June 1, 2016

WEEKLY NOTICES OF STATE RULE-MAKING
Public Input for Proposed and Adopted Rules

Notices are published each Wednesday to alert the public regarding state agency rule-making. You may obtain a copy of any rule by notifying the agency contact person. You may also comment on the rule, and/or attend the public hearing. If no hearing is scheduled, you may request one -- the agency may then schedule a hearing, and must do so if 5 or more persons request it. If you are disabled or need special services to attend a hearing, please notify the agency contact person at least 7 days prior to it. Petitions: you can petition an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal any rule; the agency must provide you with petition forms, and must respond to your petition within 60 days. The agency must enter rule-making if the petition is signed by 150 or more registered voters, and may begin rule-making if there are fewer. You can also petition the Legislature to review a rule; the Executive Director of the Legislative Council (115 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, phone 207/287-1615) will provide you with the necessary petition forms. The appropriate legislative committee will review a rule upon receipt of a petition from 100 or more registered voters, or from "...any person who may be directly, substantially and adversely affected by the application of a rule..." (Title 5 Section 11112). World-Wide Web: Copies of the weekly notices and the full texts of adopted rule chapters may be found on the internet at: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules. There is also a list of rule-making liaisons, who are single points of contact for each agency.

PROPOSALS

AGENCY: 01-015 – Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF), Maine Milk Commission (MMC)
CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: Ch. 3, Schedule of Minimum Prices, Order #07-16
PROPOSED RULE NUMBER: 2016-P064
BRIEF SUMMARY: The principal reason for this rule is the need to respond to Federal Order changes and to certain other conditions affecting prevailing Class I, II and III milk prices in Southern New England in accordance with 7 MRSA  §2954
PUBLIC HEARING: June 23, 2016, Thursday, starting at 10:30 a.m., Room 329, Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry, Marquardt Building, Hospital Street, Augusta, Maine
COMMENT DEADLINE: June 23, 2016
CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS FILING / SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION / MLC RULE-MAKING LIAISON: Tim Drake, Maine Milk Commission, 28 State House Station, Augusta ME 04333. Telephone: (207) 287-7521. E-mail: Tim.Drake@Maine.gov .
FINANCIAL IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES OR COUNTIES: None
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THIS RULE: 5 MRSA  §8054, 7 MRSA  §2954
SUBSTANTIVE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED (if different):
MMC WEBSITE: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/milkcommission/index.shtml .
DACF RULE-MAKING LIAISON: Mari.Wells@Maine.gov .

AGENCY: 99-346 - Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA)
CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: Ch. 16, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Rule
PROPOSED RULE NUMBER: 2016-P065
BRIEF SUMMARY: Maine State Housing Authority, as the housing credit agency for the State of Maine, is required to adopt a qualified allocation plan for allocating and administering federal low-income housing tax credits (sometimes referred to as housing credits), including without limitation the state’s housing credit ceiling established pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Ch. 16 of Maine State Housing Authority’s rules is the State’s qualified allocation plan. The proposed rule will repeal and replace the current Ch. 16 and will be the State’s qualified allocation plan for allocating and administering federal low-income housing tax credits, including the State’s housing credit ceiling for calendar year 2017.
DETAILED BASIS STATEMENT / SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Code”) and the Maine Housing Authorities Act require Maine State Housing Authority (“MaineHousing”), as the designated housing credit agency for the State of Maine, to adopt a qualified allocation plan for allocating and administering federal low income housing tax credits (“Credit”), including without limitation the state ceiling of federal low-income housing tax credits allocated to the State of Maine annually (the “State Ceiling”).
      Ch. 16 of MaineHousing’s rules, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Rule, is the State’s qualified allocation plan for allocating and administering the Credit. This rule, sometimes referred to herein as the plan, repeals and replaces in its entirety the prior Ch. 16, referred to herein as the prior plan. This rule provides for a one-year qualified allocation plan and includes the scoring criteria for the 2017 State Ceiling. The differences between this plan and the prior plan are set forth below.
      Cost containment continues to be a priority under this plan. The cost containment selection criteria, including the total development cost (TDC) caps, benchmarks and scoring criteria, in this plan are the same as the prior plan with the following modifications.
a. The term “family housing” as used in the criteria is defined as housing that is eligible for points under the family housing scoring criteria to clarify what MaineHousing intended when it established the TDC criteria for family housing. Housing that is eligible for points under the family housing scoring criteria is housing with at least 70% affordable two or more bedroom units or housing with at least 50% affordable two or more bedroom units of which at least 20% are affordable three or more bedroom units. The TDC caps and benchmarks for family housing are based on historical data for typical family housing with two and three-bedroom units. The prior plan did not define family housing and some developers are developing so-called family housing with mostly one-bedroom units and efficiencies to maximize their score under the TDC scoring criteria. Similarly, MaineHousing has added minimum room sizes to ensure that developers do not create unreasonably small units and rooms to maximize their score under the TDC scoring criteria.
b. The plan also clarifies that all costs of developing and completing the housing, even costs that are funded outside of the development budget, will be included in the calculation of total development cost for purposes of the TDC caps and scoring criteria. Developers may not reduce the total development costs of a project by funding normal and customary project costs outside of a project’s development budget for the purpose of avoiding re-scoring under the TDC scoring criteria when costs increase after application.
c. The definition of total development cost (TDC) is modified to exclude certain costs that were previously included. TDC will exclude any developer fee that exceeds the net developer fee and is loaned as a source of funding for the project. TDC will also exclude MaineHousing’s tax credit fees and the operating deficit reserve to the extent required by MaineHousing. These fees and the operating deficit reserve are necessary to cover MaineHousing’s cost of administering the tax credits and to protect MaineHousing’s security interest in projects, but they increase project costs and are not directly related to designing and completing projects.
      The following changes have been made to the pre-application, application and award processes in an effort to improve the quality of the applications and to ensure more efficient and timely delivery of projects that are awarded tax credits.
a. The scope of the pre-application review, which previously focused on the suitability of a project for housing, is expanded to include the feasibility and eligibility of the proposed project for tax credits. More information and documentation will be required with the pre-application, such as development and operating budgets, construction estimates, site plans and floor plans, land use and zoning conditions, parking arrangements, known environmental conditions, project amenities, any community service facilities, any commercial space, any related developments and other unique features of the project. Applicants will also be required to submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and if the project involves the rehabilitation of an existing building, lead-based paint and asbestos reports, with the application or earlier, if available at the time of the pre-application review, to identify environmental conditions, which can add substantial costs to the development budget. These changes to the pre-application and application processes will allow MaineHousing to identify and address potential issues with projects before the tax credits are awarded. Issues that arise during the development phase of a project awarded credit cause delays and can be costly for an applicant. The period of time for completing the pre-application review has been increased and the application deadline is later than under the prior plan to reflect that reviewing the eligibility and feasibility of a proposed project has shifted from the application to the pre-application review phase.
b. The plan includes new limits on the number of applications for the 2017 State Ceiling that may be submitted by any one developer. Each developer is limited to two applications for the 2017 State Ceiling and a developer with more than four tax credit projects that have been awarded tax credits under the State Ceiling and are not completed may not submit an application for the 2017 State Ceiling. These limits are intended to discourage the submission of applications that are not ready or are not likely to score well and to foster more timely development and completion of projects that are awarded tax credits. MaineHousing receives three times the number of applications that are awarded tax credits under the State Ceiling. Some developers submit more than one application, sometimes as many as three or four applications in a single round, and may be awarded tax credits for more than one of the applications submitted. There have been significant delays in the development and completion of projects by developers with multiple projects in development or under construction. Requiring developers to complete projects in development or under construction before applying for more projects should result in more timely production of projects that are awarded tax credits.
c. Applicants that are selected to receive an award of credit must meet with MaineHousing to discuss their score, any issues and special requirements identified during the pre-application review and selection process, and an acceptable timeline for developing and completing their projects before MaineHousing will issue a notice to proceed. MaineHousing will terminate an award if an applicant fails to meet the requirements in the notice to proceed or to diligently develop the applicant’s project in a timely manner. Note: MaineHousing intends to add scoring criteria in the next qualified allocation plan that penalizes developers for missing any deadline set forth in any notice to proceed issued for tax credits subject to this plan, including without limitation tax credits awarded under the 2017 State Ceiling.
      Changes to certain scoring criteria in this plan are the result of recent developments in fair housing compliance. HUD has increased its fair housing enforcement efforts, including without limitation, issuing new regulations concerning the obligation of recipients of federal funding to affirmatively further fair housing and disparate impact discrimination. The obligation to affirmatively further fair housing applies to all of MaineHousing’s programs and activities, including the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Additionally, there are a growing number of lawsuits filed by fair housing advocates against housing agencies with programs that produce most affordable family housing in racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (usually qualified census tracts with substandard schools, inadequate employment opportunities, and unsafe and unhealthy conditions such as environmental hazards and high crime) and not enough (and in some cases no) affordable family housing in predominantly white, high-income neighborhoods. These practices make it more difficult for minorities to find affordable housing in areas with better opportunities for education, employment, transportation and other services. In a case filed against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, the tax credit allocating agency for the State of Texas, the United States Supreme Court in 2015, upheld the decisions in the lower courts that disparate impact discrimination is a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Disparate impact discrimination is a policy or practice that, even though it may appear to be neutral and there is no intent to discriminate, has an adverse disproportionate effect on members of a protected class. To satisfy the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid claims of disparate impact discrimination, agencies must take “meaningful actions” to overcome segregation and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination and barriers that restrict access to opportunities, specifically actions that reduce segregation, promote integrated communities and fair housing choice, increase access to opportunities, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and foster compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. In other words, agencies must develop policies and programs that address these fair housing issues in their communities. MaineHousing recently conducted a fair housing assessment and made the following changes to certain criteria based on the assessment.
a. The points for family housing with two and three or more bedroom units in the family housing scoring criteria is increased to address the lack of affordable multifamily rental housing in the State where needed. The City of Portland and other communities have recently expressed the need for family housing with more bedrooms, including three-bedroom units. Family housing is more difficult to develop, particularly housing with three or more bedrooms and particularly in higher-income areas, because of community resistance and increased costs. Increasing the weight of the family housing with three or more bedroom units scoring criteria, together with the new definition for family housing under the TDC selection criteria, is necessary to overcome these challenges and to increase fair housing choice and access to higher opportunities for families.
b. The accessibility scoring criteria is modified to incent the development of up to five more accessible units in a project than is required by applicable state and federal laws to address the lack of available accessible housing in the State. There is a growing need for accessible housing, particularly as the State’s senior population continues to increase significantly. It is less expensive to create an accessible unit in the construction or rehabilitation of a project than it is to retrofit a unit to make it accessible in response to a reasonable modification request.
c. The former economic diversity scoring criteria and the community revitalization plan scoring criteria is modified (i) to promote the development of housing in census tracts where there are likely to be higher opportunities, such as better education, employment opportunities and community services and less crime, because of higher average incomes and (ii) to encourage the development of new housing in qualified census tracts only if it is part of a community revitalization plan and is mixed-income in an effort to transform areas of concentrated poverty into areas of new opportunity.
d. The plan maintains the smart growth criteria and service center community needs scoring criteria from the prior plan, which promote the development of housing in areas with access to community assets and opportunities, such as public transportation, employment, education, health care and services. The only change to the smart growth criteria is to expand the allowable distance to a downtown to one mile based on input that one mile is considered walkable in terms of living near a downtown and finding available sites in or near downtown has become extremely difficult. The service center community needs rankings have been updated with the latest data. Changes in the needs rankings reflect population shifts and new affordable housing production since the last plan was adopted.
      The only set-asides of the State Ceiling under this plan are the non-profit set-aside and a set-aside for the preservation of existing affordable housing. The other set-asides under the prior plan have been eliminated. The Lewiston Replacement Housing set-aside is no longer needed because the housing contemplated by the set-aside is currently under construction. The Housing for Homeless set-aside has been eliminated because of the lack of sufficient service funding and project-based rental assistance necessary for the success of this type of housing. The plan maintains the minimum non-profit set-aside required by Section 42 of the Code, but gives MaineHousing the right to award credit under the set-aside to an applicant who could qualify for the non-profit set-aside, even if the applicant does not seek to participate in the set-aside, to ensure that the set-aside is awarded to the highest scoring eligible application. This plan also maintains the $300,000 set-aside for the preservation of one existing affordable housing project and continues to restrict projects that involve the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, other than housing with 20 or more new units, to the preservation set-aside. The minimum rehabilitation amount for preservation projects and all other projects involving the acquisition and rehabilitation of housing is increased to $60,000. Limiting existing affordable housing to the preservation set-aside and requiring a minimum amount of rehabilitation maximize the use of the State Ceiling for the creation of new affordable housing and for the rehabilitation of existing housing that is most at risk. The credit rate for construction and rehabilitation of housing is 9%, but only 4% for acquisition, so using the State Ceiling for acquisition, particularly in related-party transactions, is a less efficient use of the State Ceiling. Many projects involving the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing can be funded with 4% “automatic” tax credits generated from tax-exempt bond financing from the State’s bond cap. However, not all existing affordable housing can be preserved with tax-exempt bond financing and automatic tax credits, including most existing Rural Development housing. The preservation set-aside makes a limited amount of the State ceiling available for these projects to ensure the most efficient use of the State ceiling.
      The prior plan included significant changes to the sponsor characteristics scoring category, including new capacity and performance criteria that are intended to penalize poor performance by developers and management companies with tax credit experience without discouraging new participants in the tax credit program. The criteria in this plan build on the criteria added to the prior plan as follows.
a. The criteria added to the prior plan to encourage participation by developers who are new to the tax credit program but have successfully developed other multifamily housing and hire an experienced tax credit consultant is expanded to include new developers who have successfully managed other affordable multifamily housing and hire an experienced tax credit consultant.
b. Similar to the changes made to the developer capacity selection criteria in the last plan, the management capacity scoring criteria has been modified to recognize successful management companies with experience, but to also encourage participation by new management companies that can demonstrate capacity by hiring staff with tax credit experience to work with staff, who may not have experience, but have recent tax credit training.
c. The positive points under the tax credit noncompliance scoring criteria have been converted to negative points in this plan to penalize poor performance by applicants with tax credit experience without discouraging new participants in the tax credit program. Also, developers must correct any outstanding tax credit violations in their other tax credit projects in order to qualify for more tax credits under this plan.
d. This plan includes tougher penalties for repeated poor performance. In the prior plan, an applicant was penalized one point for one or more tax credit projects with an unfunded operating deficit in the last fiscal year. This plan increases that penalty to one point for each tax credit project with an unfunded operating deficit in the last fiscal year. The prior plan penalized an applicant one point for using a management company that failed to meet any reporting deadlines in the prior year. This plan increases the penalty up to 3 points based on the number of late reports.
e. New performance criteria will replace the mechanism in the prior plan for addressing increases in project development budgets after application that affect scoring under the TDC scoring criteria. The new criteria penalize developers in future rounds for any budget increase during the development and construction of a project that results in a lower score under the TDC scoring criteria if that lower score is not offset by additional points under the below market capital scoring criteria. The penalties apply to budget increases at the time of construction loan closing and at the time of construction completion, and there is a penalty even if the lower score is still higher than the score of the first application on the waiting list. Under the prior plan, a developer would lose its tax credit award if rescoring resulted in a lower score than the score of the first application on the waiting list, but there was no penalty if the developer maintained a higher score than the first application on the waiting list. The purpose of the new criteria is (i) to discourage developers from submitting artificially low budgets to maximize their score under the TDC scoring criteria, (ii) to minimize development delays caused by budget increases that may have resulted in a loss of tax credits under the prior plan, and (iii) to discourage developers from adding projects costs after selection if they can maintain a higher score than the score of the first application on the waiting list. Under this plan, if there is any net reduction in an application’s score resulting from budget increases at the time of construction loan closing or upon project completion, all of the developer’s applications in the next tax credit round in which the developer competes will be penalized 5 points. If rescoring results in a lower score than the score of the first application on the waiting list (i.e. the developer would not have been awarded tax credits based on the lower score during the selection process), then the developer will not be able to compete in the next tax credit round and all of the developer’s applications in the following round in which the developer competes will be penalized 5 points.
      Applicants can earn up to 6 points under the sponsor characteristics scoring category, but can potentially lose far more than 6 points if they are poor performers or hire tax credit developers or management companies that are poor performers in MaineHousing’s rental housing portfolio.
      Changes were made to the below market capital criteria and the former operating subsidy scoring criteria with respect to the treatment of tax increment financing and other property tax relief. Prior plans have made a distinction between tax increment financing that can be used for project capital costs and tax increment financing that can be used for project operating costs, the former being eligible for points under the below market capital scoring criteria and the latter being eligible under an operating subsidy scoring criteria. This plan eliminates this distinction by removing capital generated from tax increment financing as an eligible source of capital under the below market capital scoring criteria and making all tax increment financing, regardless of its use, eligible under a new property tax relief scoring criteria that replaces the former operating subsidy scoring criteria. Tax increment financing used for capital costs is not really below market capital; it is property tax relief that allows a project to borrow additional capital. Tax increment financing (TIF) loans typically do not have a below market interest rate, and recognizing tax increment financing as below market capital has discouraged developers from borrowing TIF loans from MaineHousing because any source of funding from MaineHousing is not eligible under the below market capital scoring criteria. The points under the new property tax relief scoring criteria are awarded on a scale based on the percentage of the annual incremental property tax revenue that will be returned to the owner or foregone by the municipality and the number of years the owner receives the property tax relief, with a minimum threshold of 50% of the annual incremental property tax revenue that is returned or foregone for 15 years and a maximum of 6 points for more than 75% of the annual incremental property tax revenue returned or foregone for 30 or more years. The prior plan excluded projects that are categorically exempt from taxes, such as projects located on tribal land or federal land, from eligibility under the former operating subsidy scoring criteria. This exclusion has been eliminated, but these projects will be limited to 3 points under the new property tax relief scoring criteria to provide a reasonable balance between the value of the tax exemption for the project and the amount of effort that is necessary to negotiate property tax relief in areas subject to property taxes.
      The plan includes other changes to the below market funding capital scoring criteria and a new developer fee contribution scoring criteria. Net developer fee that is deferred or loaned has been moved from the below market capital scoring criteria to a new category that also recognizes the benefit of not collecting the full amount of the allowable net developer fee to reduce a project’s total development cost. One point will be awarded if 25% or more of the maximum allowable net developer fee is deferred, loaned or foregone by the developer for the benefit of the project. Any additional developer fee that exceeds the net developer fee, which must be deferred or loaned for the benefit of the project under the plan, is not eligible for points under the new criteria and continues to be excluded from the below market capital scoring criteria. Also, below market capital that has been applied for is no longer eligible under the below market capital scoring criteria. Funding that has been applied for but not awarded usually isn’t sufficient to qualify for points because it is only valued at 10% of its net present value, but when it is significant enough to qualify for points and is not awarded, then replacing the funding causes delays and can result in the withdrawal of an application if the funding cannot be replaced. This change encourages developers to have all funding in place to mitigate development delays due to funding gaps.
       The plan includes certain other new selection criteria. First, all projects must have a telemedicine room equipped with certain features and wireless service appropriate for offering tenants the opportunity to access telemedicine services from qualified medical providers at the project. The plan also contains two new one-point scoring criteria to give MaineHousing flexibility to award certain funding, that is not currently available, to successful projects that MaineHousing determines are suitable for the funding, if and when it is available. One of the new scoring criteria builds on the populations with special needs scoring criteria carried over from the prior plan to this plan. Applicants that agree to give a 20% preference for populations with special needs will be given an extra point if they agree to accept service-enriched project-based vouchers under HUD’s Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program and convert the preference to a set-aside with respect to the units with vouchers. The other new scoring criteria awards one point to applicants who agree to accept funding under the National Housing Trust Fund, which requires deeper income targeting to persons with income at or below 30% of area median income, if funding becomes available and the project is selected by MaineHousing to receive the funding. Not all applicants who are awarded points under these new criteria will receive the funding contemplated in the criteria. If and when the funding becomes available, MaineHousing, in its sole discretion, will determine which projects among those who were awarded points under the criteria will receive an award of funding and the amount of the award.
      Other changes and clarifications to requirements and selection criteria from the prior plan include (1) increasing the pre-application fee, application fee (to which the pre-application fee is applied when an application is submitted) and tax credit allocation fees to cover costs of administering the program which have historically been subsidized by other sources that have been diminishing over time, including income from taxable bond debt made available for tax credit projects; (2) reducing the maximum percentage of the annual State ceiling that can be awarded to any one application from 30% to 25% to ensure at least four projects are awarded tax credits under the 2017 State Ceiling; (3) the maximum net developer fee allowed under the plan is capped at $750,000; (4) applying the project-based rental assistance scoring criteria to low-income units rather than all units in the project and establishing a minimum number of assisted units (not less than 4 units) that is required to qualify for points under the criteria to discourage developers from pledging one or two units of project-based rental assistance; (5) clarifying the resident service coordination requirement to reflect the current practice of requiring one hour for every five low-income units in the project and being more flexible about the number of days the resident service coordinator should be on site based on the needs of the tenant population; (6) defining the term “affordable housing” to clarify what is intended when the term is used throughout the selection criteria; (7) requiring the entity that will be the owner of the project to be legally formed at the time of application to avoid assignment of site control documents and funding commitments during the development; there is little cost associated with forming the owner and most applicants have been doing it before application; (8) requiring projects to comply with the applicable requirements of the Violence Against Women Act which was expanded to cover the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program; (9) updating the housing priorities under the plan to reflect the priorities in the current consolidated plan; (10) clarifying that projects involving the gut rehabilitation of existing housing that has become functionally obsolete will be treated as adaptive reuse for purposes of the TDC cap, benchmark and scoring criteria; (11) clarifying that any land financed under any MaineHousing program, such as the Land Acquisition Program, and donated or transferred to an applicant for less than fair market value will not be eligible for points under the acquisition cost scoring criteria; and (12) other minor changes, clarifications, grammatical changes and formatting improvements.
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. at Maine State Housing Authority, State House Station #89, 353 Water Street, Augusta, Maine, 04330-4633. Maine State Housing Authority’s office and the hearing room are accessible to persons with disabilities and, upon sufficient notice, appropriate communication auxiliary aids and services will be provided to persons with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency.
COMMENT DEADLINE: Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS FILING / SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION: Jodie Stevens, Counsel, Maine State Housing Authority, State House Station #89, 353 Water Street, Augusta, Maine, 04330-4633. Telephone: (207) 626-4600. Maine Relay 711. Email: JStevens@MaineHousing.org .
Upon sufficient notice, this notice and the proposed rule will be made available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities and in alternative languages for persons with limited English proficiency.
IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES OR COUNTIES: None
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THIS RULE: 30-A MRSA  §4741(1), 30-A MRSA  §4741(14) and Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
SUBSTANTIVE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED: Same as above
WEBSITE: www.mainehousing.org
MSHA RULE-MAKING LIAISON: LUhl@MaineHousing.org .

AGENCY: 99-346 - Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA)
CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: Ch. 24, Home Energy Assistance Program
PROPOSED RULE NUMBER: 2016-P066
BRIEF SUMMARY: This replacement rule repeals and replaces the current Home Energy Assistance Program rule. The replacement rule: (i) expands the timeframe in which applicants with household members who are the age of two, elderly, or subject to hypothermia are prioritized; (ii) allows all applicants to apply by phone; (iii) expands the “permission to share” release; (iv) eliminates language prohibiting program benefits for survivors of a recently deceased primary recipient when all remaining household members are under 18; (v) enhances the program component designed to provide education and help clients reduce their energy burden; (vi) amends the $.07 discount program to apply only to program-assisted deliveries; (vii) revises policies concerning the timing of returned funds from vendors to conform with new federal guidance; (viii) allows community action agencies to use program dollars for intake and certification staff salaries; (ix) eases requirements around unemployment verification, employee benefit disclosures, changes to applications after initial submission, verifying households with minimum income, and processing applications for children with divorced parents; (x) amends cost limits in the Central Heating Improvement Program (CHIP) from a “per-occurrence” limit to a “program average” limit allowing higher cost solutions such as a system replacement to be fully funded by CHIP; (xi) allows CHIP to pay for replacements of systems previously installed under CHIP when the systems have reached the end of their useful life; (xii) implements an “asset test” for CHIP services; (xiii) inserts language clarifying possible denial of service for CHIP misuse and abuse; and (xiv) amends procurement requirements to be consistent with MaineHousing’s procurement policy.
A copy of the proposed replacement rule may be found at www.mainehousing.org .
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. at Maine State Housing, 353 Water Street, Augusta, Maine 04330-4633. Maine State Housing Authority’s office and the hearing room are accessible to persons with disabilities and, upon sufficient notice, appropriate communications auxiliary aids and services will be provided to persons with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency.
COMMENT DEADLINE: Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS FILING / SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION / MSHA RULE-MAKING LIAISON: Linda Uhl, Chief Counsel, Maine State Housing Authority, 89 State House Station, 353 Water Street, Augusta, Maine 04330-4633. Telephone: (207) 626-4600; (800) 452-4668 (voice in state only), or Maine Relay 711. E-mail: LUhl@MaineHousing.org .
Upon sufficient notice, this notice and the proposed rule will be made available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities and in alternative languages for persons with limited English proficiency.
IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES OR COUNTIES: None
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THIS RULE: 30-A MRSA  § § 4722(1)(W), 4741(15), and 4991 et seq.; 42 USCA  § § 8621 et seq.
SUBSTANTIVE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BEING IMPLEMENTED: Same as above

ADOPTIONS

AGENCY: 01-015 – Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF), Maine Milk Commission (MMC)
CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: Ch. 3, Schedule of Minimum Prices, Order #06-16
ADOPTED RULE NUMBER: 2016-096 (Emergency)
CONCISE SUMMARY: Minimum June 2016 Class I price is $16.39/cwt. plus $1.58/cwt. for Producer Margins, an over-order premium of $1.53/cwt. as being prevailing in Southern New England and $4.65/cwt. handling fee for a total of $24.35/cwt. that includes a $0.20/cwt. Federal promotion fee.
Minimum prices can be found at: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/milkcommission/index.shtml .
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2016
CONTACT PERSON FOR THIS FILING / SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION / MLC RULE-MAKING LIAISON: Tim Drake, Maine Milk Commission, 28 State House Station, Augusta ME 04333. Telephone: (207) 287-7521. E-mail: Tim.Drake@Maine.gov .

AGENCY: 01-001 – Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry (DACF)
CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: Ch. 252, Rules Governing Certification of Seed Potatoes in the State of Maine
ADOPTEDRULENUMBER: 2016-097
CONCISE SUMMARY: The principal reasons for amending this rule are 1) decrease the Field Year eligibility of seed to be certified 2) to modify the potato seed certification program's visual field tolerances for blackleg 3) allow the state to do a lab test when conducting the post-harvest test. These changes will bring Maine's program more in line with other states' programs and improve the chances of removing from the system any possible high disease seed related to Pectobacterium spp. or Dickeya spp.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2016
AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Ann Gibbs, 28 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333. Telephone: (207) 287-3891. E-mail: Ann.Gibbs@Maine.gov .
WEBSITE: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/index.shtml .
DACF RULE-MAKING LIAISON: Mari.Wells@Maine.gov .

AGENCY: 10-144 - Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) – Division of Policy
CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: Ch. 101, MaineCare Benefits Manual (MBM): Ch. II & III Section 65, Behavioral Health Services
ADOPTED RULE NUMBER: 2016-098 (Emergency)
CONCISE SUMMARY: This emergency rule adoption adds coverage of Mental Health Psychosocial Clubhouse Services and Specialized Group Services to Ch. II Section 65, “Behavioral Health Services” of the MBM effective March 22, 2016. These services are currently provided under Ch. II Section 17, “Community Support Services”, but due to recent changes in the Section 17 eligibility criteria, the services are being transitioned to Section 65 on an emergency basis so as to not adversely affect members in need of these services. This rule-making also updates Ch. III Section 65 by providing reimbursement for Mental Health Psychological Clubhouse Services and Specialized Group Services. The HCPCS procedure code for Specialized Group Services mirrors that currently found in Ch. III Section 17. For the Mental Health Psychological Clubhouse Services, the Department has replaced the current per-hour Behavioral Day Treatment HCPCS procedure code utilized in Ch. III Section 17 with the more appropriate per-fifteen minute Mental Health Clubhouse Services HCPCS procedure code. Providers of these services will not be impacted as the rates remain the same.
See http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/oms/rules/index.shtml for rules and related rule-making documents.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Retroactive to March 22, 2016
AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Thomas Leet, Comprehensive Health Planner, Division of Policy, 242 State Street, 11 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0011. Telephone: (207)-624-4068. Fax: (207) 287-1864. TTY users call Maine relay 711. E-mail: Thomas.Leet@Maine.gov .
OMS WEBSITE: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/oms/ .
DHHS RULE-MAKING LIAISON: Kevin.Wells@Maine.gov .