10016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3 In the alternative, the Coalition requests

reconsideration or clarification of the policy

statement.

4The pleading filed by the U.S. Departments also

requests rehearing of a companion order issued on

December 14, 1994 (69 FERC ¶ 61,338), that

removed a standard reservation of authority article

from approximately 60 licenses. That portion of the

pleading is not affected by this order.

5The pleading filed by Edwards and Augusta also

requests rehearing of another companion order

issued on December 14, 1994 (69 FERC ¶ 61,335),

which amended their license for the Augusta

Hydroelectric Project (Edwards Dam). That portion

of the pleading is not affected by this order.

6See Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. FERC, 628

F.2d 235, 239 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

not request rehearing, stating (correctly)

that ‘‘its members will have the

opportunity to challenge any

Commission assertion of

decommissioning authority in the

context of actual proceedings where this

becomes an issue.’’ Similarly, on

January 31, 1995, the Edison Electric

Institute filed comments on the policy

statement on reserved authority issued

in Docket No. RM93–25–000, as well as

on the policy statement in Docket No.

RM93–23–000.

Also on January 13, 1995, three

requests for rehearing of the policy

statement on decommissioning, in

Docket No. RM93–23–000, were filed:

(1) By the Hydropower Reform

Coalition;3 (2) by (jointly) the U.S.

Department of Commerce and the U.S.

Department of the Interior (the U.S.

Departments);4 and by (jointly) Edwards

Manufacturing Co., Inc. and the City of

Augusta, Maine (Edwards and

Augusta).5 The pleading filed by the

U.S. Departments is styled as a petition

for ‘‘clarification, reconsideration and

rehearing.’’

The above-captioned policy

statements issued on December 14,

1994, provide only notice of the

Commission’s general views and

intentions with respect to a broad range

of potential issues that may come before

it in future cases. The policy statements

do not apply those views and intentions

to the specific facts of any particular

case, nor do they purport to resolve any

specific case or controversy. They do

not impose an obligation, deny a right,

or fix some legal relationship as a

consummation of the administrative

process. Therefore, as there is no

aggrievement, rehearing does not lie.

Nor have the petitioners shown any

particular circumstances requiring that

we reconsider our positions taken in

these policy statements.6 Accordingly,

the above-described requests for

rehearing of the policy statements

issued on December 14, 1994, in the

above-captioned dockets are dismissed

to the extent that they seek rehearing of

either or both of those two policy

statements, and are denied to the extent

that they seek reconsideration of either

of both of those policy statements.

The Commission Orders

The request for reconsideration and

rehearing filed by the American Public

Power Association in Docket Nos.

RM93–23–001 and RM93–25–001, and

the requests for rehearing,

reconsideration and/or clarification

filed by the Hydropower Reform

Coalition, by the U.S. Departments of

Commerce and the Interior, and by

Edwards Manufacturing Company, Inc.

and the City of Augusta, Maine, in

Docket No. RM93–23–001, are rejected

as requests for rehearing and are denied

as requests for reconsideration or

clarification.

By the Commission. Commissioner Bailey

dissented in part with a separate statement

attached.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

Bailey, Commissioner, dissenting in part.

For the reasons discussed in my earlier

dissent, I would grant reconsideration of the

Decommissioning Policy Statement (Docket

No. RM93–23–001).

Vicky A. Bailey,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–4354 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner

24 CFR Part 207

[Docket No. R–95–1768; FR–3753–I–01]

RIN 2502–AG34

Multifamily Cooperative Refinancing

and Conversion Program

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: HUD’s multifamily mortgage

insurance regulations are being

amended to revise the occupancy

requirements for rental projects

converted to cooperative ownership.

The amended regulations replace the

strict 70 percent owner-occupant

subscription requirement with one that

varies according to the loan-to-value

ratio. This flexibility will allow the

Federal Housing Commissioner to

expand affordable housing

opportunities.

DATES: Effective date: March 27, 1995.

Expiration date: Section 207.32a(h)(2)

will expire on September 23, 1996.

Comments due date: April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this interim rule to the Office of the

General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk,

Room 10276, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20410–

0500. Communications should refer to

the above docket number and title.

Facsimile (FAX) comments are not

acceptable. A copy of each

communication submitted will be

available for public inspection and

copying during regular business hours

(7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time) at

the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda D. Cheatham, Director, Office of

Multifamily Housing Development,

Room 6134, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, DC 20410–0500,

telephone (202) 708–3000. Hearing or

speech-impaired individuals may call

HUD’s TDD number (202) 708–4594.

(These are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Title II of the National Housing Act of

1934, specifically section 223(f) (12

U.S.C. 1715n(f)), authorizes HUD to

insure mortgages for multifamily rental

units through the Federal Housing

Administration (FHA). The regulations

implementing section 223(f) are codified

at 24 CFR 207.32a. The section 223(f)

regulations were amended June 24, 1985

(50 FR 25940), to include cooperative

mortgagors. The regulations, as

amended in 1985, expand section 223(f)

to provide mortgage insurance for the

refinancing of existing cooperative

projects and the purchase/conversion of

existing rental projects by cooperative

sponsors.

Paragraph (h)(2) of § 207.32a sets forth

the occupancy requirements for rental

projects converted to cooperative

ownership. At least 70 percent of the

total units in the project must be

subscribed to on a cooperative basis

before endorsement of the mortgage for

insurance by the Federal Housing

Commissioner. This interim rule

replaces the strict 70 percent

subscription requirement of

§ 207.32a(h)(2) with one that varies

according to the loan-to-value ratio.

The amended regulation provides that

with respect to a cooperative project, the

following pre-sale and loan-to-value

ratios apply: (1) A 70 percent loan-tovalue ratio loan will require that 51
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 10017

percent of the project’s units be pre-sold

and occupied by the owners as a

principal residence prior to

endorsement; (2) an 80 percent loan-tovalue ratio loan will require that 60

percent of the project’s units be pre-sold

and occupied by the owners as a

principal residence prior to

endorsement; and (3) a 90 percent loanto-value ratio loan will require that 70

percent of the project’s units be pre-sold

and occupied by the owners as a

principal residence prior to

endorsement.

These amendments will minimize

HUD’s risk in insuring mortgages on

cooperative projects while at the same

time, providing a mechanism for

development of a wide range of

cooperative projects. In general, the

higher the pre-sale rate, the more likely

a project will succeed as a cooperative.

Likewise, the greater the loan-to-value

ratio, the higher HUD’s risk in most

cases. Therefore, the amendment

requires a higher pre-sale rate in order

to secure a higher loan-to-value ratio

loan. Conversely, the smaller the loanto-value ratio, the less substantial HUD’s

risk, and, thus, the lower the required

pre-sale.

Furthermore, this interim rule also

creates a new § 207.32a(h)(2)(iv)

mandating that voting control of the

cooperative project rest with the owneroccupants. Since owner-occupant

control is a distinguishing feature of

cooperatives, this requirement will

ensure that the insured mortgage is

associated with a legitimate cooperative

project.

These amendments not only increase

program flexibility with respect to the

insurance of mortgages on cooperative

projects, but will promote HUD’s policy

of revitalizing neighborhoods and

communities. HUD believes these

amendments will help make affordable

housing a reality for more families

everywhere and help revitalize

‘‘communities in peril.’’

II. Justification for Interim Rulemaking

It is HUD’s policy to publish rules for

public comment before their issuance

for effect, in accordance with its own

regulations on rulemaking found at 24

CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides

that prior public procedure will be

omitted if HUD determines that it is

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest’’ (24 CFR 10.1).

HUD finds that in this case prior public

comment is contrary to the interest of

the public. This interim rule removes a

strict regulatory and administrative

requirement in order to increase

program flexibility and expand

homeownership opportunities.

Although HUD believes the public will

benefit from immediate implementation

of this interim rule, HUD welcomes

public comment. All comments will be

considered in the development of the

final rule.

The Department has adopted a policy

of setting an expiration date for an

interim rule unless a final rule is

published before that date. This

‘‘sunset’’ provision appears in

§ 207.32a(h)(2)(v), and provides that the

interim rule will expire on a date 18

months from its effective date.

III. Other Matters

A. Environmental Impact

In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of

the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality and 24 CFR

50.20(k) of the HUD regulations, the

policies and procedures contained in

this interim rule relate only to HUD

administrative procedures and,

therefore, are categorically excluded

from the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act.

B. Executive Order 12612, Federalism

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under section 6(a) of

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies contained

in this interim rule will not have

substantial direct effects on states or

their political subdivisions, or the

relationship between the federal

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Specifically, this

interim rule is directed towards

applicants and participants in HUD’s

multifamily mortgage insurance

program. It effects no changes in the

current relationships between the

federal government, the states and their

political subdivisions in connection

with these programs.

C. Executive Order 12606, the Family

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under Executive

Order 12606, The Family, has

determined that this interim rule does

not have potential for significant impact

on family formation, maintenance, and

general well-being, and thus, is not

subject to review under the order. No

significant change in existing HUD

policies or programs will result from

promulgation of this interim rule, as

those policies and programs relate to

family concerns.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)) has reviewed and approved this

interim rule, and in so doing certifies

that this interim rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This interim rule only governs the

procedures under which the Department

insures multifamily cooperative

projects, and will not have any

meaningful economic impact on any

entity.

E. Regulatory Agenda

This interim rule was listed as

sequence number 1773 in the

Department’s Semiannual Agenda of

Regulations published on November 14,

1994 (59 FR 57632, 57634) in

accordance with Executive Order 12866

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 207

Manufactured homes, Mortgage

insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Solar energy.

Accordingly, 24 CFR part 207 is

amended as follows:

PART 207—MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

MORTGAGE INSURANCE

1. The authority citation for 24 CFR

part 207 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701z-11(e), 1713,

and 1715b; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

2. In § 207.32a, paragraph (h)(2) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 207.32a Eligibility of mortgages on

existing projects.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(2) With respect to a cooperative

project:

(i) At least 51 percent of the total

units in the project must be subscribed

to on a cooperative basis and occupied

by the owners as a principal residence

before endorsement of the mortgage for

insurance by the Commissioner in order

to obtain a 70 percent loan-to-value ratio

loan;

(ii) At least 60 percent of the total

units in the project must be subscribed

to on a cooperative basis and occupied

by the owners as a principal residence

before endorsement of the mortgage for

insurance by the Commissioner in order

to obtain an 80 percent loan-to-value

ratio loan; and

(iii) At least 70 percent of the total

units in the project must be subscribed

to on a cooperative basis and occupied

by the owners as a principal residence

before endorsement of the mortgage for

insurance by the Commissioner in order

to obtain a 90 percent loan-to-value ratio

loan.

(iv) Voting control of the cooperative

rests with the owner-occupants.
10018 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(v) This paragraph (h)(2) expires on

September 23, 1996, unless a Federal

Register notice extending its

effectiveness is published prior to this

expiration date.

* * * * *

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal

Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–4366 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Community Planning and

Development

24 CFR Part 597

[Docket No. R–95–1702; FR–3580–N–06]

RIN 2506–AB65

Notice of Designation of Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Community Planning and

Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of designation of

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities.

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1994, HUD

published an interim rule that

implemented that portion of Subchapter

C, Part I (Empowerment Zones,

Enterprise Communities and Rural

Development Investment Areas) of Title

XIII of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 dealing with

the designation of urban Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities. On

January 18, 1994, HUD also published a

notice inviting applications for

designation of Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities.

This notice announces the

jurisdictions that were designated urban

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities by HUD. This notice also

announces the designation of two

Supplemental Empowerment Zones and

four Enhanced Enterprise Communities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Savage, Deputy Director,

Office of Economic Development, Room

7136, Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202)

708–2290; TDD (202) 708–2565. (These

are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2790), HUD

published an interim rule that

implemented that portion of Subchapter

C, Part I (Empowerment Zones,

Enterprise Communities and Rural

Development Investment Areas) of Title

XIII of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 which

addresses the designation of urban

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities. This interim rule was

made final by a final rule published on

January 12, 1995 (60 FR 3034).

Title XIII also provides for the

designation of rural Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities. As

noted in the January 18, 1994 interim

rule, the urban part of the program is

administered by HUD as a Federal-Statelocal partnership. The rural part of the

program is administered by the

Department of Agriculture, which also

published an interim rule on January 18,

1994 (59 FR 2686).

On January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2711), in

addition to publication of the interim

rule, HUD published a notice inviting

applications from States and local

governments for nomination of urban

areas as Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities. The January

18, 1994 notice provided for an

application deadline of June 30, 1994.

HUD carefully considered all

applications, and on December 21, 1994,

President Clinton announced the urban

areas that were designated by HUD as

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities, and the rural areas that

were designated by the Department of

Agriculture as rural Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities.

On that date, President Clinton

announced the designation of two

Supplemental Empowerment Zones and

four Enhanced Enterprise Communities

that will receive HUD economic

development grants. The Supplemental

Empowerment Zone and Enhanced

Enterprise Community grants are

provided under HUD’s economic

development initiative (EDI), which

enables communities to provide

financing for economic development,

housing rehabilitation, and essential

development projects.

Appendix A to this notice announces

the urban areas that were designated

urban Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities by HUD.

Appendix A to this notice also

announces the two Supplemental

Empowerment Zones and the four

Enhanced Enterprise Communities.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

Andrew Cuomo,

Assistant Secretary for Community Planning

and Development.

EMPOWERMENT ZONE, SUPPLEMENTAL

EMPOWERMENT ZONE, ENHANCED

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY DESIGNEES

State City

Alabama EC .............. Birmingham.

Arizona EC ................ Phoenix.

Arkansas EC ............. Pulaski County.

California SEZ ........... Los Angeles City &

County.

California EEC .......... Oakland.

California EC ............. Los Angeles/Huntington Park.

Do ...................... San Diego.

Do ...................... San Francisco/

Bayview/Hunters

Point.

Colorado EC ............. Denver City & County.

Connecticut EC ......... Bridgeport.

Do ...................... New Haven.

Delaware EC ............. Wilmington, New

Castle Co.

District EC ................. District of Columbia.

Florida EC ................. Dade County, Miami.

Do ...................... Tampa.

Georgia EZ ............... Atlanta.

Georgia EC ............... Albany.

Illinois EZ .................. Chicago.

Illinois EC .................. East St. Louis.

Do ...................... Springfield.

Indiana EC ................ Indianapolis.

Iowa EC .................... Des Moines.

Kentucky EC ............. Louisville.

Louisiana EC ............ New Orleans.

Do ...................... Ouachita Parish.

Maryland EZ ............. Baltimore.

Massachusetts EEC . Boston.

Massachusetts EC .... Lowell.

Do ...................... Springfield.

Michigan EZ .............. Detroit.

Michigan EC ............. Flint.

Do ...................... Muskegon.

Minnesota EC ........... Minneapolis.

Do ...................... St. Paul.

Mississippi EC .......... Jackson.

Missouri EEC ............ Kansas City (Mo and

Kans).

Missouri EC .............. St. Louis, St. Louis

County, Wellston.

Nebraska EC ............ Omaha.

Nevada EC ............... Clarke County/Las

Vegas.

New Hampshire EC .. Manchester.

New Jersey EC ......... Newark.

New Mexico EC ........ Albuquerque.

New York EZ ............ New York, Bronx

County.

New York EC ............ Albany.

Do ...................... Buffalo.

Do ...................... Newburgh/Kingston.

Do ...................... Rochester.

No. Carolina EC ........ Charlotte.

Ohio SEZ .................. Cleveland.

Ohio EC .................... Akron.

Do ...................... Columbus.

Oklahoma EC ........... Oklahoma City.

Oregon EC ................ Portland.