National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

In the continuing saga of implementing the 1998 housing legislation,/1/ HUD issued another set of regulations, this time proposed, covering admissions, rents, community service and the Family Self-Sufficiency program./2/ HUD has requested comments from the public by June 29, 1999, and final regulations on these topics are likely by early autumn. As with the description of the earlier regulations on the PHA plan and the Interim Guidance Notice,/3/ this article will follow the outline of the initial Bulletin article describing the new act/4/ and repeat as little of that description as possible.

Who Will Get Public Housing and Vouchers?

Permanent repeal of federal preferences and authorization of local preferences. The 1998 Housing Act permanently repealed all the statutes/5/ that had created federal preferences for public housing, certificates and vouchers, Section 8 project-based assistance and Rent Supplement projects./6/ In their place, it authorized PHAs to establish local preferences for public housing, for tenant-based assistance and for the project-based certificate or voucher program and the Moderate Rehabilitation program. These new regulations first would remove the regulations currently in 24 C.F.R. Part 5, Subpart D (1999) that implement the federal preference statutes, as well as later references to them in other parts of the Code of Federal Regulations./7/ They would also remove the regulations implementing the statutory preference for single people who are elderly, disabled or displaced over other single individuals, because the 1998 legislation repealed that preference as well./8/

In place of these federal preferences, the regulations would insert new rules spelling out the statutory requirements for local preferences for public housing, tenant- and project-based certificates and vouchers, as well as owner preferences for the project-based Section 8 programs./9/ For public housing, the regulations state that the PHA admissions system must be based on local housing needs and priorities, as determined by the PHA. In doing that, the PHA must use generally accepted data sources, which must include data from its waiting lists and any data obtained from public comments on its PHA plan and from the local Consolidated Plan./10/ These provisions virtually repeat the statutory language on PHA plans and public housing preferences./11/ The regulations, like the statute, encourage PHAs to establish preferences in public housing for victims of domestic violence. For some reason, probably a drafting error, the regulations do not similarly encourage PHAs to adopt preferences for victims of domestic violence/12/ in the Section 8 program, even though the Congress did./13/ The Introductory Comments also specify that the PHAs may provide preferences for veterans./14/

For the certificate and voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation and project-based certificate programs for which PHAs administer the waiting lists, the regulations merely require that the PHAs’ preference systems be consistent with the PHA plans. The proposed regulations contain no standards about consistency with the Consolidated Plan or use of data on local needs secured from the waiting list or the PHA plan development process. However, they do make a cross reference to the program regulation for the certificate and voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation and project-based certificate programs that were published on May 14th./15/ They include some of those standards. The proposed regulations, however, prohibit the PHAs from skipping over certificate and voucher applicants with lower incomes to take applicants who have higher incomes./16/

Another issue related to preferences for certificate and voucher waiting lists that is not addressed by these proposed regulations is the treatment of public housing tenants who are on the Section 8 waiting list. In rewriting the current regulations, HUD would eliminate the retention preference provision. That provision had required PHAs to allow people who were on both the public housing and Section 8 waiting lists to retain their preference status on the Section 8 list if they accepted a public housing unit first. The removal is probably lawful, because Congress repealed the statutory basis for retaining that preferential status./17/ However, there is another statute that prohibits a PHA from penalizing residents of public housing when establishing preferences for Section 8 assistance./18/ HUD’s initial guidance implementing the 1998 Act did note the importance of that second non-discrimination statute./19/ The final regulations must include this prohibition so that public housing tenants will not always be shoved to the bottom of the voucher waiting list.

For the project-based Section 8 programs, the new regulations grant owners greater flexibility. First, they would remove the requirement that the private Section 8 landlord use the preferences of the local PHA./20/ If such owners do want to use a local PHA’s preferences, they have to identify them in their tenant selection plan. The tenant selection plan itself is required by these new regulations./21/ More significantly, the new regulations, following the statute, allow private Section 8 owners to adopt preferences for working families and to include in that preference people who are participating in or have graduated from educational and employment-related training programs./22/ If an owner were to adopt such a preference, it would have to also grant an equivalent preferred status to applicants who are elderly or who have disabilities. They also could not give higher preference to people with higher amounts of earned income. That latter restriction is a product of the anti-skipping provision that was retained by the 1998 legislation and would be implemented by another section of these proposed regulations./23/

The new regulations would significantly revise HUD’s rules on residency preferences for both the public housing and the various Section 8 programs. For the first time, the regulations specify clearly that PHAs can use residency preferences for public housing./24/ They retain the provision that has been in the regulations for years, in one place or another, stating that project-based Section 8 landlords may not use residency requirements./25/ The new regulations would withdraw the requirements that all preferences, including residency preferences be consistent with the civil rights statutes, HUD’s fair housing objectives and Section 8 landlords’ affirmative marketing plans./26/ They would also withdraw completely the rules for residency preferences in the certificate and voucher programs, but those rules have shown up again in the recent interim rules on certificates and vouchers./27/

Targeting units for applicants with incomes beneath 30 percent of median. The targeting provisions of the 1998 Housing Act are designed to guarantee poor people some share of federal housing assistance. Seventy-five percent of tenants who are accepted into the voucher program each year and 40 percent of those who are accepted into public housing and the project-based Section 8 programs must have incomes beneath 30 percent of the area median. The regulations implement the statute in a fairly straightforward manner, primarily by repeating the statutory language.

For the voucher program, and for certificates until they are phased out, each PHA must make sure that 75 percent of the new households that it assists each year have incomes beneath 30 percent of the area median. In areas where there are unusually high or low incomes, both the statute and these proposed regulations allow HUD to establish a figure below or above 30 percent./28/ So far HUD has published the 30-percent-of-area-median-income figures, with only minor variations for areas with unusual housing costs./29/ The statute allows a PHA to reduce the 75-percent requirement, if it can secure HUD’s approval,/30/ although these regulations do not mention that authority. They do, however, clarify that, in calculating its compliance with the 75-percent figure, the PHA does not need to count people who receive a voucher after their certificates are converted or after they had been displaced from a prepayment project or from any other housing assisted under the United States Housing Act./31/

For public housing, both the statute and the proposed regulations begin the target by requiring PHAs to rent 40 percent of turnover and new units (two out of every five units) to applicants who have incomes at or beneath 30 percent of the area median income (AMI)./32/ The statute and the regulations allow the PHA to reduce that target by one family for each family admitted to the certificate or voucher programs above the 75-percent target for those programs, with four crucial limits.

First, the public housing target may never fall below 30 percent of the public housing admissions. Second, the maximum number of reductions beneath the 40 percent of new admissions figure may not exceed 10 percent of the families admitted to the PHA’s certificate and voucher program. Third, for each public housing unit subtracted from the 40-percent target, there must be an off-setting public housing unit located in a census tract with a poverty rate of 30 percent of AMI that has been filled by a family with an income above 30 percent of the AMI. Finally, the Section 8 families who are counted as reducing the public housing targets must have entered the program in the same fiscal year the higher income families are allowed into public housing./33/ On the third limiting factor, the regulations are not as clear as the statute in specifying that the PHA may count only families that had incomes above 30 percent of the AMI when they moved in and who moved in during the fiscal year for which the PHA is seeking to reduce the public housing target./34/

The other provision on public housing relates to income mixing. The proposed regulations, like the statute, prohibit PHAs from concentrating very low-income families in one building or development (as the regulations provide), or in certain buildings or developments (as the statute provides)./35/ They both authorize, but do not require, PHAs to utilize income-mix criteria in the selection of public housing tenants. That raises an interesting question. The proposed regulations do not remove the HUD regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 960 which, for years, have required PHAs to adopt admissions policies aimed at achieving a tenancy with a broad range of incomes./36/ The statutory foundation for those regulations was permanently repealed by the 1998 housing legislation and replaced by the language authorizing, but not mandating, that PHAs adopt income-mix tenant selection criteria./37/ It would seem that the economic mix part of the regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 960 should be removed as well.

For project-based Section 8 developments, HUD’s proposed regulations contain no surprises. Forty percent of the applicants who move into those developments each year must have incomes at or beneath 30 percent of AMI. Continuing existing law, in the absence of HUD approval to do otherwise, no one with an income above 50 percent of AMI can move into any of those buildings if they were first opened up under the Section 8 program after September 30, 1981. If they were open before that time, 25 percent of the units in that category nationwide may be rented to applicants with incomes above 50 percent of AMI./38/

Poverty deconcentration and site-based waiting lists. Two factors that will influence the balance between moderate-income and poor applicants who move into public housing will be the PHA’s new deconcentration plans and site-based waiting lists./39/ Surprisingly, these regulations have nothing on either of those statutory provisions. The PHA plan regulations did go into some detail on site-based waiting lists,/40/ but nowhere has HUD spelled out guidelines for the deconcentration policies.

Screening. Another topic that these proposed regulations do not address is the statutory changes regarding screening of applicants for public housing and Section 8 assistance./41/ Apparently, those changes will be addressed in a later set of proposed regulations. Here, all HUD has done is announce that it has withdrawn the proposed occupancy regulations published in 1997/42/ which did deal with prior statutory amendments on screening./43/

Rent choice in public housing. The proposed regulations implement the statutory requirement that each PHA establish flat rents for each of its units that are based upon the rental value of the units and designed not to discourage employed tenants from staying in public housing./44/ The introductory comments indicate that the flat rents are to be set "at" the rental value,/45/ but the regulations themselves use the statutory language "based upon" the rental value./46/ That leaves open the possibility that the flat rents may be less than the rental value of the units. The regulations and the comments also indicate that the PHA generally determines market value from a comparability study that considers the units’ age, location, condition, amenities, design and size. They do not, however, include any procedural rules granting affected tenants a right to be heard before the flat rents are established./47/

The other factor that will influence a PHA’s choice of the flat rent level will be whether payments from the Operating Fund will offset any loss of rental income produced by flat rents set at a low level. There is no statutory guarantee that operating subsidies will cover any loss of revenue caused by the use of flat rents. However, because the statute mandates flat rents, it would seem to follow that the operating subsidy formula would have to consider the impact they may have on rental income. In its Introductory Comments, HUD states that:

HUD cannot assure PHAs that it can provide additional subsidy to cover any reduced income resulting from such policies. Future operating subsidy distribution is the subject of negotiated rulemaking./48/

Once flat rents have been set, which must be accomplished by October 1, 1999, the PHAs must offer each tenant at each annual recertification thereafter the choice between paying the flat rent or an income based rent./49/ The proposed regulations would require the PHA to ensure that the tenant’s choice is informed. At the least, the PHA will have to provide the tenants the dollar amount under each option and the policies on switching in the event of financial hardship./50/ Once the choice is made, the statute and the proposed regulations give the tenant the option of switching from flat rents to income-based rents, in cases of financial hardship./51/ The Introductory Comments, reflecting the legislative history, describe the right to switch as being almost automatic whenever there is a loss of income./52/ The drafting of the regulations, however, creates fertile ground for disputes about whether a particular tenant’s circumstances entitle her to switch. The PHA will have to make two determinations before a tenant may switch: first, whether the tenant has encountered financial hardship, which will be fairly automatic; and, second, whether the hardship renders the tenant unable to pay the flat rent, a situation about which there are likely to be many disputes./53/

Another problem that will arise with switching will concern effective dates of the switches. Again, relying on the statute and the legislative history, the Introductory Comments state that the switch must be done immediately./54/ The regulations state that the PHA must make the switch immediately, if it determines that the tenant is unable to pay the flat rent./55/ That does not answer the question whether the change must be made retroactively, in cases where the PHA has been slow in making its determination, nor do the regulations specify the trigger date for the retroactive change, e.g., the time at which the financial hardship began, or at least the date on which the tenant first requested a switch. The new proposed regulations on the effective date for interim recertifications of income and rent changes do not help either. They would require PHAs to make the change only "within a reasonable time after the family request."/56/

The income-based rents will not necessarily be the normal 30 percent of adjusted income, 10 percent of gross income or the welfare shelter allowance. The 1998 Act changed that standard formula into the maximum rent payable by the tenant, allowing PHAs to set rents lower than that if they wish./57/ Following the statute, the proposed regulations would allow a PHA to set income-based rents at a lower percentage of adjusted income, at fixed dollar amounts for all tenants within specified income ranges or at a percentage of income, but no more than a traditional ceiling rent./58/ If a PHA chooses any of these alternatives to the normal 30-percent-of-adjusted-income formula, it will still be unable to charge any particular tenant more than that 30-percent cap for rent plus the utility allowance, as the regulations make clear. As with flat rents, HUD warns that it cannot guarantee PHAs that they will receive extra operating subsidies if they choose lower income-based rents./59/

The statute allows the PHA to build a ceiling rent into its income-based rent system, by continuing any ceiling rents it establishes before October 1, 1999./60/ The proposed regulations would modify that statutory provision somewhat by allowing the PHA to retain the ceiling rents for only three years./61/ After the three years, the PHA must make its ceiling rents equal to its flat rents. Tenants who pay ceiling rents, unlike those who pay flat rents, must be required to recertify their incomes annually./62/ In addition, the regulations make clear that the PHA may not charge a tenant a ceiling rent if it, plus the utility allowance, would exceed 30 percent of that tenant’s adjusted income./63/ In contrast, a tenant may choose to pay a flat rent, even if it exceeds the 30-percent cap.

Delay of rent increases when public housing tenants secure new jobs. Under a provision in the law that was enacted in 1990, and one which remains current until October 1, 1999, public housing tenants who participate in governmental employment training programs and then secure new jobs are entitled to an 18-month delay in the rent increase that they would otherwise face because of their new or increased earned income./64/ The 1998 statute revised that provision, but retained it for tenants who qualify before October 1, 1999./65/ The Introductory Comments to these proposed regulations indicate that:

Families who currently have an 18-month disregard, or who qualify for such disregard on or before September 30, 1999, can continue that disregard for the 18 months or as long as they would have qualified under the old rule./66/

However, the regulations themselves would remove the regulatory provisions that had implemented the 1990 statute and would not indicate that they are being saved for people who qualify for the 18-month disregard before October 1, 1999./67/

For tenants who qualify for the revised version of the statute, the proposed regulations would answer some questions. First, a person could qualify for the 12-month delay discussed as having been previously unemployed for a year if the person had earned in that year no more than would have been paid for 10 hours of work per week at the minimum wage. Second, families who are assisted by the TANF program and have their earned income increased, or who have been assisted by TANF during the six months prior to the earnings increase, also qualify for the 12-month delay. The PHA is required to consult with the welfare department to determine whether the person is or was assisted by TANF. The third category of eligible families includes those households whose earned income increases while one family member is participating in a family self-sufficiency or other job training program. As drafted, the family member whose income increases does not have to be the family member who is participating in the program./68/

The statute and these proposed regulations offer the PHA the alternative of allowing tenants to pay the rent increases but having them held by the PHA in a savings account./69/ The regulations specify that the account must be interest-bearing and that the PHA must provide the tenant an annual accounting. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations would allow the PHA to confiscate the account if the tenant were to move out of public housing when she was in breach of the lease. That provision would work substantial injustice, especially in any case where the damages to the PHA arising from the breach are less than the amount in the account.

Other disregards for public housing tenants’ earned income, work-related expenses and other items. In response to the 1998 Act’s provision that allows PHAs to create their own adjustments to income for public housing tenants who have earned income or work-related expenses or for other purposes,/70/ these regulations would allow the PHA to establish any deductions from annual income it wishes beyond the mandatory adjustments./71/ The regulations would merely specify that the deductions must be identified in the PHA’s written policies and made available to every tenant who qualifies. Again, as with the flat rents and the income-based rents that are lower than the statutory cap, HUD warns that it cannot guarantee additional operating subsidies to cover rents lost because of these optional adjustments./72/ As a result of this change, HUD will remove the regulations it had added in 1996, allowing PHAs to create exclusions from annual income of work-related expenses or other categories of earned income./73/ Because those exclusions would duplicate the statutorily permitted adjustments, HUD decided that the exclusion regulations were no longer needed.

Rent reductions for tenants whose welfare grants have been cut. The 1998 statute provides that public housing tenants and certificate and voucher participants who have their welfare payments reduced because of welfare fraud or noncompliance with work requirements will not be entitled to have their rents reduced because of the income loss./74/ These proposed regulations would implement that provision without expanding much upon the statute./75/ One provision does specify that if a tenant requests a hearing on the dispute, the tenant will not be required to escrow the disputed rent amount, as a tenant normally would in rent dispute cases./76/ That provision recognizes the fact that these cases will involve tenants who cannot make the escrow payments because they are extremely poor and have just lost all or part of their welfare income. What the regulations do not do is explain what is to happen if the welfare department is slow in indicating the reasons for the reduction, or what is to be done in cases where a hearing is pending on the welfare side or whether the rent reduction must be made retroactive in cases where it turns out the welfare sanction was not for fraud or failure to comply with a work activity requirement.

Minimum rents. The proposed regulations create an overly complicated system for handling the new statutorily mandated exemptions to the minimum rent./77/ It is true that Congress contributed to the complexity by adding language creating a waiting period in the case of financial hardships that are only temporary. Like HUD’s Initial Guidance,/78/ the regulations make the process even more complicated. They require the PHA or Section 8 landlord to suspend the minimum rent requirement when the tenant requests an exemption, then to determine whether the hardship is temporary or long-term, then to reinstate the minimum rent if it is temporary but to withhold any eviction action for 90 days from the date of the family’s request, then to offer the family a reasonable repayment plan for the unpaid minimum rent, and only seek to evict if the 90 days expire and tenant does not comply with the payment plan. One can hope that the final regulations will be less complex.

On a more positive note, the minimum rent regulations do specify that a PHA may set the minimum at zero, and that tenant’s utility payments, up to the amount of the utility allowance, count toward the minimum./79/ In addition, as with the welfare rent disputes, a public housing tenant will not be required to escrow the minimum rent to secure a grievance hearing about minimum rent disputes./80/

Interim recertification. In the process of rewriting the rent regulations, but not spurred by any particular statutory change, HUD included a new provision on interim redetermination of income and rent. On the positive side, it requires the PHA or Section 8 project-based landlord to make the redetermination if the family requests one because of changes in income. However, the regulation then goes on to allow the PHA or landlord a "reasonable time" to make the determination. That language is derived from the 1998 revisions to the certificate and voucher rules./81/ It is substantially less precise than the currently prevailing law for the project-based Section 8 programs and the practice for the public housing program. Despite the high value placed at HUD on federal streamlining and local discretion, a regulation as ambiguous as this one will only produce unnecessary disputes and hardships.

The community work requirement. Beyond admissions policies and rents, these proposed regulations also cover the new requirement that adult public housing tenants, but not Section 8 participants, contribute eight hours per month of service to the community in which they reside, unless they meet one of the exceptions./82/ The regulations repeat the statutory exemptions for people who are elderly, who have a disability and are unable to meet the service requirement, who are primary caretakers of a person with a disability, who are engaged in a work activity as defined by the federal welfare statute, who meet the requirements for being exempted from having to engage in work activities under any welfare program, or who have not been found to be in noncompliance with any welfare program from which they receive assistance./83/ Thus, adults who are working, elderly, disabled, caring for a person with a disability, or are living in welfare families will be exempt. At the beginning of each year, the PHA will have to determine which family members are exempt from the requirements./84/

The family members who are not exempt must either perform community service or engage in a self-sufficiency program for eight hours a month./85/ The requirement does not go into effect, however, until the tenant’s lease is amended to require the community service./86/ The PHAs must also notify the tenants of the requirements and the grounds for an exemption./87/ The regulations define both community service and self-sufficiency programs broadly and encourage PHAs to be equally broad-thinking in their approach. They include any activity that improves the neighborhood or helps the person get ready for work, including mental health or substance abuse treatment./88/ The PHA may either administer the community service program itself or contract it out to third parties, including tenant organizations./89/

At the end of each year the PHA has to determine whether the non-exempt adults in the family have met their obligations. The review is to occur not less than 30 days before the lease expires. If the PHA concludes that a person has not complied, the PHA must notify the tenant and offer him or her a grievance hearing. If the tenant loses the grievance hearing or does not request one, the PHA must offer the tenant an opportunity to make up the hours over the following 12 months. If the tenant accepts that offer, it must be embodied in a written agreement and the family will not be evicted. If the family member does not agree to make up the hours or fails to do so by the end of the make-up year, he or she must move out or the entire family will be evicted./90/ The leases must be amended to require community service and authorize non-renewal for failure to meet the community service requirements./91/

Family Self-Sufficiency program. The last topic covered by these proposed regulations is the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program. The 1998 Act eliminated the requirement that a PHA expand its self-sufficiency program for each new public housing or tenant-based subsidy unit it receives each year. These regulations implement that requirement, explaining that the PHAs must continue their programs but allowing them to reduce the program’s required size for every family that successfully completes the program. If PHAs like their FSS programs and want to keep them at the same size or expand them, the regulations would allow that as well./92/

One major improvement in these proposed regulations is a revision of the definition of welfare assistance. Families who have escrow accounts under the FSS program do not have a right to their accounts until they have completed the program and are no longer receiving welfare assistance. In 1993, HUD defined welfare assistance very broadly to include not only traditional income support payments but also Medicaid, food stamps and child care assistance./93/ The net result of that definition was that many successful FSS participants had difficulty getting their escrow accounts from the PHAs. The proposed regulations would change the definition to include only income support and would exclude health care, child care and other services for working families./94/

Comments one these regulations are due at HUD by June 29, 1999. HUD’s next set of regulations are the ones completing the merger of the certificate and voucher program, and will be reviewed in a later Bulletin./95/ After that, HUD plans to issue regulations covering the new statutory provisions on criminal activity, the public housing mixed-finance and vouchering-out provisions and other miscellaneous items such as pets.

Notes

1    The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2518 (Oct. 21, 1998), codified at various parts of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437-13664 (hereafter the 1998 Housing Act or the Act). The 1998 Housing Act can be downloaded from the World Wide Web by searching for "Public Law 105-276" at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/nara005.html.

2    Proposed Rule on Admissions, Rents, Community Service, and the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 64 Fed. Reg. 23,459 (Apr. 30, 1999).

3    See HUD Issues Regulations and Guidance to Implement Public Housing and Certificate and Voucher Legislation, 29 HOUS. L. BULL. 43 (Mar. 1999).

4    See Congress’ New Public Housing and Voucher Programs, 28 HOUS. L. BULL. 165 (Oct./Nov. 1998).

5    42 U.S.C. §§ 1437d(c)(4)(A) and 1437f(o)(6)(A).

6    Section 514, rewriting 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437d(c)(4)(A) and f(d)(1)(A).

7    24 C.F.R. §§ 5.415, 5.420, 5.425, and 5.430, removed at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471 (Apr. 30, 1999).

8    24 C.F.R. § 5.405(b), removed at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999).

9    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470-71 (Apr. 30, 1999).

10    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999).

11    42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1437c-1(d)(1) and 1437d(c)(4)(A) (West Supp. 1999).

12    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999), and Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 514(e), 112 Stat. 2461, 2548 (Oct. 21, 1998).

13    Compare 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999), with Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 514(e), 112 Stat. 2461, 2548 (Oct. 21, 1998). The Introductory Comments to the Certificate and Voucher Merger Rule do refer to Section 8. 64 Fed. Reg. 26,632 (May 14, 1999).

14    64 Fed. Reg. 23,463 (Apr. 30, 1999).

15    64 Fed. Reg. 26,631 (May 14, 1999).

16    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(g), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471 (Apr. 30, 1999).

17    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437f(d)(1)(A)(i) (West 1994), repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 514(b), 112 Stat. 2461, 2547 (Oct. 21, 1998).

18    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437f(s) (West Supp. 1999).

19    Initial Guidance, 64 Fed. Reg. 8,201, col. 1 (Feb. 18, 1999).

20    Current 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(d)(2), rewritten at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999).

21    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(c)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,.470 (Apr. 30, 1999).

22    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(c)(1), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999). The proposed regulations would not alter the current regulations allowing PHAs to adopt preferences for employed applicants in the public housing program. See 24 C.F.R. § 960.105(a) (1999).

23    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(g), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471 (Apr. 30, 1999).

24    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(e)(1), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999).

25    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(e)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999).

26    Current 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(i) (1999).

27    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.410(e)(3), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,470 (Apr. 30, 1999). Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.207(c), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,644 (May 14, 1999).

28    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n(b)(1) (West Supp. 1999); proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.607, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471-72 (Apr. 30, 1999).

29    The 30-percent-of-AMI figures are available at http://www.huduser.org/data/factors.html.

30    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n(d) (West Supp. 1999).

31    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.607(b)(2) and (3), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,472 (Apr. 30, 1999).

32    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n(a)(2)(A) (West Supp. 1999); proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.607(a)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471 (Apr. 30, 1999).

33    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.607(a)(4), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471 (Apr. 30, 1999).

34    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n(a)(4)(C) (West Supp. 1999).

35    Section 513(a), rewriting 42 U.S.C. § 1437n(a)(3)(A); proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.607(a)(3), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,471 (Apr. 30, 1999).

36    24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204(a)(2) and 960.205(c) (1999).

37    Section 514(a), rewriting 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(c)(4)(A)

38    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.607(c), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,472 (Apr. 30, 1999).

39    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(r) (West Supp. 1999) (site-based waiting lists); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n(a)(3)(B) (West Supp. 1999) (deconcentration).

40    24 C.F.R. § 903.7(c)(1) (1999), 64 Fed. Reg. 8,169, 8,182 (Feb. 18, 1999).

41    42 U.S.C.A. § 13661 (West Supp. 1999) (illegal drug users, alcohol abusers and criminal offenders); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(t) (West Supp. 1999) (access to drug abuse treatment facilities records); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(q) (West Supp. 1999) (access to criminal records).

42    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.201, 62 Fed. Reg. 25,727 (May 9, 1997).

43    64 Fed. Reg. 23,460 (Apr. 30, 1999).

44    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(a)(2) (West Supp. 1999).

45    64 Fed. Reg. 23,466 (Apr. 30, 1999).

46    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(a)(1), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

47    Compare former 24 C.F.R. Part 861 (1982); Burr v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 479 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir. 1973).

48    64 Fed. Reg. 23,466 (Apr. 30, 1999).

49    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(a)(2)(A) (West Supp. 1999); proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(a), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

50    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(c), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

51    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.614(d) and (e), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

52    64 Fed. Reg. 23,466 (Apr. 30, 1999); 144 CONG. REC. S11833, S11842 (Oct. 8, 1998).

53    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.614(d) and (e), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

54    64 Fed. Reg. 23,466 (Apr. 30, 1999).

55    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(d), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

56    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.617(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

57    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(a)(2)(B)(ii) (West Supp. 1999).

58    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(a)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

59    64 Fed. Reg. 23,466 (Apr. 30, 1999).

60    42 U.S.C. § 1437a(a)(2)(A)(ii).

61    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473-74 (Apr. 30, 1999).

62    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.617(a)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474; Introductory Comments, 64 Fed. Reg. 23,466-67 (Apr. 30, 1999).

63    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.614(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473-74 (Apr. 30, 1999).

64    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(c) (West 1994).

65    Sections 503 (effective date), 508(b)(1)(A) (striking the undesignated paragraph at the end of 42 U.S.C. § 1437a), and 508(b)(2) (savings provision).

66    64 Fed. Reg. 23,465 (Apr. 30, 1999).

67    24 C.F.R. § 5.609(c)(13), removed at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,472, item 13(c) (Apr. 30, 1999).

68    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.612(a), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

69    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(e) (West Supp. 1999); proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.612(c), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

70    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(b)(5)(B) (West Supp. 1999).

71    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.611(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

72    64 Fed. Reg. 23,465 (Apr. 30, 1999).

73    24 C.F.R. § 5.609(d) (1999), proposed for removal at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,473 (Apr. 30, 1999).

74    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437j(d) (West Supp. 1999).

75    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.618, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,475 (Apr. 30, 1999).

76    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.618(c) and 966.55(e)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,475 and 23,477 (Apr. 30, 1999).

77    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.616(b)-(d), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999), implementing 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437a(a)(3)(B) (West Supp. 1999).

78    Initial Guidance, 64 Fed. Reg. 8,191, 8,197-98 (Feb. 18, 1999).

79    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.616(a), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

80    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 5.616(d), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,474 (Apr. 30, 1999).

81    24 C.F.R. § 982.516(b)(2), added at 63 Fed. Reg. 23,846 (Apr. 30, 1998).

82    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437j(c) (West Supp. 1999).

83    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.603, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

84    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.605(b)(3), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

85    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.605(a), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

86    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.605(b), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

87    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.605(c)(2), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

88    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.603, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

89    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.611, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,477 (Apr. 30, 1999).

90    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 960.607, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,476 (Apr. 30, 1999).

91    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(f), at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,477 (Apr. 30, 1999).

92    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 984.105. 984.201 and 984.301, at 64 Fed. Reg. 23,477-78 (Apr. 30, 1999).

93    24 C.F.R. § 984.103 (1999).

94    Proposed 24 C.F.R. § 984.103, 64 Fed. Reg. 23,477 (Apr. 30, 1999).

95    64 Fed. Reg. 26,631 (May 14, 1999).

Back to this issue's Table of Contents.
Back to the Article List.
Back to the NHLP Home Page.