Statutorily Mandated Designation of Difficult Development Areas for Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986-Technical Correction, 3053-3054 [E5-170]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2005 / Notices 3053 The amounts to be awarded under this NOFA to the four PHAs are shown in the table below. SUMMARY TABLE Grant program Total funding Eligible applicants Neighborhood Networks .......................... $947,098 Dated: January 3, 2005. Michael Liu, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. [FR Doc. E5–168 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am] Office of Government Contracting, Suite 8800, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205–8885, fax (202) 205–7167, e-mail hubzone@sba.gov. A text telephone is available for persons with hearing or speech impairments at (202) 708–9300. (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Additional copies of this notice are available through HUD User at (800) 245–2691 for a small fee to cover duplication and mailing costs. Copies Available Electronically: This notice and additional information about Difficult Development Areas and Qualified Census Tracts, including the November 30, 2004, publication are available electronically on the Internet (World Wide Web) at https:// www.huduser.org/datasets/qct.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4210–33–P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR–4889–N–04] Statutorily Mandated Designation of Difficult Development Areas for Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986—Technical Correction Office of the Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On November 30, 2004, HUD published a notice that designated ‘‘Difficult Development Areas’’ for purposes of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42). HUD makes new Difficult Development Area designations annually. This notice published in today’s Federal Register advises of two corrections to the November 30, 2004, publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on how areas are designated and on geographic definitions: Alastair McFarlane, Senior Economist, Economic Development and Public Finance Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410– 6000, telephone (202) 708–0426, e-mail Alastair_McFarlane@hud.gov. For specific legal questions pertaining to Section 42: Branch 5, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, Passthroughs & Special Industries, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, telephone (202) 622–3040, fax (202) 622–4524. For questions about the ‘‘HUB Zones’’ program: Michael P. McHale, Assistant Administrator for Procurement Policy, VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Jan 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 DCHA ...................................................... HACM ...................................................... MHA ......................................................... SMHA ...................................................... Background On November 30, 2004 (69 FR 69730), HUD published a notice in the Federal Register at 69 FR 69730 that designated Difficult Development Areas for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The designations of Difficult Development Areas in the November 30, 2004, notice are based on final fiscal year 2004 Fair Market Rents (FMRs), 2004 very-low income limits (VLILs), and 2000 Census population counts as explained in the November 30, 2004, notice. The November 30, 2004, notice advised that designations of Qualified Census Tracts under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code published December 12, 2002 (67 FR 76451), as supplemented on December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70982), remain in effect. This Notice HUD identified two technical errors in the November 30, 2004, publication, in FR Doc 04–26328, which are corrected by this notice published in today’s edition of the Federal Register. First, the following language was inadvertently included in the ‘‘Explanation of HUD Designation PO 00000 Maximum grant amount Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DCHA—Up to $299,998 HACM—Up to $100,000 Memphis HA—Up to $293,825 SMHA—Up to $253,275 Methodology section,’’ under the heading C. Exceptions to OMB Definitions of MSAs/PMSAs and Other Geographic Matters (See 69 FR 69732 at end of first column continuing to second column.): Certain nonmetropolitan county equivalent areas in Alaska for which FMRs and VLILs are calculated and thus form the basis of Difficult Development Area determinations are no longer recognized as geographic entities by the Bureau of the Census. Therefore, no 2000 Census population counts are produced for these areas. HUD estimated the 2000 population of these areas as follows: 1. The 2000 Population of Denali Borough (1,893) was allocated entirely to the YukonKoyukuk Census Area. The part of Denali Borough created from the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area was deemed uninhabited after examination of Census Block data for, and maps of, the area of Denali Borough formerly in the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area. 2. The population of Yakutat City and Borough (808) was allocated to the former Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area (680) and the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (128). The populations of Yakutat City and Borough Census Blocks located east of 141° west longitude were allocated to the SkagwayYakutat-Angoon Census Area. The populations of Yakutat City and Borough Census Blocks located west of 141° west longitude were allocated to the ValdezCordova Census Area. The above language was in error because in fact, HUD computed and published FY2004 Fair Market Rents and Very-Low Income Limits for all of the nonmetropolitan county equivalent areas in Alaska as demarcated in the 2000 Census. HUD used the FY2004 Fair Market Rents and Very-Low Income Limits to designate the 2005 Difficult Development Areas. Therefore, HUD did not use the above population allocation procedure in the designation of the 2005 Difficult Development Areas. Second, in the table enumerating the 2005 Metropolitan Difficult Development Areas, the name of one of the towns in the Massachusetts part of the Boston, MA-NH PMSA did not appear due to a formatting error. The list of cities and towns in the Massachusetts part of the Boston, MA-NH PMSA E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 3054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2005 / Notices should also include ‘‘Manchester-bythe-Sea town.’’ (See 69 FR 69735.) Dated: January 7, 2005. Dennis C. Shea, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. [FR Doc. E5–170 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–27–P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR–4743–N–07] Notice of Planned Closing of Memphis, TN Post-of-Duty Station Office of Inspector General, (HUD). ACTION: Notice of planned closing of the Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station. AGENCY: This notice advises the public that HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) plans to close its Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station, and also provides a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of this closure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Saddler, Counsel to the Inspector General, Room 8260, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410–4500, 202–708–1613 (this is not a toll free number). A telecommunications device for hearingand speech—impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1–800–877–8339 (Federal Information Relay Services). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station was opened in the middle 1980s to address fraud throughout the State of Tennessee. Later, the Nashville, Tennessee office—which is centrally located, and, thus, better situated geographically to address fraud statewide—was opened. In September 2004, one of the two agents assigned to Memphis was promoted and transferred to Texas. HUD/OIG has determined that greater efficiency and cost-savings can be achieved by now consolidating staff and resources in the centrally located Nashville office. Section 7(p) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(p)) provides that a plan for field reorganization, which may involve the closing of any field or regional office, of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may not take effect until 90 days after a costbenefit analysis of the effect of the plan on the office in question is published in the Federal Register. The required costbenefit analysis should include: (1) An SUMMARY: VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Jan 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 estimate of cost savings anticipated; (2) an estimate of the additional cost which will result from the reorganization; (3) a discussion of the impact on the local economy; and (4) an estimate of the effect of the reorganization on the availability, accessibility, and quality of services provided for recipients of those services. Legislative history pertaining to section 7(p) indicates that not all reorganizations are subject to the requirements of section 7(p). Congress stated that ‘‘[t]his amendment is not intended to [apply] to or restrict the internal operations or organization of the Department (such as the establishment of new or combination of existing organization units within a field office, the duty stationing of employees in various locations to provide on-site service, or the establishment or closing, based on workload, of small, informal offices such as valuation stations).’’ (See House Conference Report No. 95–1792, October 14, 1978 at 58.) Through this notice, HUD/OIG advises the public of the closing of the Memphis, Tennessee duty station and provides the cost benefit analysis of the impact of the closure. Impact Of The Closure Of The Memphis, Tennessee, Post-Of-Duty Station: HUD/OIG considered the costs and benefits of closing the Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station, and is publishing its cost-benefit analysis with this notice. In summary, HUD/OIG has determined that the closure will result in a cost savings, and, as a result of the size and limited function of the office, will cause no appreciable impact on the provision of authorized investigative services/activities in the area. Cost-Benefit Analysis A. Cost Savings: The Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station currently costs approximately $2,645.00 per month for space rental. Additional associated overhead expenses (e.g., telephone service) are incurred to operate the post-of-duty station. Thus, closing the office will result in annual savings of at least $32,000. In addition, by closing the office HUD/OIG will not be required to incur additional costs associated with current plans to install high-speed computer access lines to and on the premises. B. Additional Costs: Relocation costs associated with the transfer of one special agent to Nashville from Memphis, Tennessee is estimated to total no more than $25,000. This cost will be offset by savings in the first year. C. Impact on Local Economy: No appreciable impact on the local PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 economy is anticipated. The post-ofduty station is co-located with office space leased by other Federal agencies, and it is anticipated that the space can easily be re-leased to other tenants. D. Effect on Availability, Accessibility and Quality of Services Provided to Recipients of Those Services: The availability, accessibility and quality of services provided to complainants will not be adversely impacted. Special agents assigned to other HUD/OIG offices—chiefly Nashville—can costeffectively address fraud allegations in Tennessee generally and Memphis specifically. For the reasons stated in this notice, HUD/OIG intends to proceed to close its Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station at the expiration of the 90-day period from the date of publication of this notice. Dated: January 6, 2005. Kenneth M. Donohue, Sr., Inspector General. [FR Doc. E5–169 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–27–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Osage Tribe—Sale and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice publishes the Osage Tribe’s Liquor Control Ordinance. The Ordinance regulates and controls the possession, sale and consumption of liquor within the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country. The land is located on trust land and this Ordinance allows for the possession and sale of alcoholic beverages within the Osage Tribe’s Reservation and Osage Indian Country and will increase the ability of the tribal government to control the tribe’s liquor distribution and possession, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal services. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Act is effective on January 19, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Ketcher, Regional Tribal Government Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, PO Box 8002, Muskogee, OK 74402–8002, Phone 918–781–4685, Fax 918–781–4649; or Ralph Gonzales, Office of Tribal Services, 1951 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3053-3054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-170]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4889-N-04]


Statutorily Mandated Designation of Difficult Development Areas 
for Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--Technical 
Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary for Policy Development and Research, 
HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 30, 2004, HUD published a notice that designated 
``Difficult Development Areas'' for purposes of the Low-Income Housing 
Tax Credit (LIHTC) under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (26 U.S.C. 42). HUD makes new Difficult Development Area 
designations annually. This notice published in today's Federal 
Register advises of two corrections to the November 30, 2004, 
publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on how areas are 
designated and on geographic definitions: Alastair McFarlane, Senior 
Economist, Economic Development and Public Finance Division, Office of 
Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-6000, 
telephone (202) 708-0426, e-mail Alastair--McFarlane@hud.gov. For 
specific legal questions pertaining to Section 42: Branch 5, Office of 
the Associate Chief Counsel, Passthroughs & Special Industries, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224, telephone (202) 622-3040, fax (202) 622-4524. For questions 
about the ``HUB Zones'' program: Michael P. McHale, Assistant 
Administrator for Procurement Policy, Office of Government Contracting, 
Suite 8800, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-8885, fax (202) 205-7167, e-
mail hubzone@sba.gov. A text telephone is available for persons with 
hearing or speech impairments at (202) 708-9300. (These are not toll-
free telephone numbers.) Additional copies of this notice are available 
through HUD User at (800) 245-2691 for a small fee to cover duplication 
and mailing costs.
    Copies Available Electronically: This notice and additional 
information about Difficult Development Areas and Qualified Census 
Tracts, including the November 30, 2004, publication are available 
electronically on the Internet (World Wide Web) at https://
www.huduser.org/datasets/qct.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 30, 2004 (69 FR 69730), HUD published a notice in the 
Federal Register at 69 FR 69730 that designated Difficult Development 
Areas for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. The designations of Difficult Development Areas in the 
November 30, 2004, notice are based on final fiscal year 2004 Fair 
Market Rents (FMRs), 2004 very-low income limits (VLILs), and 2000 
Census population counts as explained in the November 30, 2004, notice. 
The November 30, 2004, notice advised that designations of Qualified 
Census Tracts under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code published 
December 12, 2002 (67 FR 76451), as supplemented on December 19, 2003 
(68 FR 70982), remain in effect.

This Notice

    HUD identified two technical errors in the November 30, 2004, 
publication, in FR Doc 04-26328, which are corrected by this notice 
published in today's edition of the Federal Register.
    First, the following language was inadvertently included in the 
``Explanation of HUD Designation Methodology section,'' under the 
heading C. Exceptions to OMB Definitions of MSAs/PMSAs and Other 
Geographic Matters (See 69 FR 69732 at end of first column continuing 
to second column.):

    Certain nonmetropolitan county equivalent areas in Alaska for 
which FMRs and VLILs are calculated and thus form the basis of 
Difficult Development Area determinations are no longer recognized 
as geographic entities by the Bureau of the Census. Therefore, no 
2000 Census population counts are produced for these areas. HUD 
estimated the 2000 population of these areas as follows:
    1. The 2000 Population of Denali Borough (1,893) was allocated 
entirely to the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area. The part of Denali 
Borough created from the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area was deemed 
uninhabited after examination of Census Block data for, and maps of, 
the area of Denali Borough formerly in the Southeast Fairbanks 
Census Area.
    2. The population of Yakutat City and Borough (808) was 
allocated to the former Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area (680) and 
the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (128). The populations of Yakutat 
City and Borough Census Blocks located east of 141[deg] west 
longitude were allocated to the Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area. 
The populations of Yakutat City and Borough Census Blocks located 
west of 141[deg] west longitude were allocated to the Valdez-Cordova 
Census Area.

    The above language was in error because in fact, HUD computed and 
published FY2004 Fair Market Rents and Very-Low Income Limits for all 
of the nonmetropolitan county equivalent areas in Alaska as demarcated 
in the 2000 Census. HUD used the FY2004 Fair Market Rents and Very-Low 
Income Limits to designate the 2005 Difficult Development Areas. 
Therefore, HUD did not use the above population allocation procedure in 
the designation of the 2005 Difficult Development Areas.
    Second, in the table enumerating the 2005 Metropolitan Difficult 
Development Areas, the name of one of the towns in the Massachusetts 
part of the Boston, MA-NH PMSA did not appear due to a formatting 
error. The list of cities and towns in the Massachusetts part of the 
Boston, MA-NH PMSA

[[Page 3054]]

should also include ``Manchester-by-the-Sea town.'' (See 69 FR 69735.)

    Dated: January 7, 2005.
Dennis C. Shea,
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
 [FR Doc. E5-170 Filed 1-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.