of Federal assistance 
provided to ensure that practical responses can be made to control 
lead-based paint hazards with available resources. The regulations are 
also based on valid approaches to most cost-effective ways of 
protecting children, based on scientific research. A companion piece to 
the regulations is provided by the recently released guidelines that 
describe how the various options to render housing lead-safe can be 
implemented.
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of the Secretary (HUDSEC)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

48. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR RECIPIENTS AND RESPONSIBLE 
ENTITIES ASSUMING HUD RESPONSIBILITIES (FR-3514)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 43320; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 58


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule published September 25, 1995, streamlines and 
updates current environmental procedures for entities assuming HUD 
environmental responsibilities for carrying out environmental review in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 
and the other related Federal environmental laws and authorities. When 
this rule is issued as a final rule, it will replace the current 
interim rule issued on April 12, 1982 (47 FR 15752).


Statement of Need:


This rule is needed to update and ease the administration of 
environmental review responsibilities by recipients that are permitted 
to assume such responsibilities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321-4347) and 
Federal laws and authorities cited in sections 58.5 and 58.6 of 24 CFR 
58.


Alternatives:


HUD is considering legislative proposals that would permit additional 
HUD programs to qualify for the assumption of environmental review 
responsibilities by recipients.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: There would be incremental costs to entities that assume the 
environmental review responsibilities.
Benefits: Recipients would be empowered to conduct their own reviews 
and have greater control over their ability to draw funds. 
Additionally, because this rule will amend existing regulations to 
streamline and expedite the process of performing environmental 
reviews, it should ease the administrative burden on HUD as well as on 
recipients authorized to assume environmental review responsibilities. 
Costs should therefore be reduced. Costs are reduced for HUD because it 
is relieved of this responsibility for authorized recipients. Costs are 
reduced for recipients because new procedure minimizes the delays, and 
the costs incurred by such delays, in waiting for HUD (and its reduced 
staff resources) to perform the environmental review.


Risks:


This rule poses no risks to public health, safety, or the environment. 
It provides for the assumption of environmental review responsibilities 
by recipients and streamlines the governing regulatory requirements.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 49466                                    09/25/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/24/95
Final Action                                                   03/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Fred Regetz
Office of Community Viability
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Phone: 202 708-4364
RIN: 2501-AB67
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--HUDSEC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

49. LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL 
STRUCTURES (FR-3482)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 4822; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 35


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, January 1, 1995.


Abstract:


The Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Poisoning Prevention was 
established by Congress within the Office of the Secretary of HUD. The 
Office provides overall direction to HUD's lead-based paint activities.
Currently, part 35 of HUD's regulations addresses the Department's 
requirements on lead hazards in housing. The Residential Lead-Based 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which is title X of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992, requires substantial revisions to 
HUD's current regulations for the evaluation and control of lead-based 
paint hazards in federally assisted and federally owned housing. The 
legislation evidences a concern with developing a national strategy to 
build the infrastructure necessary to eliminate lead-based paint 
hazards in all nonelderly, pre-1978 housing. Because of the scope of 
the problem, the strategy will be implemented on a priority basis, and 
is to be based in part on guidelines issued by the Secretary on August 
25, 1995, on the conduct of federally supported work involving risk 
assessments, inspections, interim control, and abatement of lead-based 
paint hazards (``Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing''). The revisions required by title X 
will affect HUD's housing programs and the housing programs of other 
Federal agencies.
HUD is consolidating the multitude of lead-based paint regulations 
found throughout HUD programs and will make them consistent, creating a 
single point of reference for the Department's lead-based paint 
requirements.


Statement of Need:


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Academy of Sciences have 
labeled lead poisoning as the leading environmental health hazard 
facing America's children. Childhood lead exposure has been shown to 
cause damage to the brain and nervous system, which causes behavior and 
learning problems; reduced IQ; slowed growth; hearing problems; 
hypertension and heart disease; reproductive problems for both men and 
women; kidney damage; and many other adverse health effect, in some 
cases even seizures, coma, and death. These effects result in increased 
medical care costs, increased special education costs, and decreased 
lifetime earnings. The reduction in IQ appears to be irreversible, and 
because lead is stored primarily in bone, internal exposures can occur 
for decades, even if environmental exposures are controlled. The 
results of CDC's third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 
(NHANES III, 1988-1991) indicate that population blood lead levels have 
deceased dramatically as a result of the deleading of gasoline and the 
elimination of lead in solder in food canning. However, the CDC report 
has concluded that lead paint in older housing remains the primary 
source of lead exposure. CDC found that 8.9 percent of all American 
children less than 6 years of age had blood lead levels greater than 
CDC's level of concern (10 ug/dL). In large central cities, the figure 
was 21 percent, and among non-Hispanic black children in large central 
cities, 36.7 percent had blood lead levels above the level of concern. 
This constitutes 1.7 million children under the age of 5 and is 
considered to be a major epidemic. The NHANES report concludes that 
without further action to control lead-based paint in housing and the 
contaminated soil and dust it generates, ``further declines are 
unlikely.''


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title X amends the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 USC 
4822) to focus attention and resources on identifying and controlling 
lead-based paint hazards in federally assisted and federally owned 
housing before children are poisoned.


Alternatives:


The statute is generally prescriptive in requiring regulatory action to 
be taken by HUD. For certain HUD programs the Department has some 
discretion in the level of hazard evaluation and control measures to be 
undertaken. Alternatives being considered are primarily: (a) the amount 
of on-site work that is required for hazard evaluation and control; and 
(b) targeting by year of construction.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: Previous cost-benefit studies by CDC and other researchers 
estimate that the benefits of lead-based paint hazard control exceed 
costs by at least $17 billion per year. HUD is in the final stages of 
estimating the precise costs and benefits of the proposed rule. An 
extensive regulatory impact analysis will accompany the title X 
regulations.
There also will be some cost to the real estate industry in 
implementing the new lead-based paint notification requirements of 
title X, which are the subject of a separate rule that is being 
developed in coordination with the EPA.
Benefits: Health benefits of the new regulations will include a 
reduction in lead poisoning exposures among children, consequently 
reducing costs for medical treatment and special education and 
increasing lifetime earnings. The rule will also provide benefits to 
housing by improving overall conditions and paint quality. The 
regulations will offer environmental protection to more families with 
young children by reducing lead paint hazards in the country's housing 
stock.


Risks:


Without the regulatory changes required by title X, childhood lead 
exposures will continue at current levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
David E. Jacobs, CIR
Director, Lead-Based Paint Abatement & Poisoning Prevention
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of the Secretary
Phone: 202 755-1875
RIN: 2501-AB57
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--HUDSEC
50. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY OVER FNMA AND 
FHLMC (FR-3481)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 4501 to 4589


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 81


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994.


Abstract:


Under subtitle A, part 2, of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial 
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Title XIII of the Housing and 
Community Act of 1992) (FHEFSSA), the Secretary has general regulatory 
authority over the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (jointly 
referred to as ``enterprises'').
The Secretary's responsibility does not encompass areas specifically 
under the authority of the Director of the Office of Federal Housing 
Enterprise Oversight or all other matters relating to the safety and 
soundness of the enterprises. The FHEFSSA provided the Secretary with 
new authority to ensure that each enterprise fulfills its obligations 
to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low- and 
moderate-income families in a manner consistent with the enterprise's 
overall public purposes, while maintaining a strong financial condition 
and reasonable economic return. Pursuant to the FHEFSSA and in 
accordance with the requirements in part 2 for notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, this rule would implement the Secretary's regulatory 
authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding the establishment 
of housing goals for 1996 and following years, fair-lending 
requirements, approval of new programs, proprietary information, 
reporting requirements, and other issues.


Statement of Need:


Status as a government-sponsored enterprise provides important benefits 
to the enterprises and their stockholders. The FHEFSSA outlines a 
strategy to ensure that the enterprises fulfill the public purposes set 
out in their charters. The Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) is currently operating under an interim notice that details the 
enterprises housing goals for 1993 - 1995. The statute requires that 
HUD publish a final rule by April 28, 1994, after notice-and-comment 
rulemaking.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The regulations are required by section 1349 of the Federal Housing 
Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 USC 4589).


Alternatives:


In developing the final rule, HUD considered the experience gained and 
lessons learned while operating under the interim notice during the 
transition period of 1993 - 1995. HUD also conducted extensive analysis 
and research to determine the appropriate changes to the housing goals. 
Changes from the interim notice will be designed to make the regulatory 
process simpler and more streamlined for the enterprises. These changes 
would include streamlining the reports that the enterprises are 
required to provide to HUD and modifying requirements about which 
mortgage purchases would qualify for consideration in meeting the goals 
established for the enterprises. Under the modified requirements HUD 
expects more transactions to count toward mortgage purchase goals.
HUD has met numerous times with the enterprises to discuss issues 
relating to the interim notice under which the enterprises have been 
operating. In addition, HUD has also held a number of roundtables to 
discuss trends in the mortgage markets, the state of multifamily 
financing, and definitions of ``underserved'' used in establishing the 
mortgage purchase goals for central cities, rural areas, and other 
underserved areas. Roundtable participants included the enterprises, 
researchers, other Federal agencies and public-interest groups. HUD 
also held numerous meetings with the enterprises as the proposed rule 
was being developed, and during the revision of the proposed rule, for 
the purpose of clarifying assumptions HUD was making about the 
enterprises' operations and projections of future activities.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: Increased targeting to low- and moderate-income families and 
underserved areas will increase the credit risk or mortgage default 
costs experienced by the enterprises. The magnitude of this effect is 
expected to be small, given their expertise in attracting and 
underwriting creditworthy low-income borrowers. There may also be some 
increased cost associated with additional program outreach toward low-
and moderate-income borrowers and borrowers in underserved market 
areas. With respect to fair housing regulations, there will be costs 
associated with the additional reporting and remedial actions by the 
enterprises that are mandated by FHEFSSA.
Benefits: The rule would establish that there are substantial unmet 
housing needs among low-income households and in distressed 
neighborhoods. The rule will benefit very low-, low-, and moderate-
income families by assuring that an appropriate portion of the mortgage 
purchases of each enterprise relate to housing affordable to low-income 
families and housing in underserved areas. The rule will also establish 
a framework through which the enterprises will be involved in helping 
to eliminate discrimination in mortgage finance and to promote Federal 
fair housing objectives.


Risks:


This rule does not address a risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 9154                                     02/16/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/02/95
Final Action                                                   12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Stephanie Smith
Special Assistant to the Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-2224
RIN: 2501-AB56
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--HUDSEC
51.  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (FR-3962)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 12721


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 92


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 established the 
HOME Investment Partnership Program. This program is intended to expand 
the supply of decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing. Under the 
HOME Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
provides formula allocations to participating States and units of local 
government to be used for specified eligible housing activities in 
accordance with the jurisdiction's approved housing plan. A portion of 
each allocation must be invested in housing that is developed, owned, 
or sponsored by community housing development organizations. HUD 
provides technical assistance to develop the capacity of participating 
jurisdictions and has developed model programs designed to assist 
participating jurisdictions in carrying out their programs.
HUD published an interim rule implementing the HOME Program in December 
1991. HUD has since published several additional interim rules and a 
proposed rule. These rules were developed to implement statutory 
changes and to make changes in response to public comments that were 
solicited as each rule was published, HUD's experience in administering 
the program, and to the input of program participants at numerous 
training sessions across the country. The changes simplify State and 
local operation of the HOME Program and make it more compatible with 
other Federal housing programs.
This final rule will merge the initial interim rule, the subsequent 
interim rules, and the proposed rule into a single, streamlined HOME 
Program rule. Wherever possible, text that only repeats statutory 
language and that is only advisory, rather than exclusive and legally 
binding, will be removed.


Statement of Need:


Promulgation of this regulation is necessary to permit HUD to simplify 
and improve the operation of the HOME Program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 206 of the National Affordable Housing Act requires that HUD 
promulgate regulations governing the operation of the HOME Program.


Alternatives:


HUD could continue the operation of the HOME Program under the current 
interim rule. However, it would forfeit the opportunity to make 
refinements to the program based upon experience and the attendant 
benefits to jurisdictions participating in the program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: While the final rule is expected to streamline and simplify HOME 
program operations for participating jurisdictions, HUD does not expect 
that the final rule will significantly alter the reporting and 
paperwork burden estimates previously submitted by the Department and 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
Benefits: HUD expects that the opportunity to modify programmatic 
requirements in response to public comment based upon actual experience 
in implementing the program will result in substantial simplification 
of program administration. The jurisdictions administering the program, 
and the private and public for-profit and nonprofit entities 
participating in the program will be able to provide low-income housing 
more quickly and at lower cost.


Risks:


This rule does not address a risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                                                   02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Mary Kolesar
Director, Policy Div.
Office of Affordable Housing Programs
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of the Secretary
Phone: 202 708-2470
RIN: 2501-AC06
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

52. BASE CLOSURE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOMELESS PROGRAM (FR-3820)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 11301


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 586


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Title V of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 11411 (Title V), granted first priority on use of 
all surplus federally owned real and personal property, including 
former military installations, to the homeless. The title V provisions 
have worked reasonably well for small parcels. However, in the base 
closure and realignment environment the processes for reuse planning 
and homeless use were independent and the timing incompatible. On 
October 25, 1994, the President signed the Base Closure Community 
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (the Redevelopment 
Act), which exempts base closure and realignment property from title V 
and substitutes a new community-based process wherein representatives 
of the homeless will work directly with Local Redevelopment Authorities 
(LRAs) on the reuse of former military installations.
HUD's interim rule, published on August 17, 1995, was jointly developed 
with the Department of Defense (DoD) and, together with DoD's rule 
published on July 20, 1994, will govern DoD's and HUD's role in 
implementing the Redevelopment Act. Through these rules, HUD and DoD 
have developed a flexible process which aims to balance the needs of 
the homeless with other development interests in the community in the 
vicinity of the installation.


Statement of Need:


Forty-five military installations from the 1988, 1991, or 1993 base 
closure/realignment rounds have elected to be included under the new 
process established by the Redevelopment Act. A regulation was 
necessary to establish the policy and procedures to be followed.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 
1994 (P.L. 103-421) and if enacted, certain amendments to P.L. 103-421 
proposed in the Defense Authorization Act of 1995.


Alternatives:


HUD considered whether to treat installations approved for closure/
realignment before enactment of the authorizing law the same or 
differently from installations approved after enactment, and the degree 
to which homeless assistance and economic development needs should be 
balanced in this rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: The costs would be mainly those to local redevelopment agencies 
from accepting and reviewing notices of interest from State and local 
governments and other interests, and the preparation of proposals by 
those entities.
Benefits: The benefits would be the value of the utilization of the 
installations in terms of benefits to individuals, families, private 
entities, and the localities in which the installations are situated.


Risks:


This rule poses no risks to public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru60 FR 42972                                    06/17/95
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   09/18/95
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End                          10/16/95
Final Action                                                   03/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Perry Vietti
Office of Community Viability
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Phone: 202 708-1915
RIN: 2506-AB72
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

53. METHODS OF PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FR-
3534)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3600 to 3619


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 100


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will describe the standards the Department will apply in 
determining whether policies and practices in real estate-related 
transactions violate the Fair Housing Act. The standards used in making 
those determinations include overt discrimination, disparate treatment, 
and discriminatory effect.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to promote compliance by those engaged in real 
estate-related transactions and to assist HUD investigators by setting 
forth the standards to be applied in determining whether a violation of 
the Fair Housing Act has occurred or is about to occur.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or disability.


Alternatives:


Administrative Law Judge and court decisions could provide guidance to 
the real estate industry and HUD investigators on a case-by-case basis, 
but a rule that establishes clear standards could make much litigation 
unnecessary.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: Firms in the real estate transactions industry will incur costs 
to develop and implement practices to avoid violating the standards in 
the rule, but operating costs under the new practices may be higher or 
lower than previous practices.
Benefits: Clearer and more rapid adjudication of cases of 
discrimination in real estate transactions; reduced incidence of 
discrimination in real estate transactions as firms conform business 
practices to the new guidelines; and better housing and labor market 
outcomes for protected classes.


Risks:


This rule does not address a risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Peter Kaplan
Director, Office of Regulatory Initiatives and Federal Coordination
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Phone: 202 708-2904
RIN: 2529-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--FHEO
54.  PRESIDENT'S FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL RULE (FR-3958)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3601 to 3619


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 100


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


By Executive Order 12892, entitled ``Leadership and Coordination of 
Fair Housing in Federal Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair 
Housing,'' President Clinton delegated to the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), and where appropriate, to the Attorney 
General, primary authority for enforcement of Federal fair housing 
laws. In addition, the President directed the Secretary of HUD to take 
the lead in developing and coordinating measures to carry out the 
purpose of the order.
The order also establishes an advisory council entitled the 
``President's Fair Housing Council'' (``Council''). The President 
directed the Secretary of HUD to chair the Council, which is to consist 
of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Labor, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, 
the Secretary of the Interior, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the 
Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift 
Supervision, the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 
and such other officials of executive departments and agencies as the 
President may, from time to time, designate.
This Council, in accordance with the Executive Order, will review the 
design and delivery of Federal programs and activities to ensure that 
they support a coordinated strategy to affirmatively further fair 
housing.
This rule will describe the functions, organization, and operations of 
the President's Fair Housing Council; the Council's programs and 
activities; the responsibilities and obligations of member departments 
and agencies in ensuring that programs and activities related to 
housing and urban development are administered and executed in a manner 
that furthers fair housing; the responsibilities and obligations of 
applicants, participants, and other persons and entities involved in 
furthering the goal of fair housing; and a method to identify 
impediments in programs or activities that restrict fair housing choice 
and to implement incentives that will maximize the achievements of 
practices that further fair housing.


Statement of Need:


The President has called upon the Fair Housing Council to review the 
design and delivery of Federal programs and activities to ensure that 
they support a coordinated strategy to further fair housing. He has 
also requested that the Council propose appropriate revisions to 
existing programs and activities, develop pilot programs and 
activities, and propose new programs and activities to achieve its 
goals. The proposed regulation is needed to guide the Council in 
carrying out the President's mandate.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 
1988 require all executive departments and agencies to administer their 
programs and activities related to housing and urban development so as 
to further fair housing and to cooperate with the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development in doing so. Executive Order 12892 gives the 
Secretary the specific responsibility of promulgating regulations for 
the Fair Housing Council and its activities, as described in the 
Abstract, above.


Alternatives:


Executive Order 12892 requires HUD to promulgate regulations, and 
requires each executive agency to publish, within 180 days, proposed 
regulations consistent with HUD's, and to publish final regulations as 
soon as practicable after the proposed rule. HUD could publish a model 
regulation to be adopted by other executive agencies, thereby 
streamlining the overall rulemaking activity under the executive order.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: The costs are limited to the commitment of personnel and other 
resources of the member departments and agencies when they participate 
in Council meetings and activities.
Benefits: The benefits include increased efficiency in the 
administration of fair housing laws, increased coordination and 
consistency among the Council's member departments and agencies, 
reduced duplication of efforts, and the bridging of gaps identified in 
the present delivery of services.


Risks:


This rule does not address a risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Peter Kaplan
Director, Office of Regulatory Initiatives & Federal Coordination
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Phone: 202 708-2904
RIN: 2529-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

55. REFORM OF PUBLIC HOUSING MANAGEMENT (FR-3447)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 1437d(j)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 901


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes an extensive revision of the Public Housing 
Management Authority Program, (PHMAP), which contains the policies and 
procedures used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) to identify public housing authority (PHA) management 
capabilities and deficiencies; to designate high performing and 
troubled PHAs; and to enter into agreements and formulate plans to 
improve PHA management.


Statement of Need:


A new, revised rule is needed to address the following issues 
concerning the current PHMAP regulation: PHMAP reporting and processing 
are time-consuming; information required from PHAs is not always 
available by HUD's deadline; PHA appeals of HUD decisions can extend 
the PHMAP process for months; the system should be a better measure of 
actual performance rather than ``paper'' performance; redundant and 
unnecessary procedures and paperwork need to be eliminated, and the 
volume of PHMAP-related correspondence needs to be reduced.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


PHMAP was promulgated under section 502 of the National Affordable 
Housing Act (NAHA) (approved November 28, 1990, Pub. L. 101-625), which 
requires HUD to establish, by rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, indicators 
to evaluate the management performance of PHAs and procedures for 
designating troubled PHAs.


Alternatives:


In developing a new proposed rule, HUD considered adding or eliminating 
indicators, combining indicators and/or components, assigning different 
weights to existing indicators, varying the applicability of indicators 
by PHA size, and changing the reporting period for assessments.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: Because the revised regulation would be a refinement or 
improvement of existing procedures, and should result in no additional, 
or a decrease in, monitoring or reporting burdens, additional costs to 
PHAs or to HUD are negligible.
Benefits: Increasing the objectivity of the assessment program, making 
the assessment program more performance-oriented rather than simply 
compliance-oriented, and reducing redundant and unnecessary procedures 
and paperwork requirements will make the assessment process itself less 
expensive, and result in the more efficient use of public housing 
funds,


Risks:


This rule does not address a risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
MaryAnn Russ
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public & Assisted Housing Operations
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-1380
RIN: 2577-AB30
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--PIH
56.  PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR MIXED-FINANCE DEVELOPMENT 
OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS (FR-3919)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1437b; 42 USC 1427c; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 941


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This interim rule adds a new subpart F to the public housing 
development regulations, authorizing a public housing authority (PHA) 
to enter into a partnership with an entity (or entities) for the 
purpose of developing and owning public housing properties. The 
resulting partnership would also be authorized to use a combination of 
public and private financing mechanisms, which may include borrowing 
public housing development funds from the PHA and/or the sale of low-
income housing tax credits, to develop public housing projects. The 
rule includes requirements that must be met by the proposed partnership 
before HUD will approve a mixed-finance proposal and requirements that 
govern the development and operation of a project by the partnership.


Statement of Need:


Conventional methods of public housing development are time-consuming 
and costly; if PHAs are permitted to enter into partnerships with 
nonpublic entities, the development process can be expedited, with 
resulting savings in both financing and construction costs.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The public housing development program is authorized by the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937.


Alternatives:


With the extensive revision of the public housing development program, 
it is likely that PHAs would be able to increase the speed and 
efficiency with which they develop new units; however, the present 
proposal offers an additional development mechanism and permits 
investment of private-sector resources and skills in the creation of 
additional housing resources for lower-income families. It would be 
possible to try this approach on a demonstration basis, without a 
regulatory change, but HUD believes that a demonstration would be too 
limited to attract sufficient participation, and that the demonstration 
and evaluation processes would unnecessarily slow down delivery of the 
benefits of this innovative approach to development.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This innovative approach will enable PHAs to enlist the resources and 
skills of the private sector in developing housing resources for lower-
income families, provide PHAs and HUD Field Offices with additional 
flexibility to develop public housing that is oriented more to the 
needs of the community, and further the Secretary's goal of empowering 
PHAs and Field Offices.


Risks:


This rule poses no risk to public health, safety or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Mindy Turbov
Office of Distressed & Troubled Housing Recovery
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-0282
RIN: 2577-AB54
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--PIH

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

57. PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (FR-3569)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1437c


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 941


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes a comprehensive revision of the public housing 
development and acquisition program regulation at 24 CFR 941. The 
purpose of the program redesign is to simplify the public housing 
development process to give housing authorities and localities maximum 
flexibility in developing public housing in their communities. The 
revised procedures will shift responsibilities for decisionmaking from 
headquarters to the Field Offices and to public housing authorities 
(PHAs) wherever possible; reassign responsibility for development 
activities to Field Office Public Housing Divisions; ensure 
coordination between headquarters and the field; reduce the number and 
depth of HUD reviews; promote the development of units in mixed-income 
communities; create HUD/PHA/local government partnerships; and in the 
case of ``high performing'' PHAs, eliminate most HUD reviews of 
development activities. HUD anticipates that these changes will reduce 
average development times by 6 to 9 months.


Statement of Need:


The public housing development regulation (24 CFR 941) and Handbook 
(7417.1 REV-1) have not been substantively revised since October 1980 
and thus do not take into consideration many of the statutory changes 
made to the program. As a result of the 1987 and 1990 acts in 
particular, there is a need to update processing standards and criteria 
to reflect current statutory requirements and to facilitate processing 
of proposed projects in a stagnated pipeline. In addition, HUD is 
reinventing and streamlining the present time-consuming and burdensome 
development process under the existing regulation. PHAs are currently 
required to obtain HUD approval of each step in the development process 
before proceeding to the next step. The result of this step-by-step 
approval process is a preconstruction pipeline that is estimated at 
approximately $2 billion and dates back to 1980. The failure to issue 
updated and simplified regulations would result in continued delay and 
inactivity in the inventory of development projects, and a 
deterioration in housing authorities' ability to complete proposals; 
and cost escalations; all leading to increased shortages of decent, 
safe, and sanitary housing for low-income persons.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The public housing development program is authorized by the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937, and was the subject of substantive amendments and 
updates in 1981, 1983, 1987, 1990, and 1992, plus incremental 
amendments made in annual appropriations bills.


Alternatives:


HUD has considered amending its handbooks to address the many changes 
to the public housing development program before issuing revised 
regulations, but the type of comprehensive revision needed requires 
notice and comment rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: Because the revised regulations would streamline existing 
procedures, they result in few or no additional monitoring or reporting 
burdens. Additional costs to PHAs or to HUD are negligible.
Benefits: A complete revision of the 1980 regulation will provide PHAs 
and HUD Field Offices with the maximum flexibility to develop public 
housing that is oriented more to the needs of the community, and will 
eliminate much of the ``red tape'' currently associated with the 
development process. The reduction of burdensome requirements would 
result in reduced administrative costs and development costs to PHAs, 
and an increase in the supply of affordable public housing units.


Risks:


This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
William Flood
Office of Distressed & Troubled Housing Recovery
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-1800
RIN: 2577-AB37
BILLING CODE 4210-01-F