Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52689 

(1) The property must maintain at 

least a 90 percent level of occupancy for 

low-income families. The income test 

will be conducted only at the time of 

entry for each available unit or 

rehabilitation of occupant-owned home. 

If the grantee cannot find a qualifying 

tenant to lease the unit, the unit may be 

leased to a family whose income is 

above the income threshold to qualify as 

a low-income family but below the 

median income for the area. Leases for 

tenants with higher incomes will be 

limited to one or two years. The leases 

provided to tenants with higher incomes 

will not be subject to the termination 

clause that is described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

(2) The property owner must not 

terminate the tenancy or refuse to renew 

the lease of a tenant occupying a 

residential rental housing unit 

constructed or rehabilitated using 

YouthBuild funds except for serious or 

repeated violations of the terms and 

conditions of the lease, for violation of 

applicable Federal, State or local laws, 

or for good cause. Any termination or 

refusal to renew the lease must be 

preceded by not less than a 30-day 

written notice to the tenant specifying 

the grounds for the action. The property 

owner may waive the written notice 

requirement for termination in 

dangerous or egregious situations 

involving the tenant. 

(c) All transitional or permanent 

housing for homeless individuals or 

families or low-income families must be 

safe and sanitary. The housing must 

meet all applicable State and local 

housing codes and licensing 

requirements in the jurisdiction in 

which the housing is located. 

(d) For sales or rentals of residential 

housing units constructed or 

rehabilitated using YouthBuild funds, 

YouthBuild grantees must ensure that 

owners of the property record a 

restrictive covenant at the time that an 

occupancy permit is issued against such 

property which includes the use 

restrictions set forth in paragraphs (a), 

(b) and (c) of this section and 

incorporates the following definitions at 

§ 672.110: Homeless Individual; LowIncome Housing; and Transitional 

Housing. The term of the restrictive 

covenant must be at least 10 years from 

the time of the issuance of the 

occupancy permit, unless a time period 

of more than 10 years has been 

established by the grantee. Any 

additional stipulations imposed by a 

grantee or property owner should be 

clearly stated in the covenant. 

(e) Any conveyance document 

prepared in the 10-year period of the 

restrictive covenant must inform the 

buyer of the property that all residential 

housing units constructed or 

rehabilitated using YouthBuild funds 

are subject to the restrictions set forth in 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this 

section. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

August 2010. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21097 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 401 

[Docket No. FR–5304–P–01] 

RIN 2502–AI75 

Multifamily Housing Reform and 

Affordability Act: Projects Eligible for a 

Restructuring Plan; When Eligibility Is 

Determined 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: HUD seeks public comment 

on HUD’s determination of the point in 

time at which an assisted project 

covered by the Multifamily and Assisted 

Housing Reform and Affordability Act is 

eligible for restructuring. Additionally, 

HUD proposes to amend its regulation, 

which provides a cross-reference to the 

statutory list of the types of projects that 

are eligible for mortgage restructuring, 

to incorporate that list into the 

regulation. HUD is initiating this 

rulemaking in accordance with a court 

decision. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: October 26, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule to the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 

Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410– 

0500. Communications must refer to the 

above docket number and title. There 

are two methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. HUD 

strongly encourages commenters to 

submit comments electronically. 

Electronic submission of comments 

allows the commenter maximum time to 

prepare and submit a comment, ensures 

timely receipt by HUD, and enables 

HUD to make them immediately 

available to the public. Comments 

submitted electronically through the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site can 

be viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the rule. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

through TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service, toll free, at 

800–877–8339. Copies of all comments 

submitted are available for inspection 

and downloading at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Theodore Toon, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Office of Affordable Housing 

Preservation (OAHP), Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

Seventh Street, SW., Room 6230, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone 

number 202–708–0001 (this is not a tollfree number). Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Information Relay Service at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Multifamily Assisted Housing 

Reform and Affordability Act (42 U.S.C. 

1437f note) (MAHRA) introduced a 

Mark-to-Market program designed to 

preserve housing affordability, while 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

52690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

reducing the long-term costs of Federal 

assistance. Section 514 of MAHRA 

provides for mortgage restructuring and 

rental adjustment via an Operating Cost 

Adjustment Factor (OCAF). Section 524 

of MAHRA deals specifically with 

renewals of project-based Section 8 

assistance without mortgage 

restructuring. Section 512(2) of MAHRA 

requires that an eligible multifamily 

housing project be subject to one of 

eight different types of rental assistance 

contracts and further requires that (i) 

project rents be above-market and (ii) 

the project be subject to FHA-insured or 

HUD-held financing. Essentially, these 

eligible projects are: (1) Those with 

rents that on average exceed the rents of 

comparable properties in the same 

market area; (2) multifamily properties 

consisting of more than four dwelling 

units; (3) financed by a mortgage held or 

insured by HUD; and (4) covered in 

whole or part by a contract for 

assistance under one of several specified 

programs. These specified programs 

include current and former programs 

authorized under the following 

authorities: (1) Section 8 of the U.S. 

Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f); 

(2) section 23 of the U.S. Housing Act 

of 1937 as in effect before January 1, 

1975 (the Section 23 Leased Housing 

program, found at section 103 of the 

Housing and Urban Development Act of 

1965 (Pub. L. 89–117, approved August 

10, 1965), which was the predecessor to 

the current Section 8 program); (3) Rent 

Supplements under 12 U.S.C. 1701s; 

and (4) the Section 8 program following 

its conversion from the Rent 

Supplement program. 

On September 11, 1998, HUD issued 

an interim rule implementing the Markto-Market program in 24 CFR parts 401 

and 402 (63 FR 48943). HUD accepted 

public comments on this interim rule as 

a basis for future rulemaking on this 

subject. HUD issued a subsequent final 

rule on March 22, 2000 (65 FR 15485), 

primarily to make regulatory changes 

regarding procedures other than the 

renewal procedures in section 524 of 

MAHRA, which were left to future 

rulemaking. On January 12, 2006, HUD 

issued a final rule, amending its 

regulations in 24 CFR parts 401 and 402 

(71 FR 2120). 

The regulatory definition of an 

eligible project was originally codified 

at 24 CFR 401.100. The version of 

§ 401.100 published in the 1998 interim 

rule was a more succinct and general 

regulatory provision than that published 

in the later January 2006 final rule. The 

variation between the 1998 codification 

and the later codification of § 401.100 

was due in part to the fact that a portion 

of the regulation that became part of 

§ 401.100 was contained in the 

definition of ‘‘eligible project,’’ 

published as part of the 1998 interim 

rule (63 FR 48944). As published in the 

1998 interim rule, the definition of 

‘‘eligible project’’ read: 

Eligible project means a project with a 

mortgage insured or held by HUD, projectbased assistance expiring on or after October 

1, 1998, and rents for assisted units 

exceeding comparable market rents; and 

otherwise meeting the definition of ‘‘eligible 

multifamily housing project’’ in section 

512(2) of MAHRA. 

Section 401.100 of the 1998 interim 

rule read: 

* * * Which projects are eligible for a 

Restructuring Plan under this part? 

General eligibility. A Restructuring Plan 

may be requested by an owner of an eligible 

project that: 

(a) Has project-based assistance with an 

expiration date of October 1, 1998, or later; 

(b) Has current gross potential rent for the 

project-based assisted units that exceeds the 

gross potential rent for the project based 

assisted units using comparable market rents; 

and 

(c) Is not described in section 514(h) of 

MAHRA. 

A HUD final rule published on March 

22, 2000 (65 FR 15480) removed 

§ 401.100 and entirely placed the 

material in the definition section, 

combining it with the definition of 

‘eligible project’ in § 401.2(c)). 

Consequently, the March, 2000 

definition of ‘‘eligible project’’ reads as 

follows: 

Eligible project means a project that: 

(1) Has a mortgage insured or held by HUD; 

(2) Receives project-based assistance 

expiring on or after October 1, 1998; 

(3) Has current gross potential rent for the 

project-based assisted units that exceeds the 

gross potential rent for the project based 

assisted units using comparable market rents; 

(4) Has a first mortgage that has not 

previously been restructured under this part 

or under a Reengineering demonstration 

program; 

(5) Is not described in section 514(h) of 

MAHRA; and 

(6) Otherwise meets the definition of 

‘‘eligible multifamily housing project’’ in 

section 512(2) of MAHRA. 

As provided in the March 2000 final 

rule, the list of eligible multifamily 

housing projects is provided in the 

regulation by cross reference to the 

statutory provision, section 512(2) of 

MAHRA. 

The preamble to the March, 2000 final 

rule stated that further changes to 24 

CFR part 402 would be forthcoming 

based on the public comments on the 

1998 interim rule (65 FR 15476). The 

final rule published on January 12, 2006 

made these changes. Additionally, this 

January 2006 final rule reinstates 24 

CFR 401.100 instead of locating the 

material related to project eligibility 

entirely in the definition section. 

Section 401.100(a), rather than crossreferencing section 512(2) of MAHRA, 

lists the types of eligible projects. 

Section 401.100(b) established the 

point in time at which a project is 

judged to be eligible or ineligible for 

restructuring. Both §§ 401.100(a) and 

400.100(b) as promulgated in the 2006 

final rule included matters that HUD 

believed were simply interpretive rules 

not requiring public comment. 

However, § 401.100(b) was 

successfully challenged in the case of 

Steinhorst Associates v. Preston, 572 

F.Supp.2d 112, 122, 124 (D.D.C. 2008) 

on the basis that ‘‘HUD promulgated the 

regulation without following noticeand-comment procedures.’’ (See 

Steinhorst at 124.) The District Court 

vacated § 401.100(b) and remanded it to 

HUD for further proceedings ‘‘consistent 

with this opinion.’’ (See 572 F.Supp.2d 

at 125). Since the failure to follow 

notice-and-comment procedures was 

found by the court to have made the 

rule defective, the appropriate remedial 

action for HUD is to propose the rule for 

notice and public comment. 

Accordingly, HUD is proposing 24 

CFR 401.100(b) for public comment. 

Since 24 CFR 401.100(a) has a similar 

procedural history, even though that 

section was not challenged in the 

Steinhorst case, HUD is also reopening 

public comment on § 401.100(a). HUD 

will consider all public comments and 

reach a de novo determination about the 

content of these regulatory sections. 

II. Findings and Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

A Finding of No Significant Impact 

with respect to the environment was 

previously made regarding this rule in 

accordance with HUD regulations in 24 

CFR part 50 that implement section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)) (See 71 FR 2120). The initial 

finding of no significant impact remains 

applicable, and is available for public 

inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

weekdays in the office of the 

Regulations Division, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires 

an agency to conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and subject to comment 

rulemaking requirements, unless the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52691 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule affects only multifamily 

Section 8 owners. There are very few 

multifamily Section 8 owners that are 

small entities. Therefore, this rule 

would not affect a substantial number of 

small entities within the meaning of the 

RFA. 

Accordingly, the undersigned certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Notwithstanding HUD’s determination 

that this rule will not have a significant 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities, HUD specifically invites 

comments regarding any less 

burdensome alternatives to this rule that 

will meet HUD’s objectives as described 

in the preamble to this rule. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from 

publishing any rule that has federalism 

implications if the rule either imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments and is not 

required by statute, or the rule preempts 

state law, unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive Order. This 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications and does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments or preempt 

state law within the meaning of the 

Executive Order. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements 

for Federal agencies to assess the effects 

of their regulatory actions on state, 

local, and tribal governments, and on 

the private sector. This proposed rule 

does not impose any Federal mandates 

on any State, local, or tribal government, 

or on the private sector, within the 

meaning of UMRA. 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 401 

Grant programs—Housing and 

community development, Housing, 

Housing assistance payments, Housing 

standards, Insured loans, Loan 

programs—Housing and community 

development, Low and moderate 

income housing, Mortgage insurance, 

Mortgages, Rent subsidies, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance number for the programs 

affected by this rule is 14.871. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 

24 CFR part 401 as follows: 

PART 401—MULTIFAMILY HOUSING 

MORTGAGE AND HOUSING 

ASSISTANCE RESTRUCTURING 

PROGRAM (MARK-TO-MARKET) 

1. The authority citation for part 401 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715z–1 and 1735f– 

19(b); 42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(8), 1437f(t), 1437f 

note, and 3535(d). 

Subpart A—General Provisions; 

Eligibility 

2. Revise § 401.100 to read as follows: 

§ 401.100 Which projects are eligible for a 

restructuring plan under this part? 

(a) What are the requirements for 

eligibility? To be eligible for a 

Restructuring Plan under this part, a 

project must: 

(1) Have a mortgage insured or held 

by HUD; 

(2) Be covered in whole or in part by 

a contract for project-based assistance 

under— 

(i) The new construction or 

substantial rehabilitation program under 

section 8(b)(2) of the U.S. Housing Act 

of 1937 as in effect before October 1, 

1983; 

(ii) The property disposition program 

under section 8(b) of the U.S. Housing 

Act of 1937; 

(iii) The moderate rehabilitation 

program under section 8(e)(2) of the 

United States Housing Act of 1937; 

(iv) The loan management assistance 

program under section 8 of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937; 

(v) Section 23 of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937 as in effect before 

January 1, 1975; 

(vi) The rent supplement program 

under section 101 of the Housing and 

Urban Development Act of 1965; 

(vii) Section 8 of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937, following 

conversion from assistance under 

Section 101 of the Housing and Urban 

Development Act of 1965; or 

(viii) Section 8 of the U.S. Housing 

Act of 1937 as renewed under section 

524 of MAHRA; 

(3) Have current gross potential rent 

for the project-based assisted units that 

exceeds the gross potential rent for the 

project-based assisted units using 

comparable market rents; 

(4) Have a first mortgage that has not 

previously been restructured under this 

part or under HUD’s Portfolio 

Reengineering demonstration authority 

as defined in § 402.2(c) of this chapter; 

(5) Not be a project that is described 

in section 514(h) of MAHRA; and 

(6) Otherwise meet the definition of 

‘‘eligible multifamily housing project’’ in 

section 512(2) of MAHRA or meet the 

following three criteria: 

(i) The project is assisted pursuant to 

a contract for Section 8 assistance 

renewed under section 524 of MAHRA; 

(ii) It has an owner that consents for 

the project to be treated as eligible; and 

(iii) At the time of its initial renewal 

under section 524, it met the 

requirements of section 512(2)(A), (B), 

and (C) of MAHRA. 

(b) When is eligibility determined? 

Eligibility for a Restructuring Plan 

under paragraph (a) of this section is 

determined by the status of a project on 

the earlier of the termination or 

expiration date of the project-based 

assistance contract, which includes a 

contract renewed under section 524 of 

MAHRA, or the date of the owner’s 

request to HUD for a Restructuring Plan. 

Eligibility is not affected by a 

subsequent change in status, such as 

contract extension under § 401.600 or 

part 402 of this chapter. 

Dated: July 15, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21322 Filed 8–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 2 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0924; FRL–9193–7] 

RIN 2060–AQ04 

Supplemental Proposal to the 

Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Required 

Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2010, EPA 

published a Supplemental Proposal that 

proposed confidentiality determinations 

for certain data elements contained in 

proposed revisions to the Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. In this 

action, EPA is extending the comment 

period for the Supplemental Proposal 

until September 7, 2010. 

DATES: Comments. This document 

extends the comment period for the 

Supplemental Proposal to the Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations for Data 

Required under the Mandatory 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS