On Friday, February 24, the White House published a new executive order titled “ENFORCING THE REGULATORY REFORM AGENDA.” The executive order is meant to create a framework to implement and enforce regulatory reform. The order directs agencies to create regulatory reform task forces to evaluate existing regulations to repeal, replace, or modify.

The executive order has six sections. A brief summary of each section follows.

Section 1 – Sets the policy of the United States to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.”

Section 2 – The head of each agency (except those receiving waivers) must  designate a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) within 60 days of publication of the order. The RRO is to oversee the implementation of the regulatory reform agenda and report to the agency head.

Section 3 – Each agency is instructed to create a regulatory reform task force with an RRO serving to chair each task force, unless another official is designated by the agency head. Entities staffed by multiple agencies are also required to create regulatory reform task forces. The task forces’ objectives are to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to repeal, replace, or modify. They should also seek input from entities affected by the regulation and provide a report to the agency head within 90 days detailing the agency’s progress at implementing the regulatory reform agenda and identifying regulations. At a minimum, the task forces are to identify regulations that fall into the following categories:

1. eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
2. are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
3. impose costs that exceed benefits;
4. create a serious inconsistency or interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
5. rely on data or methods that are not publicly available or lack sufficient transparency; and
6. derive from past executive orders that have been rescinded or substantially modified.

Section 4 – Each agency is required to measure its performance in performing the tasks outlined in the executive order.

Section 5 – The OMB Director may issue a waiver to those agencies that publish few regulations and must publish which agencies receive waivers.

Section 6 – Miscellaneous provisions ensuring that the order does not have unintended adverse effects.

NAHRO commends the administration’s goals to streamline those regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, or impose costs that exceed benefits and looks forward to working with HUD’s regulatory reform task force to achieve these goals.

The full order can be read here.

On February 15, HUD Released Notice PIH-2017-03 “HUD Guidance on Instituting and Enforcing Smoke-Free Public Housing Policies.” The Notice provides regulatory guidance to PHAs regarding the implementation of the “Instituting Smoke-Free Public Housing” (members only) Final Rule, issued in December, 2016. PHAs have 18 months after the effective date of the final rule to implement smoke-free policies. The effective date has currently been pushed back due to the Administration’s regulatory freeze.

The Notice describes required PHA plan and lease amendments, flexibilities afforded to PHAs while creating their smoke-free policy, signage requirements, funding, and designated smoking areas. The Notice further discusses tools that PHAs may use to enforce and monitor their smoke-free policies. These include graduated enforcement approaches, intensified compliance monitoring, lease terminations or transfers, and evictions.

The final rule also requires PHAs to provide reasonable accommodation when needed. Although reasonable accommodation cannot include allowing an individual to smoke in a restricted area, reasonable accommodations can be made if individuals have trouble accessing designated smoking areas. Reasonable accommodations must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Lastly, the Notice encourages PHAs to work closely with residents in the development on the smoke-free policies, and provides resources for best practices, smoking cessation, and PHA and resident training.

The Urban Institute recently released a report titled “Moving to Work and Neighborhood Opportunity” that examines how MTW agencies have been able to use their status to promote mobility for their residents to “opportunity-rich” neighborhoods. These policies include “changes to the tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program or policies that increase the affordable housing supply in opportunity neighborhoods through the project-based voucher (PBV) program.”

The report examines 45 mobility-related initiatives in place, proposed but not implemented, or closed out as of 2015, implemented by the existing 39 MTW agencies. The report specifically looks at four key MTW policy interventions that promote mobility: comprehensive mobility services (including mobility counselling and case management), incentives and supports for landlords, supports for tenants, and project-basing vouchers in “high-opportunity neighborhoods.” The report also examined MTW interventions that limit mobility. The reported notes that PHAs provided the following reasons for limiting mobility, “fairness, administrative burden, avoiding tenant evasion of work requirements, and limiting the amount of housing dollars leaving their jurisdiction.”

The report notes the limitations that come from relying solely on MTW plans and reports to catalog mobility-related efforts, however it justified the need to focus specifically on MTW agencies due to the “policy and funding flexibility that allows them to explore new approaches to providing housing assistance.”

HUD has released their explanation of FY17 Operating Fund obligations for February on HUD’s 2017 Subsidy Processing website. The Department is providing an interim proration of approximately 85 percent for the Operating Fund. This proration may change later in the year to reflect the difference in the amount of the actual eligibility for final approved PHA subsidy requests and the FY17 Appropriation Bill. Congress has yet to pass a FY17 appropriations bill and is currently working off of a Continuing Resolution (C.R.) of FY16 appropriation levels.