National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

On May 14, 1999, HUD published regulations for the new voucher program and for the conversion of current certificates to vouchers./1/ The regulations were published on an interim basis, with an effective date of August 12, 1999. Public comments are requested by July 13, 1999. The regulations reflect changes made to the certificate and voucher programs by Congress in the 1998 housing legislation./2/ They cover changes in participant selection, including targeting and screening, where the vouchers can be used, what the voucher tenants’ rents will be, what the new lease provisions will be, how evictions and subsidy terminations will be handled, and how current certificate tenants will be converted to vouchers.

The new legislation permanently repealed the statute that created federal preferences for certificates and vouchers./3/ The new regulations eliminate a prior provision that had required public housing authorities (PHAs) to follow the federal preference requirements that were implemented by general regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 5./4/ Other regulations that HUD proposed in April would remove those general federal preference regulations.

In place of the federal preferences, the new act authorizes PHAs to establish local preferences for tenant-based assistance./5/ Generally following the statute, these new regulations require that any PHA’s local preferences be described in its Section 8 administrative plan and be consistent with its PHA plan and the local consolidated plan./6/ They must be based upon local housing needs and priorities, as determined by the PHA. The PHA must consider generally accepted data sources and must consider any information made available in public comments on its public housing plan and on the local consolidated plan./7/ The interim regulations on PHA plans also require the PHA to describe its preferences for certificate and voucher applicants in the PHA plan./8/

In enacting the 1998 legislation, Congress did not repeal a provision that prohibits a PHA from penalizing residents of public housing when establishing preferences for certificate and voucher assistance./9/ HUD’s new regulations on local preferences for certificates and vouchers do not mention that statutory duty. They should be amended to require PHAs to treat public housing residents equally with other applicants.

1. Who Will Get Vouchers?

Eligible Participants

Eligibility for vouchers previously was limited to very low-income families, i.e., families with incomes below 50 percent of the area median income, with a few limited exceptions./10/ The new act allows PHAs to expand eligibility to include any low-income families, i.e., families with incomes up to 80 percent of median income./11/ HUD’s new regulations retain most of the former regulatory exceptions to the general rule that voucher holders must be very low income families. They also implement the new statutory authority for PHAs to generally accept applicants with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of area median income (AMI). If a PHA wants to exercise that option, it has to specify that in its Section 8 administrative plan and doing so must be consistent with the local PHA plan and the local consolidated plan./12/

Reservation of Units for Applicants with Incomes Beneath 30 Percent of Median

As an alternative to the federal preferences and other provisions, the new act adopted income targeting as a way to guarantee poor people some share of federal housing assistance. For the voucher program, each PHA must make sure that 75 percent of the new households that it assists each year have household incomes at or beneath 30 percent of the area median. The regulations spell out that standard and indicate that an applicant’s gross income, not his or her adjusted income, must be used to measure compliance with the targets./13/ When people are given vouchers–whether because they are being converted from certificates, because they have been continuously assisted under the U.S. Housing Act, or because they have been displaced from assisted housing due to a mortgage prepayment–they are not counted in determining compliance with the targeting requirements./14/ People continuously assisted under the U.S. Housing Act would include tenants displaced because their public housing development is being demolished or sold, or because their Section 8 landlord is not renewing an expiring Section 8 contract. In areas where there are unusually high or low incomes, the statute and these regulations authorize HUD to establish a standard more or less than 30 percent of AMI./15/ The regulations do not indicate how HUD will make those determinations.

3.1 Ineligibility of People Previously Evicted From Federally Assisted Housing

HUD’s new regulations require PHAs to reject applicants who have been evicted from federally assisted housing for a serious lease violation within a reasonably recent period of time. The PHA is allowed to determine what constitutes a reasonable period of time./16/ That mandate appears to conflict directly with the legislative history of the 1998 Housing Act. Congress rejected a provision that had been in both H.R. 2 and S. 462 making tenants evicted from federally assisted housing ineligible for all federally assisted housing for a reasonable period of time to be defined by the PHA or the owner./17/ HUD had previously proposed regulations that would have established such a bar administratively without any authorizing legislation./18/ Since Congress rejected that approach, HUD should not be able to issue regulations mandating what Congress has rejected. At the same time, Congress has given the PHAs discretion whether to screen applicants./19/ In doing that, Congress appears to have nullified HUD’s attempt to make rejection of certain applicants mandatory.

In the original certificate and voucher programs, screening of tenants was the landlord’s responsibility and PHAs were not to reject applicants on the grounds that they would be bad tenants. Previously, HUD had created some exceptions to that principle by allowing PHAs to reject applicants who were involved in drug-related criminal activities and applicants who had been evicted from public housing or certificate- or voucher-supported housing./20/ The 1998 statute grants PHAs the option of screening voucher applicants in accordance with HUD-established requirements./21/

Two parts of these new regulations appear to give PHAs the option of screening applicants for their suitability as tenants. First, HUD removed the previous regulatory provision that had precluded PHAs from basing selection decisions on the applicant’s likely suitability as a tenant./22/ Second, HUD affirmatively provided that the PHA may opt to screen family behavior or suitability for tenancy./23/ Nonetheless, HUD did not add suitability as a tenant as a grounds for denying assistance in the regulations that specifically state what the grounds for rejecting applicants can be./24/ Nor did HUD establish standards for the PHAs to follow if they opt to screen, despite Congress’ suggestion that HUD do so./25/

Landlord Discrimination Against Voucher Holders

Congress had permanently repealed the provision that had barred landlords with one Section 8 contract from rejecting a person solely for using a certificate or a voucher./26/ As a result, HUD removed from the regulations a provision that had implemented that statute./27/ However, in its section on equal opportunity requirements, HUD specifically states that its regulations are not intended to preempt state laws that prohibit discrimination against voucher holders./28/

In 1995, HUD authorized PHAs to reject certain categories of landlords from whom tenants may wish to rent./29/ The 1998 statute adds an additional ground for PHAs’ rejection of landlords, i.e., their failure to evict tenants for criminal or threatening activity, but makes doing so discretionary with the PHA./30/ The new regulations implement that statutory addition and add one more basis of their own, i.e., the owner’s having engaged in violent criminal activity./31/

In several respects Congress modified tenants’ rights to use their vouchers in areas other than the area of the PHA that issues them./32/ If a family wants to move to an area where no PHA is operating the program, they will no longer be guaranteed a right to do so./33/ Previously, in such situations, the law required the original PHA to administer the voucher in areas where no other PHA was operating, as long as the tenant moved within the same state or within the same metropolitan statistical area, or a contiguous one./34/ The regulations are amended to reflect this statutory change./35/ They also implement a provision giving PHAs discretion to immediately allow a non-resident voucher holder to use a voucher in another jurisdiction, without requiring a delay of one year./36/ Congress had also authorized HUD to prescribe mandatory exceptions for particular cases when PHAs do impose waiting periods,/37/ but HUD ignored that authority. Finally, the regulations repeat the statutory prohibition against granting portability rights to tenants who have moved out of their assisted home in violation of their lease./38/

3. Housing Quality Standards

In response to complaints from the housing industry about PHAs’ arbitrary handling of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspections,/39/ Congress allowed PHAs to establish their own housing quality standards or use local codes, but with limitations. The new regulations implement those statutory changes and appear to be more restrictive than previously about the cases in which HUD can approve local variations from the HQS standards./40/

One of the problems that landlords complained about was delay by PHAs in inspecting units for which tenants are applying. The new act required PHAs with fewer than 1,250 vouchers to complete their inspections within 15 days, and larger PHAs to do so within a reasonable time. The act also required HUD to issue guidelines and performance standards for PHAs to meet in carrying out their inspection responsibilities./41/ The regulations repeat the statutory language on time limits for inspections, and require the larger housing authorities to complete their inspections within 15 days to the extent practicable./42/ The regulations do nothing to implement HUD’s statutory duty to issue guidelines and performance standards on inspections, but they do require the PHAs to put such guidelines and standards in their administrative plans./43/

4. What Will Voucher Rents Be?

Identically situated tenants in the voucher program may pay more rent than certificate tenants for two reasons. First, PHAs can make the subsidy for voucher tenants lower than for certificate tenants. Second, voucher landlords are allowed to charge more than the FMR or payment standard, and the tenants must pay the difference. With regard to the amount of the subsidy, the new act restrains the PHAs’ discretion, and for the most part HUD’s regulations improve upon the statute. First, the PHAs cannot set the payment standards lower than 90 percent of the FMR./44/ HUD’s regulations previously allowed the PHA to set the standard as low as 80 percent of the FMR and, originally, did not even require annual updating as the FMRs rose./45/ Both the statute and the new regulations allow the PHA to set the payment standard as high as 110 percent of the FMR, without securing HUD’s permission./46/ The previous regulations limited the PHAs to 100 percent of the FMR./47/ That change should lead to higher, more realistic payment standards.

HUD is also supposed to monitor the effects of each PHA’s payment standard, and to require the PHA to modify the standard if a significant percentage of the participants is paying more than 30 percent of adjusted income for rent. HUD’s regulations specify that HUD will review the effects of any payment standard, and may require its modification if more that 40 percent of the participants are paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent./48/ The statute appears to grant HUD authority to require payment standards that are higher than 110 percent of the FMR, should payment standards set at that level still produce excessive rent payment burdens./49/ The regulations, however, only grant HUD authority to require the PHA to raise the payment standard up to 110 percent of the FMR./50/

Another regulatory change that may lead to higher payment standards and thus greater subsidies for some tenants concerns separate payment standards for different neighborhoods. HUD’s regulations previously required that there be only one payment standard for each sized unit within each Fair Market Rent area./51/ The FMR areas tend to be quite large. Even though prevailing rents in some neighborhoods are substantially higher than those in other neighborhoods, PHAs did not want to set the payment standards high enough to cover those neighborhoods, because they would be too high in other, cheaper neighborhoods. Because they had to set a single payment standard, they chose the lower one. Under the new regulations, that disincentive to realistic payment standards should be eliminated, because PHAs will be allowed to set separate payment standards for different neighborhoods in an FMR area./52/ As long as those standards are within the basic 90 to 110 percent of the FMR range, the PHA will not need to secure HUD approval.

The new regulations also allow HUD to approve payment standards above 110 percent of the FMR, in much the same way that HUD has been allowed to approve exception rents under the certificate program. Previously, HUD could approve exception rents up to 120 percent of the normal FMR for particular areas within an FMR area if they were needed to enable people to move outside high poverty areas or if people were having trouble using certificates./53/ The new regulations will allow HUD to approve requests from PHAs to set payment standards above 110 percent of the FMR and even above 120 percent of the FMR./54/ Those higher payment standards can only be for particular parts of the FMR area, called exception areas, and, as was true of exception rents, the populations of the exception areas cannot exceed 50 percent of the population of the FMR area. Again, as with exception rents, HUD will only approve higher payment standards if they are needed to enable people to move outside high poverty areas or if people are having trouble using vouchers. Payment standards above 120 percent of the FMR can only be approved if the PHA has tried a payment standard between 110 and 120 percent of the FMR for six months. If a PHA has received HUD approval of exception rents for the certificate program, it is allowed to continue using that permission as authority to set a voucher payment standard at the same level./55/

For the certificate program, HUD had also required PHAs to approve exception rents for individual people with disabilities as a reasonable accommodation required by the Fair Housing Act./56/ The new regulations on voucher payment standards above 110 percent of the FMR do not have a comparable provision requiring PHAs to approve higher payment standards for people with disabilities as a reasonable accommodation. A PHA’s refusal to provide such a reasonable accommodation would most likely constitute a Fair Housing Act violation.

Even when the payment standard is high enough so that there will be an adequate government subsidy, there will still be problems for tenants. To guard against landlords who charge more to voucher holders because they have vouchers, the statute requires PHAs to refuse to approve leases if the rents are not reasonable, i.e., are higher than the market for comparable units. HUD’s regulations had already required PHAs to determine whether rents are reasonable and to reject any that were not./57/ Those regulations were not changed, although they were renumbered./58/ The regulations do add a provision implementing the new statutory provision barring the PHA from approving a tenancy if the rent would make the tenant pay more than 40 percent of adjusted income for rent./59/

The new law eliminates the shopping incentive that was intended to encourage tenants to find a unit renting for less than the payment standard. If the landlord’s rent were less than the payment standard, the tenant, in effect, was allowed to pocket the difference between the payment standard and the landlord’s rent./60/ The new statute does not allow that any more./61/ The elimination of this shopping incentive now makes the utility allowance more relevant to the voucher program. Now, in situations where the landlord charges less than the payment standard but the tenant pays some utilities, the voucher payment will be the difference between 30 percent of the tenant’s adjusted income and the landlord’s rent plus the utility allowance./62/ HUD’s regulations put this new system into effect by setting the family’s voucher payment as the difference between the gross rent, including the utility allowance, and the total tenant payment./63/

5. Lease Provisions

Again responding to criticisms from the industry, Congress put a provision in the new act allowing landlords to use their own leases, but requiring that they be the same as ones used for the private market tenants. In response, HUD changed its regulations to no longer require PHAs to approve leases. Instead, they will be required to approve tenancies and tenancy addendums. Each lease must have HUD’s tenancy addendum attached./64/ The tenancy addendum is not included in the regulations themselves, but possibly it will be like the lease addendum now used in the program.

In the process of eliminating the PHA’s role in approving leases, HUD repealed the list of prohibited lease provisions that have been part of federally subsidized housing law since 1971 and were used in the Section 8 program from its beginning./65/ The only apparent substitute is a provision allowing, but not requiring, the PHA to determine whether the lease complies with local law and to refuse to approve it if it does not./66/ Because many of the clauses on HUD’s old list of prohibited lease provisions are invalid under state laws, a PHA could reject a lease with some of the provisions. However, that would require a PHA to draw up its own list of provisions prohibited by state law and then use it to review landlords’ leases.

The new act allows PHAs to approve voucher leases of less than one year, if shorter terms are a prevailing market practice and if they will increase the housing opportunities for the tenant./67/ Thus, in those cases, a PHA might approve 30-day leases for voucher tenants and they would be subject to eviction on 30 days’ notice without cause, just like any private tenant whose landlord does not receive federal housing subsidies. HUD’s regulations merely repeat this statutory language, without providing any guidance about when a short term lease can be considered to be a prevailing market practice or whether it will increase applicants’ housing opportunities./68/

In the process of making this change regarding the term of the lease, HUD removed a regulatory provision that had allowed the tenant to get out of the lease after the first year. Under the regulation, the lease could not require more than 60 days’ notice./69/ The end result of this and other changes will be to leave some tenants tied into long-term leases without justification.

6. How Will Evictions and Subsidy Terminations Be Handled?

The new act made permanent the temporary appropriations’ measure that had limited tenants’ good cause protection to the term of the lease./70/ The regulations implement that provision by eliminating the regulation that had required leases to automatically renew at the end of their terms unless the landlord had cause to terminate them./71/ The regulations on the landlord’s power to terminate the tenancy had already provided that the federal restrictions only applied during the term of the lease./72/

For some reason, HUD’s regulations now require PHAs to terminate a family from the program if it is evicted from its Section 8 home for a serious violation of the lease./73/ As we indicated above in the case of admissions, HUD had previously proposed to make this change but had not finalized the rule. In the interim, the 1998 housing legislation was enacted and it contained no provision mandating such a change. In fact, in drafting the final legislation, Congress rejected a provision that would have mandated rejection of applicants who had been evicted. The specific rejection of that approach, combined with Congress’ general reluctance to have HUD imposing mandates upon PHAs, would seem to make this step by HUD unlawful, or at least unwise.

7. How Will The Conversion of Certificates to the Voucher Program Be Handled?

The new legislation authorizes HUD to convert certificates into vouchers and leaves it up to HUD to decide how to handle the conversions./74/ Although there seem to be inconsistencies between the introductory comments and the regulations themselves, HUD has decided, generally, not to let any new families into the certificate program on or after August 12, 1999,/75/ and to convert current certificate tenants no later than the effective date of their second recertification after August 12, 1999./76/

The regulations seem to provide that current certificate program participants who have over FMR tenancies must convert to voucher immediately on August 12^th. Over FMR tenancies in the certificate program are like voucher tenancies, because the certificate landlords are allowed to charge more than the FMR as rent and the tenants pay the excess. The regulations state that these over FMR tenancies shall be treated as voucher tenancies on August 12, 1999, and shall be subject to the voucher program requirements, including the requirements for calculating the voucher subsidy./77/ In contrast, the introductory comments state that the voucher rules on calculating the subsidy would be applied on the second regular reexamination of income after August 12, 1999./78/

This conflict between the regulations and the introductory comments will not be significant for tenants whose PHAs use a payment standard equal to the FMR. In these cases, their subsidies will be the same under both programs, i.e., the difference between 30 percent of their adjusted incomes and the FMR or payment standard. But for tenants whose PHAs have a payment standard beneath the FMR, the immediate conversion will result in a loss of subsidy and a rent increase. For example, if the landlord’s rent is $600, the FMR is $550, the payment standard is $500 and 30 percent of the tenant’s income is $150, the subsidy under the old program would be $400 and the tenant would pay the landlord $200. Under the voucher program, the subsidy would fall to $350 ($500-$150) and the tenant’s share of the rent would increase to $250. Obviously, from the tenant’s point of view, postponing the conversion until the second annual reexamination of income after August 12^th would be preferable.

Regular certificate tenants will be converted to the certificate program if they move, because after August 12^th their PHA will not be allowed to enter into a new certificate contract with their new landlord./79/ The new contract will have to be a voucher contract. Even if they do not move, they will be converted to the voucher program if their landlord wishes to terminate the original certificate contract. The landlord might want to do that to secure a higher rent increase than the annual adjustment factor would allow at the end of the year. If the original certificate contract is terminated, the only new contract available to the PHA and the landlord after August 12^th would be a voucher contract. If the tenant does not move and the landlord does not terminate the original certificate contract, the tenant will eventually be converted to the voucher program when his or her second annual recertification after August 12, 1999 becomes effective./80/ Thus, all current certificate tenants will be converted at the latest by August 1, 2001.

Many certificate tenants will face rent increases upon conversion. If their landlords want to increase the rent above the FMR, they will be allowed to do so under the voucher program, as long as the rent is reasonable. If the increased rent is more than the PHA’s payment standard, the tenants will pay the excess above the payment standard out of their own pockets. Even if the landlord does not increase the rent, the subsidy to the landlord will be reduced if the PHA’s payment standard is beneath the FMR, as will often be the case. When the subsidy to the landlord is reduced the tenant has to make up the difference in the form of a rent increase.

Tenants who have been receiving the benefits of exception rents under the certificate program are likely to encounter complications and rent increases when they are converted. Exception rents, up to 120 percent of the FMR, are allowed under the certificate program when HUD determines that particular neighborhoods in an FMR area have higher rents or when a family including a person with disabilities is unable to secure housing at the FMR./81/ Under the new regulations, PHAs that have received HUD permission to use exception rents for particular neighborhoods will be allowed to set their voucher payment standard at those old exception rent levels./82/ If they do so, the tenants benefitting from exception rents will not experience a rent increase when they are converted, if their landlord does not raise the rent above the exception rent level. However, using the exception rent level as the payment standard is optional with the PHA. If the PHA decides to set the payment standard below the exception rent levels, the tenants who are converted will experience a rent increase because their landlords will receive lower subsidies.

It is not clear at all what will happen to tenants who now benefit from exception rents because someone in their household has a disability. HUD’s new regulations have no provision allowing the PHA to use a higher payment standard for those tenants./83/ Thus, upon conversion, the subsidies to their landlords may be reduced and the tenants will face a substantial rent increase.

If the tenant pays some of the utilities there will be no rent increase when the tenant converts, as long as the landlord does not increase the rent and the PHA’s payment standard equals the FMR. The subsidy to the landlord under both programs will be the same and thus the tenant’s rent to the landlord will not increase. Under the certificate program, if the FMR is $550 and the utility allowance is $50, the landlord’s rent cannot exceed $500. If 30 percent of the tenant’s adjusted income is $150, the tenant pays the landlord $100 and the utility company $50, and the PHA pays the landlord $400. Under the voucher program, if the payment standard is $550 and the landlord does not raise the rent above $500, the PHA will pay the landlord $400 (gross rent (contract rent + utility allowance) - 30 % of adjusted income), and the tenant will pay $100 to the landlord and $50 to the utility company. However, if the landlord decides to raise the rent, the tenant will have to pay the extra rent, even if the rent is just raised to the payment standard.

In this same situation, if the landlord raises the rent to $550, the PHA will pay the landlord $400, the tenant will pay the landlord $150 and the tenant will still have to pay the utility company the $50 for utilities.

Current participants in the voucher program may get a rent reduction after August 12, 1999 in some circumstances. On August 12,^th the new rules for the voucher program come into effect. Under those rules, the payment standards cannot be less than 90 percent of the FMR, whereas previously the standards could be as low as 80 percent of the FMR./84/ PHAs with payment standards beneath 90 percent of FMR will have to raise them to the 90 percent level on August 12.^th At a minimum, at the family’s next annual recertification, that higher payment standard must be used, the subsidy to the landlord must be increased, and the tenant’s share of the rent should thus be reduced./85/

On August 12, 1999, these new regulations will begin to affect certificate and voucher program tenants and applicants. HUD is required to issue the final regulations by October 21, 1999, one year after the 1998 legislation. It is important to submit comments to HUD pointing out problems with the interim regulations and suggesting improvements for the final regulations. In addition, it will be important to become familiar with the changes in order to secure the benefits of any improvements for tenants quickly after they become effective.

Notes

1    Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance; Statutory Merger of Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Programs, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,631 (May 14, 1999) (interim rule) (hereinafter all citations to the interim rule will cite the section to the regulations as it appears in the Federal Register and the volume and page number in which it appears).

2    Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2518 (Oct. 21, 1998).

3    42 U.S.C. §§ 1437d(c)(4)(A), f(d)(1)(A) (West Supp. 1999). [page 37]

4    24 C.F.R. § 982.207, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,644-45.

5    42 U.S.C. §§ 1437d(c)(4)(A), 1437f(o)(6)(A) (West Supp. 1999). [page 37]

6    24 C.F.R. § 982.207, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,644-45.

7    Id.

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

9    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437f(s) (West Supp. 1999).

10    Id. § 1437f(o)(3).

11    Id. § 1437f(o)(4).

12    24 C.F.R. § 982.201(b)(1)(ii), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,642-43.

13    24 C.F.R. § 982.201(b)(2), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,643.

14    Id. § 982.201(b)(2)(ii)&(iii).

15    42 U.S.C. § 1437n(b) (West Supp. 1999); 24 C.F.R. § 982.201(b)(2)(i)(B), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,643.

16    24 C.F.R. § 982.552(b)(1), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,650.

17    S. 462, § 301(a), 143 CONG. REC. S10050 (Sep. 26, 1997); H.R. 2, § 641(a), 143 CONG. REC. H2,647 (May 14, 1997). Compare § 576(a) of the 1998 Housing Act, adding 42 U.S.C.A. § 13,661(a) (West Supp. 1999).

18    Proposed 24 C.F.R. §§ 882.514, 960.201 and 982.201, 62 Fed. Reg. 15,345 (Mar. 31, 1997), and 62 Fed. Reg. 25,727 (May 9, 1997).

19    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(6)(B) (West Supp. 1999).

20    Former 24 C.F.R. § 882.118, 55 Fed. Reg. 28,538, 28,546 (Jul. 11, 1990); 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.552(b)(1) and (2) (1998).

21    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(6)(B) (West Supp. 1999).

22    64 Fed. Reg. 26,643, Item 41, removing 24 C.F.R. § 982.202(b)(1)(1999).

23    24 C.F.R. § 982.307(a), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

24    24 C.F.R. § 982.552, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,650.

25    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(6)(B) (West Supp. 1999)

26    Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 554, 112 Stat. 2,611 (Oct 21, 1998) (repealing 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t)).

27    64 Fed. Reg. 26,647, Item 70, removing 24 C.F.R. § 982.457(1999).

28    24 C.F.R. § 982.53(d), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,641. Compare Franklin Tower One v. N.M, 157 N.J. 602, 725 A.2d 1104 (1999), discussed in New Jersey Landlord May Not Refuse to Enter into Section 8 Contract on Behalf of Current Tenant, 29 HOUS. L. BULL. 73 (Apr. 1999).

29    24 C.F.R. § 982.306 (1998).

30    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(6)(C) (West Supp. 1999).

31    24 C.F.R. § 982.306(c)(3), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

32    Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 553, 112 Stat. 2610-11 (Oct 21, 1998) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(r)(1) (effective Oct. 1, 1999).

33    42 U.S.C.A. § 1437f(r)(1) (West Supp. 1999).

34    Id. § 1437f(r)(2).

35    64 Fed. Reg. 26,646, Item 58, removing 24 C.F.R. § 982.354 (1999).

36    24 C.F.R. § 982.353(c)(2), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,646.

37    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(r)(1)(B) (West Supp. 1999).

38    Id. § 1437f(r)(5); 24 C.F.R. § 982.353(b), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,646.

39    ABT Associates, Final Report on Recommendations on Ways to Make the Section 8 Program More Acceptable in the Private Rental Market (Mar. 1994).

40    Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.401(a)(4), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,646 with 24 C.F.R. § 982.401(a)(4) (1998).

41    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(8)(E) (West Supp 1999).

42    24 C.F.R. § 982.305(b)(2), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,644.

43    Id. §§ 982.54(d)(22), 982.405(f), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,641, 26,647.

44    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(1) (West Supp. 1999).

45    24 C.F.R. § 887.351 (1998). Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.505(b)(1)(ii) (1999), 63 Fed. Reg. 23,862 (Apr. 30, 1998) (use of current FMRs mandated).

46    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(1) (West Supp. 1999); 24 C.F.R. § 982.503(b), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648.

47    24 C.F.R. § 982.505(b)(1)(ii)(A) (1999), 63 Fed. Reg. 23,862 (Apr. 30, 1998).

48    24 C.F.R. § 982.503(d), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

49    42 U.S.C. §§ 1437f(o)(1)(D) - (E) (West Supp. 1999).

50    24 C.F.R. § 982.503(d), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

51    24 C.F.R. § 982.505(b)(3)(ii) (1999), 63 Fed. Reg. 23,862 (Apr. 30, 1998).

52    24 C.F.R. § 982.503(b)(ii), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648.

53    24 C.F.R. § 982.504, 63 Fed. Reg. 23,861 (Apr. 30, 1998).

54    24 C.F.R. § 982.503, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648-49.

55    24 C.F.R. § 982.503(c)(7), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

56    24 C.F.R. § 982.504(b)(2), 63 Fed. Reg. 23,862 (Apr. 30, 1998).

57    24 C.F.R. § 982.503, 63 Fed. Reg. 23,861 (Apr. 30, 1998).

58    64 Fed. Reg. 26,648, Item 73, renumbering them as 24 C.F.R. § 982.507.

59    24 C.F.R. § 982.508, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649, implementing 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(3) (West Supp. 1999).

60    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(2) (West Supp. 1998).

61    Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 545, 112 Stat. 2,596-605 (Oct 21, 1998) (rewriting 42 U.S.C. §1437f(o)(2)(A).

62    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(2)(A) (West Supp. 1999).

63    24 C.F.R. § 982.505(b)(2), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

64    24 C.F.R. §§ 982.305, 982.308, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,644-45.

65    24 C.F.R. § 982.308, rewritten at 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

66    Id., 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

67    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7)(A) (West Supp. 1999).

68    24 C.F.R. § 982.309(a)(2), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

69    Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.309(d) (1998), with 24 C.F.R. § 982.309, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

70    42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7) (West Supp. 1999).

71    Compare 24 C.F.R. § 982.309(b)(2) (1998) , with 24 C.F.R. § 982.309, 64 Fed. Reg. 26,645.

72    24 C.F.R. § 982.310 (1998).

73    24 C.F.R. § 982.552(b)(2), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,650.

74    Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 559(d), 112 Stat. 2,616 (Oct 21, 1998).

75    24 C.F.R. § 982.502(a), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648.

76    64 Fed. Reg. 26,634 (Item I(B)(3)).

77    24 C.F.R. § 982.502(b), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648.

78    64 Fed. Reg. 26,634 (Item I(B)(3)).

79    24 C.F.R. § 982.502(a), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648.

80    Id. § 982.502(d).

81    24 C.F.R. § 982.504(b) (1999), 63 Fed. Reg. 23,861-62 (Apr. 30, 1998).

82    24 C.F.R. § 982.503(c)(7), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

83    See 24 C.F.R. § 982.503(c)(7), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

84    24 C.F.R. § 982.503(b)(1), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,648.

85    24 C.F.R. § 982.505(c)(3)(ii), 64 Fed. Reg. 26,649.

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