**[Section 5.216 verification of SSN]{.underline}**

[§5.216(f)]{.underline}. To recognize the time it may take to apply for
and receive a social security card for a child, Minnesota Housing
recommends that where there is a child under six years of age in the
family without a social security card or number, the family be allowed a
one-year period from initial certification, or recertification if the
child was born after the initial certification, in which to obtain a
Social Security Number and card for the child.

[§5.216(g).]{.underline} Status of subsidy should be addressed or noted
in the final notice, for situations where social security cards are not
provided or not available during the timeframes allowed. If EIV and
TRACS are connected, what would the resulting effect be on the subsidy?
Is it temporarily suspended? If it is paid during this time, at the end
of the timeframe allowed, does it automatically "expire/suspend"? How
will this be monitored and by whom?

**[Section 5.233 Mandated use of Upfront Income Verification (UIV)
Techniques]{.underline}**

HUD is asking for comment on whether it should require UIV through EIV
and other approved methods at initial certification or only at
recertification.

[Access to EIV is inadequate.]{.underline} Currently, property owners
and managers only have EIV access to non-wage data of family members at
recertification. Minnesota Housing prefers that EIV be available to
owners and management agents at initial certification and
recertification. For that to happen, EIV needs to be substantially
modified to include wage data as well as non-wage data, and access to
the system provided to rental owners and management agents.

[Cost for use of other resources.]{.underline} In Minnesota, when an
agency requests wage data from the Minnesota Department of Employment
and Economic Development (DEED), it submits a letter, a copy of the
tenant's current HUD 9887/A and a form required by DEED. A fee is
charged depending on the number of quarters of information requested.

If EIV is not made available to all users, other UIV resources such as
DEED would need to be accessed. Owners should be fully compensated for
those costs.

[Methods for annualizing income must be provided.]{.underline} Once
tenant data is entered into HUD's system (TRACS), if EIV is operational,
income data could be accessed later to obtain tenant income data
(sometime after move in). Owners and agents may be discouraged by this
if it is required, as it could add additional staff time and follow up
if discrepancies are found. The benefit however, is that a more accurate
calculation of income could be available earlier in the process.

The proposed change says that income data older than 12 months must not
be used in verifying annual income and that annual income is to be based
on the 12 month period prior to admission or recertification. EIV and
other UIV systems are always one quarter behind in posting wage data. If
the rule is adopted, it must be reconciled with the fact that the last
quarter of income is not going to be available from those income
verification systems. The final rule must provide a method for using EIV
income data that is currently available and a method for annualizing
income given the constraints of the EIV system. Alternatively the rule
could be modified to permit using the last 12 months of data available
in the EIV system regardless of the oldest data being more than 12
months old.

**[Section 5.508(b) Citizenship]{.underline}**

[Documentation Issues.]{.underline} Additional guidance should be
provided as to the adequacy of the use of a social security card, or
employment authorization for verification of citizenship (ie. When are
these proof of legal status?). Because there are situations where these
can "expire" or use of these can "expire", guidance would be useful.

HUD should consider verification of citizenship on an annual basis
because the status of "employment authorization" or temporary resident
cards can expire.

[The SAVE System.]{.underline} We recommend that use of the SAVE system
be reinforced and text be included in the final notice regarding this
requirement. It is still necessary for agents and owners to verify the
status through the SAVE system. Providing proof of citizenship is very
important, and supported. However, the final notice should reinforce the
continued requirement of verifying status through the SAVE system.

[Timely Documentation.]{.underline} The proposed rule does not include a
timeframe in which to provide documentation of citizenship or
immigration status. Minnesota Housing supports the change, but strongly
recommends that a time frame be included in either the rule or program
handbooks that clarify the requirement and reinforces a tenant\'s
responsibility to provide the information to be considered eligible to
receive subsidy.

[Guidance Required.]{.underline} Additional guidance would have to be
provided on how to implement the requirement as it pertains to U.S.
Nationals.

**[Section 5.609 Annual Income]{.underline}**

[Inconsistency between the narrative and proposed rule must be
corrected.]{.underline} The narrative on page 33845 indicates that
income will be based on the 12-month period prior to admission or the
effective date of the annual reexamination. The actual rule does not
appear to require using the last 12-month's income, but makes it an
option in paragraph (a)(2).

[Clarity regarding income from assets.]{.underline} Given the discussion
in the narrative regarding use of the past 12 months income, HUD should
clarify whether income from assets is from the past 12 months or
prospective.

[Guidance and standards are needed to calculate atypical income
situations.]{.underline} There will be difficulty in verifying income
when using the past 12 months for situations where tenants are
experiencing an income loss, or lapse in income. HUD must consider
situations such as loss of job, waiting periods for social security
income, welfare payments, zero income, self employment, etc., and
provide options or recommended methods for verifying income where the
past 12 months income is difficult to verify.

**[Section 92.203 Income Determination (HOME program)]{.underline}**

[Duplication of effort.]{.underline} Section 92.203 requires the
participating jurisdiction to calculate a family's annual income for the
previous 12 months. It also requires that they obtain the most recent
verified income data and use that data if it suggests a different income
than was received over the previous 12 months.

This is a duplication of effort that we don't believe makes the income
determination any more precise or trustworthy. Absent an accessible and
constantly updated source of income data for the previous 12 months, PJs
must contact employers or review paycheck stubs and other documents from
the previous 12 months. They are then required to verify and calculate
current income through a third party source, to determine if the income
is different than in the past 12 months.

If the second income verification and calculation must be done, the
first should not be required because it is either irrelevant if the
second income calculation is shown to be different, or it is merely
confirmed by the second calculation. The first calculation serves no
useful purpose. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that current
information will ever yield [exactly]{.underline} the same income as the
past 12 months. Without a tolerance level specified in the rule, incomes
will almost always have to be recalculated based on more recent data.

We recommend that HUD not adopt this rule and retain the existing rule.

[Conform the rule to reality.]{.underline} We also recommend that HUD
modify the entire Section 92.203 to permit income verifications and
calculations to be performed by subrecipients; and by developers for
purposes of identifying whether potential homebuyers are income
eligible.