Jump to navigation
(a) The provisions regarding familial status in this part do not apply to housing which satisfies the requirements of §§ 100.302, 100.303 or § 100.304.
(b) Nothing in this part limits the applicability of any reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.
This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.
This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].
It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.
§ 3535 - Administrative provisions
§ 4821 - Development of program; consultation; nature of program; safe level of lead; report to Congress
§ 4822 - Requirements for housing receiving Federal assistance
§ 4831 - Use of lead-based paint
§ 4841 - Definitions
§ 4842 - Consultation by Secretary with other departments and agencies
§ 4843 - Authorization of appropriations
§ 4844, 4845 - Repealed. Pub. L. 95–626, title II, § 208(b), Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3588
§ 4846 - State laws superseded, and null and void
Executive Order ... 11063
Title 24 published on 04-Apr-2017 04:06
The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to 24 CFR Part 100 after this date.
On October 5, 2016, HUD published a document in response to a court remand, which was miscategorized and placed in the “proposed rules” section of the Federal Register . See 81 FR 69012 (Oct. 5, 2016). The October 5, 2016, document is neither a proposed rule, nor is it related to a proposed rule. Rather, the October 5, 2016, document responds to a court remand on a final rule by supplementing HUD's responses to certain insurance industry comments that HUD responded to in the preamble to its final rule, entitled “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Standard,” 78 FR 11460 (Feb. 15, 2013). HUD issues this correction to clarify that the published document was related to a final rule and thus should have been categorized and published in the “rules and regulations” section of the Federal Register .
HUD is issuing this document to supplement its responses to certain insurance industry comments to HUD's proposed rule implementing the Fair Housing Act's (“Act”) discriminatory effects standard. These commenters requested, inter alia, total or partial exemptions or safe harbors from liability under the Act's discriminatory effects standard. After careful reconsideration of the insurance industry comments in accordance with the court's decision in Property Casualty Insurers Association of America ( PCIAA ) v. Donovan, HUD has determined that categorical exemptions or safe harbors for insurance practices are unworkable and inconsistent with the broad fair housing objectives and obligations embodied in the Act. HUD continues to believe that the commenters' concerns regarding application of the discriminatory effects standard to insurance practices can and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
This final rule amends HUD's fair housing regulations to formalize standards for use in investigations and adjudications involving allegations of harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. The rule specifies how HUD will evaluate complaints of quid pro quo (“this for that”) harassment and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act. It will also provide for uniform treatment of Fair Housing Act claims raising allegations of quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment in judicial and administrative forums. This rule defines “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment harassment,” as prohibited under the Fair Housing Act, and provides illustrations of discriminatory housing practices that constitute such harassment. In addition, this rule clarifies the operation of traditional principles of direct and vicarious liability in the Fair Housing Act context.
Through this rule, HUD proposes to amend its fair housing regulations to formalize standards for use in investigations and adjudications involving alleged harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status or disability under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed standards would specify how HUD would evaluate complaints of quid pro quo (“this for that”) harassment and hostile environment harassment and provide for uniform treatment of Fair Housing Act claims raising such allegations in the federal courts. This proposed rule defines “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment harassment,” as prohibited under the Fair Housing Act, and adds illustrations of discriminatory housing practices that constitute such harassment. In addition, the proposed rule clarifies the operation of traditional principles of direct and vicarious liability under the Fair Housing Act.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (Fair Housing Act or Act), prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. 1 HUD, which is statutorily charged with the authority and responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the Fair Housing Act and with the power to make rules implementing the Act, has long interpreted the Act to prohibit practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate. The eleven federal courts of appeals that have ruled on this issue agree with this interpretation. While HUD and every federal appellate court to have ruled on the issue have determined that liability under the Act may be established through proof of discriminatory effects, the statute itself does not specify a standard for proving a discriminatory effects violation. As a result, although HUD and courts are in agreement that practices with discriminatory effects may violate the Fair Housing Act, there has been some minor variation in the application of the discriminatory effects standard. 1 This preamble uses the term “disability” to refer to what the Act and its implementing regulations term a “handicap.” Both terms have the same legal meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998). Through this final rule, HUD formalizes its long-held recognition of discriminatory effects liability under the Act and, for purposes of providing consistency nationwide, formalizes a burden-shifting test for determining whether a given practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, leading to liability under the Act. This final rule also adds to, and revises, illustrations of discriminatory housing practices found in HUD's Fair Housing Act regulations. This final rule follows a November 16, 2011, proposed rule and takes into consideration comments received on that proposed rule.