Significant Improvements in Final Average Income Regulation

person A.J. Johnson today 10/14/2022

The IRS released final and temporary regulations on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Average Income Test Regulations on October 7, 2022. The regulation is now in effect.

In general, these substantive final regulations provide significant flexibility with respect to satisfying the average income test, identifying a qualified group of units for use in the average income set-aside test and applicable fraction determinations, and changing the imputed income limitation designations of residential units.

Following is a comprehensive description of the final regulation and the changes it has made from the proposed regulation. I recognize that the rule is complex and lengthy. For that reason, while I am providing this overview of the entire regulation, over the next few weeks I will post individual articles on the most critical individual sections of the regulation. Those articles will include examples to assist owners and managers in implementing the new regulation.

Background

In 2018, Section 42(g)(1)(C) was added to the federal tax code, providing for a third minimum set-aside test option - the average income test. A project meets the requirements of the average income (AI) test if 40% or more of the residential units in the project are both rent-restricted and occupied by tenants whose income does not exceed the imputed income limitation designated by the taxpayer with respect to the specific unit. Unlike the two original minimum set-aside tests (20-50 and 40-60), the AI test requires the property owner to designate each units imputed income limitation for purposes of the AI test. The code requires that the average of the imputed income limitations designated not exceed 60% of AMGI. The possible imputed income limitations are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80.

The 2018 Act also added a new next-available unit rule for the AI test. Under this new rule, a unit ceases to be a low-income unit if two slightly different disqualifying conditions are met:

  1. The income of an occupant of a low-income unit increases above 140% of the greater of (i) 60% of AMGI or, (ii) the imputed income limit designated by the owner for the unit; and
  2. A new occupant whose income exceeds the applicable imputed income limitation occupies any other residential rental unit in the building that is of comparable or smaller size.

If the vacant unit was a low-income unit prior to becoming vacant, the unit must be occupied by a tenant who qualifies under the imputed income limit.

If the vacant unit was a market unit prior to becoming vacant, it must be designated with an income limit that will enable the project to continue to have an average imputed income of no more than 60%.

In October 2020, the Department of Treasury and IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking, with proposed regulations for the AI minimum set-aside test. The IRS received many comments on the proposed rule and in March 2021, the IRS held a public hearing on the proposed rule. Since that time, the IRS has been developing this final regulation.

Review of Critical Elements of the Final Regulation

The Available Unit Rule (AUR)

There is no major change to the AUR, but the language specifies that if a low-income resident has income in excess of 140% of the 60%, 70%, or 80% limit, and the next available unit in the building that is comparable or smaller in size to the over-income unit is a market unit, it must be designated with an income limit such that the average of all imputed income designations of residential units in the project does not exceed 60% of the AMGI.

Also, if multiple units are over-income at the same time, and there is a mix of low-income and market-rate units, the owner need not comply with the AUR in any specific order. Renting any available comparable or a smaller vacant unit in the building to a qualified tenant maintains the low-income status of all over-income units until the next comparable or smaller unit becomes available.

Requirements to Satisfy the AI Test

The proposed regulations would have required taxpayers to complete, not later than the close of the first taxable year of the credit period, the initial designation of imputed income limitations for all of the units taken into account for the average income test.

Under the proposed regulations, the 60 percent of AMGI limit on the average of designated imputed income limitations applied to all of the low-income units in the project. The proposed requirement did not take into account whether fewer than all of those units could constitute a group of at least 40 percent of the residential units in the project such that the average of the limitations of the units in that group averaged to no more than 60 percent of AMGI.

In some cases, this interpretation magnified the adverse consequences of a single unit’s failure to maintain low-income status.  For example, under the proposed regulations, a unit losing low-income status would remove that unit’s imputed income limitation from the computation of the average, but not impact the low-income status of any other units.  If that unit’s limitation was less than 60 percent of AMGI, the loss of the unit could cause the average of the remaining low-income units to rise above 60 percent of AMGI.  That noncompliant average would cause the entire project to fail the average income test and therefore fail to be a qualified low-income housing project.  In light of the potential adverse consequences of the rule, the proposed regulations provided for mitigating actions the taxpayer could take within 60 days of the close of the year for which the average income test might be violated.

In response to the comments on the proposed regulation, and in order to make the AI test comparable to the 20-50 and 40-60 tests in terms of project impact, the final regulation eliminates the "mitigating actions." In the final regulation, the project satisfies the average income test if at least 40 percent of the building’s residential units are eligible to be low-income units and have designated imputed income limitations that collectively average 60 percent or less of AMGI.  A project satisfying this minimum requirement satisfies the average income test.  Thus, the final regulations have been revised so that it is no longer necessary to consider all low-income units in a project for a residential rental property when determining whether the average income test is met.

This change has created a new term that operators of LIHTC projects with the AI test have to become familiar with - "qualified group of units." This means that to qualify as a low-income unit in a project electing the average income test, a residential unit, in addition to meeting the other requirements to be a low-income unit under section 42(i)(3), must be part of a group of units such that the average of the imputed income limitations of the units in the group does not exceed 60 percent of AMGI.  Thus, to provide clarity on the definition of a low-income unit for a project electing the average income test, the final regulations include a definition of a low-income unit that takes into account whether the unit is a member of a group of units with a compliant average limitation.

Accordingly, under the final regulations, a project for residential rental property meets the requirements of the average income test if the taxpayer’s project contains a "qualified group of units" that constitutes 40 percent or more (25 percent or more in the case of a project described in section 142(d)(6)) of the residential units in the project, and the average imputed income of the group does not exceed 60%.

By removing the proposed requirement applicable to all low-income units and thus allowing a project to satisfy the average income test if it contains a qualified group of units meeting the minimum requirements, the final regulations generally avoid the outsized impact that one unit’s loss of low-income status could have under the proposed regulations. In other words, it does away with the "cliff test."

Determining "Qualified Groups of Units" for Purposes of the Applicable Fraction

The applicable fraction is the percentage of a building occupied by qualified low-income households. It is the lesser of the percentage of low-income units or the percentage of low-income residential floor space and is determined on a building-by-building basis. Except for the first year of the credit period (where the applicable fraction is determined on a monthly basis), it is determined as of the last day of the tax year.

Under the final regulations, the determination of a group of units to be taken into account in the applicable fractions for the buildings in a project follows the same approach as determining a group of units to be taken into account for purposes of the set-aside test.  Essentially, a taxpayer can determine this group of units by including the low-income units identified for the average income test, and any other residential units that can qualify as low-income units if they are part of a group of units such that the average of the imputed income limitations of all of the units in the group does not exceed 60 percent of AMGI.  If the average exceeds 60 percent of AMGI, then the group is not a qualified group.

For example, if a unit was designated at 80 percent of AMGI and if including that unit in an otherwise qualified group of units causes the average of the imputed income limitations of the group to exceed 60 percent of AMGI, then the taxpayer cannot include the 80 percent unit in the otherwise qualified group. Only the otherwise qualified group of units, without the 80 percent unit, is a qualified group of units used to determine the project’s buildings’ applicable fractions.

Once a qualified group of units in a project has been identified for a taxable year, the applicable fraction for each building in the project is computed using the units that are in both the qualified group and the building at issue. (Although the qualified group of units for a project must have an average limitation no greater than 60 percent of AMGI, this is not true of the average limitation of the units used to compute the applicable fraction of individual buildings in the project.) This last provision is critical and confirms that while a "project" must meet the 60% average, individual buildings are not required to do so.)

Recordkeeping & Reporting Requirements

The final regulations provide that a taxpayer separately identifies (i) units in the qualified group of units used for satisfying the average income set aside and (ii) units in the qualified group for purposes of the applicable fractions. This information must be provided to the HFA in a manner required by the HFA.

Designation of Imputed Income Limitations and Identification of Units

The final regulations require the initial designation of a unit to be made no later than when a unit is first occupied as a low-income unit. The final regulations revise the timing of the designation so that it is no longer required by the end of the first year of the credit period, and instead is based on when a unit is first occupied as a low-income unit. (Owners and managers should note that this may be before or after the beginning of the first year of the credit period).  The designation must also be communicated annually to the HFA, and the HFA may establish the time and manner in which information is provided to it. This change will allow a taxpayer to make designations after having a chance to evaluate the market for a particular unit.

Importantly, the temporary regulations also provide Agencies with the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to waive in writing any failure to comply with the temporary regulations’ recordkeeping and reporting requirements. See § 1.42-19T(c)(4). The waiver may be done up to 180 days after discovery of the failure, whether by taxpayer or Agency. At the discretion of the applicable Agency, this waiver may treat the relevant requirements as having been satisfied.

Timing of Designations of Income Limitations

The final regulations permit the changing of a unit’s imputed income limitation in certain circumstances. For an unoccupied unit that is subject to a change in imputed income limitation, the final regulations provide that the taxpayer must designate the unit’s changed imputed income limitation prior to occupancy of that unit. For an occupied unit that is subject to a change in imputed income limitation, the taxpayer must designate the unit’s changed imputed income limitation prior to the end of the taxable year in which the change occurs.

Changing a Unit’s Imputed Income Designation

The proposed regulations did not allow income limitations to be changed after they had been designated.

Under the final regulations, a taxpayer may change the imputed income limitation designation of a previously designated low-income unit in any of the following circumstances:

(1) In accordance with any procedures established by the IRS in forms, instructions, or guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin pursuant to §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter.

(2) In accordance with an HFAs publicly available written procedures, if those procedures are available to all of the Agency’s projects that have elected the average income test.

(3) To comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; the Violence Against Women Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; or any other State, Federal, or local law or program that protects tenants and that is identified by the IRS or an Agency in a manner described in (1) or (2) above.  The tenant protections that apply to an average-income project and that redesignation may enhance do not necessarily have any specific connection to section 42.  

For example, the protections may be ones that apply to all multifamily rental housing, or they may apply to the project at issue because some congressionally authorized spending supported the project with Federal financial assistance. Even if tenant protection does not legally apply to a particular average-income project but does apply to analogous multifamily rental housing, the owner of the project may redesignate income limitations to implement the protection for the project’s residents.

(4) To enable a current income-qualified tenant to move to a different unit within a project keeping the same income limitation (and thus the same maximum gross rent), with the newly occupied unit and the vacated unit exchanging income limitations.

(5) To restore the required average income limitation for purposes of identifying a qualified group of units either for purposes of satisfying the average income set aside or for purposes of identifying the units to be used in computing applicable fraction(s). This rule is limited to newly designated, or redesignated, units that are vacant or are occupied by a tenant that would satisfy the new, lower imputed income limitation.

Any new designation of units must be reported to the HFA in a manner required by the HFA.

Applicable Dates

In general, the final regulations apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022. For taxable years prior to the first taxable year to which these regulations apply, taxpayers may rely on a reasonable interpretation of the statute in implementing the average income test for taxable years to which these regulations do not apply. In essence, this indicates that the provisions of this final regulation may be applied to Average Income projects that were operating prior to 2023.

Latest Articles

HUD Publishes 2025 Income Limits

On April 1, 2025, HUD published the 2025 income limits for HUD programs and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond programs. The limits are effective on April 1, 2025. The limits for the LIHTC and Bond projects are published separately from those for HUD programs. For better understanding, LIHTC and Bond properties operate under the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project (MTSP) limits. These properties are 'held harmless' from income limit (and therefore rent) reductions. This means that these properties may use the highest income limits for resident qualification and rent calculation since the project has been in service. However, it's important to note that HUD program income limits are not 'held harmless '. HUD publishes the 50% and 60% MTSP limits alongside the Average Income (AI) limits, which are set at 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. Projects that began service before 2009 may utilize the HERA Special Income Limits in areas where HUD has published such limits. Projects placed in service after 2008 cannot use the HERA Special Limits. Projects in rural areas not financed by tax-exempt bonds can use the higher MTSP limits or the National Non-Metropolitan Income Limits (NNMIL). It is important to note that for 2025, HUD has made changes to the definitions of geographic areas as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The counties or towns within certain metropolitan areas may have changed. Owners and managers should consult the HUD Area Definition Report for a list of their areas and their components. The link to the Area Definition Report can be found on the website provided below. Owners of LIHTC projects may rely on the 2024 income limits for all purposes for 45 days after the effective date of the newly issued limits, which ends on May 16, 2025. The limits for HUD programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html. The limits for LIHTC and Bond programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/mtsp.html.

Effects of Potential Staffing Cuts on HUD Programs

As the Trump administration moves forward with plans to reduce the federal workforce dramatically, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to recent reporting by the Associated Press, could face potential cuts that could eliminate half of its staff approximately 4,000 positions. Widespread Impact Across Essential Services The proposed reductions would affect numerous critical HUD programs, including disaster recovery efforts, rental assistance, housing discrimination investigations, and support for first-time homebuyers. Housing advocates and former HUD officials have raised substantial concerns that these extensive staffing cuts could greatly hinder or even stop the department s ability to carry out its mission. The official HUD position is that this information "should not be considered final. However, the potential extent of these reductions aligns with the administration s broader goal of reducing government spending. Recently appointed HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced the formation of a Department of Government Efficiency task force inspired by billionaire Elon Musk, while also underscoring the identification of "$1.9 billion in misplaced funds and "$260 million in wasteful contracts. Rental Assistance Programs at Risk The proposed cuts most concerning aspect is their potential impact on the Office of Public and Indian Housing, which could lose half its workforce from 1,529 employees to just 765. This office manages rental assistance subsidies for more than 3.5 million households and supports public housing for approximately 1 million people. Georgi Banna, general counsel for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, warns that such reductions could delay payments for the Section 8 voucher program, which provides rental assistance to millions of low-income Americans. Although tenants have certain protections as long as they pay their share of the rent, they could ultimately face displacement if landlords withdraw from the voucher program due to payment issues. Budget Challenges Compound the Problem The potential staffing cuts come at a particularly challenging time as Congress continues to navigate a contentious appropriations process for HUD programs. The House version of the spending bill would boost funding for Housing Choice Vouchers by $115 million, which sounds promising but falls far short of the estimated $4.3 billion increase needed to simply maintain current service levels, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). If the House budget is approved, it will only meet 90% of the need, potentially causing about 283,000 households to lose voucher access what the CBPP has described as the "most severe funding shortfall in the history of the voucher program. The situation has already caused damage, with some voucher-administering agencies halting the distribution of new vouchers. Local housing authorities have been operating on constrained budgets, and many lack robust reserves to weather a potential government shutdown or significant funding cuts. Fair Housing Enforcement Under Threat Perhaps the most alarming aspect is the proposed 77% reduction in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which could shrink its staff from 572 employees to only 134. As HUD s main enforcer of national fair housing laws, this office investigates discrimination complaints and works to ensure equal access to housing. Although Secretary Turner has previously committed to upholding the Fair Housing Act, which includes a statutory mandate for HUD to combat discrimination, the administration s approach to implementing the law may undergo significant changes. Turner recently announced on social media that HUD had canceled $4 million in diversity, equity, and inclusion contracts. Uncertainty for Housing Authorities and Vulnerable Populations Potential staffing cuts and budget uncertainties have come together to create a tumultuous situation for local housing authorities. Housing authorities are finding it difficult to provide clear guidance to both families and landlords while anticipating potentially "draconian consequences if significant cuts or a government shutdown happen. The months ahead may pose unprecedented challenges and uncertainty for millions of Americans relying on HUD programs for stable housing, especially those using Section 8 vouchers. As Congress decides whether to pass a bill keeping the government open, the future of these critical housing programs and the millions of Americans who rely on them hangs in the balance. In conclusion, the proposed staffing cuts at HUD pose a significant threat to the stability and effectiveness of critical housing programs that serve millions of Americans. If carried out, these reductions could disrupt essential services like rental assistance, fair housing enforcement, and disaster recovery putting vulnerable populations at greater risk of housing instability and discrimination. The potential for delayed payments, reduced voucher access, and weakened fair housing protections highlights the profound human impact of these cuts. As Congress deliberates over HUD s budget, the stakes could not be higher for the families, landlords, and housing authorities that rely on these programs for their survival and stability. The coming months will challenge the resilience of HUD s mission and the nation s commitment to providing safe, fair, and affordable housing for all. All those in the affordable housing industry must reach out to their elected representatives to stress the importance of HUD and its programs to the housing needs of America s most vulnerable populations.

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for December Training on Affordable Housing—April 2025

In April 2025, A. J. Johnson will partner with the MidAtlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for four live webinar training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. The following sessions will be presented: April 15: Pets/Pot/Service Animals: Navigating Fair Housing A Comprehensive 90-Minute Webinar for Housing Professionals Join us for an essential training session that tackles three of the most challenging areas in fair housing compliance today. This practical webinar will equip affordable housing providers with clear guidance on: Service and Emotional Support Animals: Learn the crucial legal distinctions between pets and assistance animals, proper verification procedures, and how to handle accommodation requests while complying with FHA regulations. Pet Policy Development: Explore effective strategies for creating and enforcing fair pet policies that address resident needs while considering property management concerns. Medical Marijuana Considerations: Explore the intricate relationship between federal and state laws concerning medical marijuana use in housing, including the requirements for reasonable accommodation. Through case studies, interactive discussions, and expert analysis of recent court decisions, you will gain actionable strategies for confidently addressing these challenging issues. This tool is perfect for property managers, leasing agents, compliance officers, and housing administrators who want to minimize legal risk while creating inclusive communities. April 16: VAWA with Tips on Communicating with Victims - The Violence Against Women (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 expanded VAWA protections to many different affordable housing programs, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. While HUD has provided detailed requirements on VAWA implementation at HUD properties, there has been no uniform guidance for LIHTC owners and managers. A proposal before Congress would legislate that LIHTC Extended Use Agreements contain VAWA requirements. The IRS has not provided guidance, and while many state agencies are requiring VAWA plans, they are not providing information on what the plans should look like. This two-hour training, when combined with the course materials, will review VAWA requirements and recommend best practices for developing VAWA plans at LIHTC and other non-HUD properties. The session will be presented by A. J. Johnson, a recognized expert in the affordable housing field and the author of "A Property Manager s Guide to the Violence Against Women Act. April 24: Preparation for Physical Inspections - Agency inspections of affordable housing properties are required for all affordable housing programs, and failure to meet the required inspection standards can result in significant financial and administrative penalties for property owners. This four-hour training focuses on how owners and managers may prepare for such inspections, with a concentration on HUD NSPIRE inspections and State Housing Finance Agency inspections for the LIHTC program. Specific training areas include (1) a complete discussion of the most serious violations, including health & safety; (2) how vacant units are addressed during inspections; (3) when violations will be reported to the IRS; (4) the 20 most common deficiencies; (5) how to prepare a property for an inspection; (6) strategies for successful inspections; and (7) a review of the most important NSPIRE Standards as they relate to the three inspectable areas [Units/Interior/Exterior]. The training will summarize the HUD Final Rule on NSPIRE with a discussion of (1) the new Self-Inspection Requirement and Reports; (2) Timeline for Deficiency Correction; (3) New Affirmative Requirements; and (4) Tenant Involvement. At the end of the training, attendees will have a blueprint they can use to prepare their properties for agency-required physical inspections, regardless of the program under which they operate. April 29: Understanding and Managing Hoarding in Residential Properties: A Fair Housing Compliance Workshop - In May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) confirmed that Compulsive Hoarding is a mental disability and a protected class. More than 15 million Americans suffer from the mental health problem of hoarding and potential problems from hoarding include noxious odors, pest infestation, mold growth, increased risk of injury or disease, fire hazards and even structural damage. Hoarding is the one class of disability that requires landlords to offer an accommodation even if an accommodation is not requested! This 1.5-hour live webinar is designed to assist multifamily managers in understanding how to deal with hoarding problems in a way that will prevent liability under fair housing law. The session will define hoarding and provide detailed recommendations on how to deal with a hoarding problem. It will outline examples of accommodations for hoarding, how to engage in the "interactive process with residents who hoard, and the steps necessary to remove uncooperative residents. Finally, a recent court case regarding hoarding will be reviewed as an illustration of the potential difficulties managers face in hoarding situations. This is an evolving area of fair housing law, and this webinar will provide the guidance necessary to approach the problem in a systematic way that will give multifamily operators the best chance at avoiding the legal traps that exist when dealing with this unique disability. These sessions are part of the year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA and are designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge to effectively manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs. Persons interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

Impact of Trump Administration's Regulatory Restructuring on HUD and IRS

The Trump administration's recent executive order on federal regulations, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative," signals significant changes for federal agencies. The order has particularly notable implications for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The New Regulatory Framework On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed this executive order as part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what the administration views as bureaucratic overreach. The directive mandates that federal agencies conduct a comprehensive 60-day review of their regulatory frameworks to ensure alignment with both legal requirements and administration policies. The order targets explicitly regulations considered: Unconstitutional Based on improper delegations of legislative power Imposing excessive costs without clear public benefits Harmful to national interests Hindering development across various sectors This order is part of a series of regulatory rollbacks, including directives like "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" and "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," which expand upon the administration's previous deregulatory efforts. Specific Impacts on the IRS The IRS faces several significant challenges under this new directive: Continued Hiring Freeze: The executive order maintains an existing hiring freeze at the IRS, which will remain in effect until the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, determines that lifting it serves the national interest. Increased White House Oversight: IRS regulations will once again be subject to White House review through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), reinstating a policy from Trump's first term that adds another layer of scrutiny to IRS rulemaking. "10-for-1" Deregulation Mandate: The IRS must eliminate ten existing guidance documents for every new rule or guidance it issues, significantly constraining its ability to update tax regulations and provide new guidance. These measures could substantially impact the IRS's capacity to uphold compliance and maintain operational efficiency, potentially affecting tax administration and enforcement nationwide. Implications for HUD For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the executive order brings equally significant changes: Comprehensive Program Review: The order requires a review of hundreds of HUD programs, potentially leading to significant restructuring or budget cuts. Grant Funding Uncertainty: Although a federal court temporarily blocked a separate memo seeking to freeze federal grants, the administration's intent to reassess HUD funding remains evident. "10-for-1" Rule Application: Like the IRS, HUD must adhere to the requirement of eliminating ten existing regulations for every new one proposed, which could significantly impact housing policy implementation and program management. These changes may affect HUD's ability to administer housing assistance programs, enforce fair housing regulations, and support community development initiatives. Legal and Procedural Challenges The administration's deregulatory push faces potential legal obstacles: Agencies seeking to rescind or modify rules must generally follow a new rulemaking process, including issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, collecting public comments, and finalizing the new rule. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements could expose regulatory rollbacks to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making when modifying or rescinding regulations, and courts may overturn agency decisions if this standard is not met. Outlook As the 60-day review period progresses, the IRS and HUD must navigate competing demands: implementing the administration's deregulatory agenda while maintaining their core functions and avoiding legal challenges. The outcome will likely reshape how these agencies operate and could have lasting implications for the United States s tax administration and housing policy. The full impact of these changes will become more evident as agencies determine which regulations to target and how to implement the administration's directives while fulfilling their statutory obligations.

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.