59004 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–4937–N–02] 

Fair Market Rents for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program and 

Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room 

Occupancy Program Fiscal Year 2005

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of final fiscal year (FY) 

2005 fair market rents (FMRs). 

SUMMARY: Section 8(c)(1) of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) 

requires the Secretary to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less than annually, 

adjusted to be effective on October 1 of 

each year. FMRs are used to determine 

payment standard amounts for the 

Housing Choice Voucher program, to 

determine initial renewal rents for some 

expiring project-based Section 8 

contracts, and to determine initial rents 

for housing assistance payment (HAP) 

contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy program. Other 

programs may require use of FMRs for 

other purposes. Today’s notice provides 

for all areas final FY2005 FMRs that 

reflect the estimated 40th and 50th 

percentile rent levels trended to April 1, 

2005. 

Proposed FY2005 FMRs were 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 6, 2004. The proposed FMRs 

were calculated for the first time using 

2000 Census data and new Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

metropolitan area definitions. Both 

changes in how FMRs were calculated 

had significant impacts. A number of 

public comments from public housing 

agencies (PHAs) and major interest 

groups raised concerns about the 

magnitude of FMR changes experienced 

by many areas. HUD is required by law 

to utilize the most recent available data 

in calculating FMRs, and all federal 

agencies are instructed to use current 

OMB metropolitan area definitions 

unless there are strong program reasons 

to use alternative definitions. As a result 

of public comments and further 

consideration of the proposed FMRs, 

HUD determined that there was 

sufficient reason to not use the new 

OMB metropolitan area definitions in 

calculating the final FY2005 FMRs. The 

final FY2005 FMRs provided in this 

publication are therefore based on the 

most recent available data but use the 

same FMR area definitions used in the 

FY2004 FMR publication, which were 

based on old OMB metropolitan area 

definitions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The FMRs published in 

this notice are effective on October 1, 

2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information on the 

methodology used to develop fair 

market rents or a listing of all fair 

market rents, please call the HUD USER 

information line at 800–245–2691 or 

access the information on HUD’s Web 

site, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/

fmr.html. Any questions related to use 

of FMRs or voucher payment standards 

should be directed to HUD’s local 

program staff for the area in question. 

Questions on how to conduct FMR 

surveys or further methodological 

inquiries may be addressed to Marie L. 

Lihn or Lynn A. Rodgers, Economic and 

Market Analysis Division, Office of 

Economic Affairs, Office of Policy 

Development and Research, telephone 

202–708–0590. Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. (Other than the HUD 

USER information line and TTY 

numbers, telephone numbers are not toll 

free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 

1437f) authorizes housing assistance to 

aid lower income families in renting 

safe and decent housing. Housing 

assistance payments are limited to 

FMRs established by HUD for different 

areas. In the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, the FMR is the basis for 

determining the ‘‘payment standard 

amount’’ used to calculate the 

maximum monthly subsidy for an 

assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In 

general, the FMR for an area is the 

amount that would be needed to pay the 

gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of 

privately owned, decent, and safe rental 

housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature 

with suitable amenities. In addition, all 

rents subsidized under the Housing 

Choice Voucher program must meet 

reasonable rent standards. The interim 

rule published on October 2, 2000 (65 

FR 58870), established 50th percentile 

FMRs for certain areas. 

Electronic Data Availability: This 

Federal Register notice is available 

electronically from the HUD news page: 

http://www.hudclips.org. Federal 

Register notices also are available 

electronically from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office website, http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

II. Procedures for the Development of 

FMRs 

Section 8(c) of the USHA requires the 

Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less frequently 

than annually. Section 8(c) states in part 

as follows: 

Proposed fair market rentals for an 

area shall be published in the Federal 

Register with reasonable time for public 

comment and shall become effective 

upon the date of publication in final 

form in the Federal Register. Each fair 

market rental in effect under this 

subsection shall be adjusted to be 

effective on October 1 of each year to 

reflect changes, based on the most 

recent available data trended so the 

rentals will be current for the year to 

which they apply, of rents for existing 

or newly constructed rental dwelling 

units, as the case may be, of various 

sizes and types in this section. 

The Department’s regulations at 24 

CFR part 888 provide that HUD will 

develop proposed FMRs, publish them 

for public comment, provide a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, 

analyze the comments, and publish final 

FMRs. (See 24 CFR 888.115.) Final 

FY2005 FMRs are published on or 

before October 1, 2004, as required by 

section 8(c)(1) of the USHA. 

III. Proposed FY2005 FMRs 

On August 6, 2004 (69 FR 48040), 

HUD published proposed FY2005 

FMRs. As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed FMRs, the FMRs for FY2005 

were based on two significant changes 

to the statistical methodology used to 

compute FMRs. 

The first change was the introduction 

of 2000 Census data as a benchmark for 

FMRs. The 2004 FMRs were based on 

updated 1990 Census data except in 

areas where Random Digit Dialing 

(RDD) surveys or American Housing 

Surveys (AHS) had been conducted. 

Census 2000 data only recently became 

available in the level of detail (recent 

mover, standard-quality unit rents by 

number of bedrooms) necessary to 

calculate FMRs. The Department refers 

to the use of new decennial census data 

to revise FMRs as ‘‘rebenchmarking.’’ 

This process involves replacing the base 

year FMR estimates with those 

developed from new Census data and 

then updating the Census-based 

estimates from the date of the Census to 

the midpoint of the program year during 

which the FMRs will be in effect. 

The second change was the use of 

new metropolitan area definitions 

issued by OMB to define FMR areas. As 

part of the 2000 Census process, OMB 

released new metropolitan area 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59005

definitions on June 7, 2003, and 

updated them on February 18, 2004. 

These new metropolitan area definitions 

contain substantial changes from the old 

metropolitan area definitions because 

they incorporate the 2000 Census data 

and a substantially revised standard for 

defining metropolitan areas. 

In response to the August 6, 2004, 

proposed FMRs, HUD received 370 

public comments. The majority of the 

commenters were opposed to the 

proposed FMRs and cited various 

reasons. The primary reason given was 

that the proposed FY2005 FMRs were 

significantly different from the FY2004 

FMRs and additional time was needed 

to examine the proposed FMRs. Many 

commenters asked HUD to delay issuing 

FY2005 FMRs. 

As noted in Section II of this 

preamble, HUD is required to issue 

FMRs to be effective October 1, and the 

FMRs to be issued by HUD must be 

based on the most recent available data 

trended to the mid-point of the year in 

which they will be used. While HUD 

cannot delay issuance of the FY2005 

FMRs, HUD has made changes to the 

proposed FY2005 FMRs announced in 

this notice in response to the public 

comments. (The public comments are 

discussed in more detail in Section V of 

this preamble.) 

IV. Final FY2005 FMRs and FY2005 

FMR Procedures 

In setting the final FY2005 FMRs, 

HUD took into consideration a large 

number of comments objecting to the 

magnitude of changes caused by use of 

new OMB metropolitan area definitions 

and the inadequate time given to 

evaluate and respond to the proposed 

changes. While HUD is required by 

statute to use the most recent available 

data in setting FMRs, and by regulation 

to use current OMB metropolitan area 

definitions, HUD’s regulations allow 

HUD to make exceptions to the use of 

the most current OMB metropolitan area 

definitions. Therefore, HUD is not 

obligated to use the new OMB 

metropolitan area definitions, and has 

determined to use the old OMB 

metropolitan area definitions, that is, 

the 2004 FMR area definitions, in 

calculating the final FY2005 FMRs. Use 

of the 2004 FMR area definitions 

generally produce fewer and smaller 

differences between the FY2004 FMRs 

and the FY2005 FMRs set forth in this 

notice for two reasons. The first is that 

the geographic area over which the 40th 

(or 50th) percentile rent is determined is 

unchanged, eliminating FMR 

differences resulting from changes in 

geography. The second reason is that 

some areas retained post-2000 Census 

RDD survey-based increases by reverting 

to the old definitions, whereas these 

increases could not be applied to the 

proposed FY2005 FMRs because the 

new areas differed too much from the 

old areas. Therefore, the FY2005 FMR 

schedules contained in this notice are 

based on 2000 Census and, when 

available, more current data, but were 

calculated for the same geographic areas 

used in preparing the FY2004 FMRs. 

Schedule B(1) lists Fair Market Rents for 

each area by state. FMRs that are at the 

50th percentile, or median rent, are 

denoted by an asterisk. For 

informational purposes, Schedule B(2) 

shows what the 40th percentile FMRs 

would have been for the 39 areas where 

the FMR is set at the 50th percentile.

A. 2000 Census-Based FMRs 

For areas where the base-year 

estimates were developed from the 2000 

Census, the 40th and, where 

appropriate, 50th percentile gross rents 

for standard-quality units occupied by 

recent movers were calculated for 

differing numbers of bedrooms. The rent 

distributions were modified to eliminate 

public housing and other units with 

similarly low rents, so that only marketrent units would be considered. FMRs 

are calculated for all metropolitan areas 

and non-metropolitan counties. 

FMR estimates are calculated for twobedroom units, which are the most 

common rental units. Rent relationships 

between two-bedroom and other unit 

sizes are then calculated using local unit 

size rent relationships to the extent 

statistically feasible. For the past several 

years, bedroom ratios have been based 

on 1990 Census data. The FY2005 FMRs 

are the first to make use of 2000 Census 

data to more closely reflect market rent 

differentials between units with 

differing numbers of bedrooms. The 

rents for three-bedroom and larger units 

continue to reflect HUD’s policy to set 

higher rents for these units than would 

result from using normal market rents. 

This adjustment is intended to increase 

the likelihood that the largest families, 

who have the most difficulty in leasing 

units, will be successful in finding 

eligible program units. The adjustment 

adds 8.7 percent to the unadjusted 

three-bedroom FMR estimates and adds 

7.7 percent to the unadjusted fourbedroom FMR estimates. The FMRs for 

unit sizes larger than four bedrooms are 

calculated by adding 15 percent to the 

four-bedroom FMR for each extra 

bedroom. For example, the FMR for a 

five-bedroom unit is 1.15 times the fourbedroom FMR, and the FMR for a sixbedroom unit is 1.30 times the fourbedroom FMR. The FMRs for singleroom occupancy units are 0.75 times the 

zero-bedroom (efficiency) FMR. 

A further adjustment is made for areas 

with local bedroom-size intervals above 

or below what are considered to be 

reasonable ranges or where sample sizes 

are inadequate to accurately measure 

bedroom rent differentials. Experience 

has shown that highly unusual bedroom 

ratios typically reflect inadequate 

sample sizes or peculiar local 

circumstances that HUD would not 

want to utilize in setting FMRs (e.g., 

luxury efficiency apartments in New 

York City that rent for more than typical 

one-bedroom units). Bedroom interval 

ranges were established based on an 

analysis of the range of such intervals 

for all areas with large enough samples 

to permit accurate bedroom ratio 

determinations. The final ranges used 

were as follows: efficiency units are 

constrained to fall between 0.65 and 

0.83 of the two-bedroom FMR, onebedroom units must be between 0.76 

and 0.90 of the two-bedroom unit, threebedroom units must be between 1.10 

and 1.34 of the two-bedroom unit and 

four-bedroom units must be between 

1.14 and 1.63 of the two-bedroom unit. 

Bedroom rents for a given FMR area 

were then adjusted if the differentials 

between bedroom-size FMRs were 

inconsistent with normally observed 

patterns (e.g., efficiency rents were not 

allowed to be higher than one-bedroom 

rents and four bedroom rents were set 

at a minimum of three percent higher 

than three-bedroom rents). 

For low-population, non-metropolitan 

counties with small Census recentmover rent samples, Census-defined 

county group data were used in 

determining rents for each bedroom 

size. This adjustment was made to 

protect against unrealistically high or 

low FMRs resulting from insufficient 

sample sizes. The areas covered by this 

new estimation method have fewer than 

33 two-bedroom Census sample 

observations. 

After base 2000 Census estimates 

were established for each FMR area and 

bedroom size, they were updated from 

the estimated Census date of April 1, 

2000, to April 1, 2005 (the midpoint of 

FY2005). Update factors for the 2000 

through end of 2003 period were based 

either on the area-specific Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) survey data that were 

available for the largest metropolitan 

areas or on HUD regional RDD survey 

data. 

For areas with local CPI surveys, CPI 

annual data on rents and utilities were 

used to update the Census rent 

estimates. Three-quarters of the 2000 

CPI change factor was used to bring the 

FMR estimates forward from April to 

59006 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

December of 2000. Annual CPI survey 

data could then be used for calendar 

years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Trending to 

cover the period from January 1, 2004, 

to April 1, 2005, was then needed. An 

annual trending factor of three percent, 

based on the average annual increase in 

the median Census gross rent between 

1990 and 2000, was used to update 

estimates from the end of 2003 (i.e., the 

last date for which CPI data were 

available) until the midpoint of the 

fiscal year in which the estimates were 

used. The 15-month trending factor was 

3.75 percent (3 percent times 15/12).

For areas without local CPI surveys, 

the same process was used except that 

regional RDD survey data were 

substituted for CPI data. Regional RDD 

surveys were done for 20 areas—the 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan part 

of each of the 10 HUD regions. Areas 

covered by CPI metropolitan surveys 

were excluded from the RDD 

metropolitan regional surveys. 

B. FMRs Based on Post-2000 Census 

Surveys 

There are a number of areas where 

AHS and RDD telephone surveys of 

rents have been conducted since the 

2000 Census. Both the AHS and RDD 

surveys have been proven to provide 

statistically reliable results within the 

limits of their stated confidence 

intervals. 

The RDD technique involves use of 

large, randomly selected samples to 

obtain data on current rents paid for 

one- and two-bedroom rental units 

occupied by recent movers. RDD 

surveys exclude public housing units, 

newly built units and non-cash rental 

units. They do not exclude substandard 

units because there is no practical way 

to determine housing quality from 

telephone interviews. These surveys, 

however, also exclude units without a 

telephone, and past analysis has shown 

that the slightly downward rent estimate 

bias caused by including some 

substandard units is almost exactly 

offset by the slightly upward bias that 

results from only surveying units with 

telephones. This relationship held true 

across a variety of areas. 

RDD surveys that meet HUD criteria 

have a high degree of statistical 

accuracy. There is a 95 percent 

likelihood that the 40th or 50th 

percentile recent mover contract rent 

estimates developed using this approach 

are within three to four percent of the 

actual 40th or 50th percentile. Virtually 

all survey estimates of contract rent will 

be within five percent of the actual 40th 

or 50th percentile value. 

A number of RDD surveys were 

conducted after the 2000 Census. The 

results of RDD surveys conducted in 

2001 and 2002 were used in the FY2004 

FMRs and were evaluated for use in the 

final FY2005 FMRs. RDD surveys are 

used to provide a rebenchmarked FMR 

in lieu of updating the previous year’s 

FMR when there is a statistically 

significant difference. RDD estimates are 

updated using the same types of data 

used to update Census estimates. 

RDDs covering 24 areas were 

conducted in August 2004 and 

completed in time for use in this 

publication. The first column of the 

following table identifies the RDD 

survey area. The second column shows 

the final FY2005 FMRs that would have 

been published based on updated 

Census and 2001–2002 AHS and RDD 

surveys. The third column shows the 

August 2004 RDD results, trended to the 

middle of FY2005. The fourth column 

shows whether or not the RDD results 

were statistically different enough to 

justify replacing the Census or other 

survey estimates with the RDD results. 

The survey results were as follows:

Area definition FY2005 FMR

without RDD 

FY2005 FMR

with RDD RDD result 

Baltimore, MD ..................................................................................................................... 915 847 Decrease. 

Boston, MA ......................................................................................................................... 1442 1266 Decrease. 

Chicago, IL ......................................................................................................................... 979 906 Decrease. 

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH ............................................................................................... 703 703 No Change. 

Detroit, MI ........................................................................................................................... 848 805 Decrease. 

Dutchess County, NY ......................................................................................................... 901 942 Increase. 

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX .................................................................................................... 799 732 Decrease. 

Indianapolis, IN ................................................................................................................... 655 655 No Change. 

Kansas City, MO–KS .......................................................................................................... 741 691 Decrease. 

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA ............................................................................................ 1011 1124 Increase. 

Nassau-Suffolk, NY ............................................................................................................ 1225 1225 No Change. 

Newburgh, NY–PA ............................................................................................................. 913 954 Increase. 

Oakland, CA ....................................................................................................................... 1342 1342 No Change. 

Orange County, CA ............................................................................................................ 1403 1317 Decrease. 

Portland-Vancouver, OR–WA ............................................................................................. 717 717 No Change. 

Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI–MA ............................................................................. 663 845 Increase. 

Sacramento, CA ................................................................................................................. 971 971 No Change. 

San Antonio, TX ................................................................................................................. 716 716 No Change. 

San Francisco, CA ............................................................................................................. 1792 1539 Decrease. 

San Jose, CA ..................................................................................................................... 1748 1313 Decrease. 

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA ............................................................................................. 943 834 Decrease. 

Ventura, CA ........................................................................................................................ 1257 1382 Increase. 

Washington, DC–VA–MD–WV ........................................................................................... 1250 1187 Decrease. 

Westchester County, NY .................................................................................................... 1174 1259 Increase. 

HUD is directed by statute to use the 

most recent available data in its FMR 

publications. The RDD survey results 

are being implemented in the final 

FY2005 FMR publication consistent 

with that requirement. 

HUD uses AHS data to calculate rents 

from the distributions of two-bedroom 

units occupied by recent movers. Public 

housing units, newly constructed units, 

and units that fail a housing quality test 

are excluded from the rental housing 

distributions before the FMRs are 

calculated. Thirteen areas were covered 

by AHS surveys conducted in 2002. 

Two surveys did not have enough recent 

mover cases to provide reliable 

estimates. More current AHS results 

were used to replace FMR estimates 

based on Census or RDD survey data if 

the Census- or RDD-based estimate was 

outside the 95 percent confidence 

interval of the AHS estimate. The AHS 

results produced statistically different 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59007

FMR estimates and were used to 

rebenchmark FMRs for the following 

areas in Schedule B(1): 

Orange County, CA, PortlandVancouver, OR-WA, and Riverside-San 

Bernardino, CA. As noted in the 

proposed FY2005 publication, the AHS 

reduced the Portland FMR. The 

subsequent 2004 RDD survey confirmed 

this result. Orange County and 

Riverside-San Bernardino had increases 

as a result of the AHS. All three of these 

areas are 50th percentile FMR areas. 

C. Impacts of New Data on Final 

FY2005 FMRs 

The use of the 2000 Census rent data 

corrects for estimation errors that have 

accumulated during the past decade, 

and results in a larger than usual 

number of FMR revisions this year. The 

availability of more detailed local 

information on public housing, which is 

excluded from FMR estimates, also 

improved these estimates. Post-2000 

AHS and RDD surveys provide more 

current estimates of market rents than 

those available from the Census, and 

serve to document the need for FMR 

changes in areas where recent mover 

rents do not follow regional or CPI rent 

trends. New AHS and RDD survey 

results were incorporated into this 

publication. The following table shows 

the distribution of impacts resulting 

from use of the 2000 Census and the 

AHS and RDD surveys used in this 

publication:

Final FY2005 

FMRs as % of 

FY2004 FMRs 

Percent of

vouchers 

Number of

FMR areas 

Less than 80% 

of FY04 FMR 1.1 14 

80–89.9% of 

FY04 FMR ..... 4.0 109 

90–99.9% of 

FY04 FMR ..... 34.0 403 

100–110% of 

FY04 FMR ..... 45.9 1,053 

110.1–120% of 

FY04 FMR ..... 12.1 734 

More than 120% 

of FY04 FMR 2.9 345 

There are an additional 22 areas in the 

country where HUD has begun RDD 

surveys that could not be completed in 

time for this publication. Additionally, 

seven areas will be surveyed beginning 

in October 2004. Because the FY2005 

FMRs for these areas will not have the 

benefit of a completed RDD survey by 

the date of submission of this document 

for publication in the Federal Register, 

and thus not have the benefit of the 

most recent rental data, HUD is allowing 

PHAs in those areas to wait, if they so 

choose, for completion of the RDD 

surveys and issuance of a notice that 

contains revised final FY2005 FMRs 

that reflect the completed RDD surveys. 

The notice of revised final FY2005 

FMRs for these areas will reflect the 

RDD survey data and, at that point, 

housing authorities must use these 

published FMRs. Areas where HUD is 

currently conducting RDD surveys are:

State August and September 2004 survey starts Area October 2004 Survey 

Starts 

NY ................ Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY ....................................................................................... PR ................ Aguadilla, PR. 

NM ................ Albuquerque, NM ........................................................................................................... PR ................ Arecibo, PR. 

GA ................ Atlanta, GA ..................................................................................................................... PR ................ Caguas, PR. 

NJ ................. Bergen-Passaic, NJ ....................................................................................................... PR ................ Mayaguez, PR. 

OH ................ Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN ................................................................................................... PR ................ Ponce, PR. 

OH ................ Columbus, OH ............................................................................................................... PR ................ San Juan-Bayamon, PR. 

OH ................ Dayton-Springfield, OH .................................................................................................. PR ................ Nonmetropolitan areas. 

CO ................ Denver, CO.

CT ................. Hartford, CT.

HI .................. Honolulu, HI.

TX ................. Houston, TX.

HI .................. Kauai and Maui, HI.

KY ................. Louisville, KY–IN.

TX ................. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX.

TN ................. Nashville, TN.

NJ ................. Newark, NJ.

NY ................ New York, NY.

NE ................ Omaha, NE–IA.

PA ................. Philadelphia, PA–NJ.

MA ................ Springfield, MA.

OK ................ Tulsa, OK.

AZ ................. Tucson, AZ.

D. Regulatory Procedures for Exceptions 

to Established FMRs 

For housing authorities in areas that 

are not undergoing RDD surveys but 

continue to have concerns with the 

FY2005 FMRs announced in this notice, 

HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR 888.113 

provide the procedures by which HUD 

may make exceptions to established 

FMRs. 

E. Manufactured Home Space Rents 

Manufactured home space rents are 

set at 40 percent of the two-bedroom 

rent. Exceptions to this rent are granted 

when justified by survey data. All 

approved exceptions to these rents that 

were in effect in FY2004 were updated 

to 2005 using the relevant update factor. 

If the result of this computation was 

higher than 40 percent of the 

rebenchmarked two-bedroom rent, the 

exception remains and is listed in 

Schedule D. 

F. FMRs for Federal Disaster Areas 

Under the authority granted in 24 CFR 

part 888, the Secretary of HUD finds 

good cause to waive and hereby waives 

the regulatory requirements that govern 

requests for geographic area exception 

FMRs for areas that are declared disaster 

areas by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). HUD is 

prepared (1) to grant disaster-related 

FMR exceptions up to 10 percent above 

the applicable FMRs for those areas. 

HUD field offices are authorized to 

approve such exceptions for singlecounty FMR areas and for individual 

county parts of multi-county FMR areas 

that qualify as disaster areas under the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act, if (2) the 

PHA certifies that damage to the rental 

housing stock as a result of the disaster 

is so substantial that it has increased the 

prevailing rent levels in the affected 

59008 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

area. Such exception FMRs must be 

requested in writing by the responsible 

PHAs. Exception FMRs approved by 

HUD during FY2005 will remain in 

effect until superseded by the 

publication of the final FY2007 FMRs, 

and replace lower, published FMR 

values. 

V. Public Comments 

In addition to the changes made in 

this notice for final FY2005 FMRs, HUD 

is continuing to accept public comments 

on FY2005 FMRs through November 5, 

2004. HUD will consider these 

comments in determining revisions that 

may be needed to the FY2005 FMRs. 

Any such revisions will be announced 

in a subsequent FY2005 Federal 

Register notice. 

In response to the August 6, 2004 

proposed FMRs, HUD received 370 

public comments covering 75 FMR areas 

during the initial comment period 

ending September 7, 2004. The majority 

of these comments concerned changes 

in the metropolitan area definitions that 

resulted in higher or lower FMRs. The 

New England region, where there was a 

proposed change away from the citytown designations previously used to 

define metropolitan areas to new OMB 

county-based metropolitan definitions, 

provided 148 comments. Many of the 

New England comments noted that the 

change in the geographic definitions 

was significant and had the impact of 

reducing FMRs in most metropolitan 

areas in New England. Some county 

parts shifted from one metropolitan area 

to another (e.g., part of Brockton to 

Providence, part of Boston to 

Providence), and some nonmetropolitan areas were added to 

metropolitan areas with substantial 

increases for the non-metropolitan area 

(Chelmsford to Cambridge) and 

significant decreases for the metro area. 

Some metropolitan areas were 

combined (Bridgeport and StamfordNorwalk) with increases for one area 

and decreases for the other area. The 

change in geography prevented the use 

of some 2001 and 2002 HUD RDD 

surveys in the proposed FY2005 FMR 

publication, because the metropolitan 

area coverage for these areas had 

changed so much under the new OMB 

area definitions that it was not 

considered valid to apply survey results 

based on different area definitions. 

Returning to use of the old metropolitan 

area definitions has the effect of reinstating RDD-based increases for the 

following areas (that are either a 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSAs) or 

a Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(PMSA):

Boston, MA–NH MSA 

Portland, ME MSA 

Brockton, MA PMSA 

Lawrence, MA–NH PMSA 

Lowell, MA–NH PMSA 

Worcester, MA–CT MSA

Though not all comments from the 

New England region discussed the new 

geography, most stated that the 

proposed reductions were inconsistent 

with recent rental market history. In 

general, however, Census and more 

current surveys correct for what can be 

several years of accumulated estimation 

errors, and should not be thought of as 

solely relating to the change in rents 

that occurred between FY 2004 and 

FY2005. Many national housing and 

legal aid organizations also provided 

comments opposing the use of the new 

county-based metropolitan designations 

for New England and other areas and 

cited fair housing concerns. 

Comments for other parts of the 

country also expressed concerns about 

geographic definitional changes that 

resulted in significant increases and 

decreases in FMRs that could adversely 

affect local programs. The new OMB 

definitions combined the two large 

metropolitan areas of New York City 

and Bergen-Passaic to create the New 

York—Wayne-White Plains, NY–NJ 

Division. As a result, the rents for 

Bergen-Passaic declined significantly, 

and comments were received about this 

decline. Dutchess and Orange counties 

in New York, formerly both separate 

metropolitan areas, were combined 

under the new geographic definitions. 

The proposed FY2005 FMRs for this 

combined metropolitan area 

significantly lowered rents for Dutchess 

County. Counties that were formerly 

non-metropolitan were concerned that 

HUD’s current voucher renewal policy 

meant that they would be unable to 

continue to assist all current voucher 

families if FMRs increased, because 

voucher assistance funding would be set 

at the previous year’s expenditure level 

plus a modest inflation adjustment. This 

was the primary concern from counties 

added to the metropolitan areas of 

Clarksville, TN, Lafayette, IN, Jonesboro, 

AR, and Anchorage, AK. In other 

comments, objections were raised by 

counties that had previously been 

included in metropolitan areas that 

were removed and designated as 

micropolitan areas with their own, 

much lower FMRs. This category 

includes comments received from 

Lincoln County, NC (formerly in 

Charlotte), Richmond County, KY 

(formerly in Lexington), Genessee 

County, NY (formerly in Rochester, NY), 

and Webster Parish, LA (formerly in 

Shreveport). Warrenton County, NJ, had 

a large proposed FMR reduction because 

it was removed from the Newark 

metropolitan area and placed in the 

Allentown, PA, metropolitan area. 

Anderson County, SC, had a large FMR 

reduction because it was taken out of 

the Greenville metropolitan area and 

made a separate metropolitan area with 

its own, much lower FMR. 

In Puerto Rico, the new OMB 

definitions, especially for San Juan, 

were considered a cause of the proposed 

FMR reduction because many lower rent 

metropolitan and non-metropolitan 

municipios were added to this 

metropolitan area. The main source of 

these reductions, however, was the 2000 

Census. RDD surveys of all Puerto Rico 

FMR areas will be conducted starting in 

October 2004. 

A form letter-writing campaign by 

landlords in the Lake County-Kenosha 

County, IL–WI Division, resulted in 134 

comments. Taking Lake County out of 

the Chicago metropolitan area and 

merging it with Kenosha County 

resulted in a significant decline in the 

FMR for Lake County and a significant 

increase for Kenosha County. 

Many commenters with no changes in 

geography expressed concern over 

reductions in their FMRs. This included 

Cheyenne, WY, Fargo, ND, and Knox 

County, IN, and all areas in Hawaii. In 

Johnstown, PA, the removal of Somerset 

County was noted as a possible cause of 

the reduction in the proposed FMR, 

although the primary cause of the 

reductions proposed for both parts of 

the old metropolitan area was related to 

the use of 2000 Census data. The change 

from the use of state minimums to 

Census-defined county groups produced 

FMR declines in areas such as Sumter 

County, FL, Evangeline Parish, LA, and 

Harlan and Knox counties in Kentucky. 

Concerns about the large changes in 

county rents in Texas, Georgia, and 

Oklahoma were noted in general 

comments by the Texas Tenants’ Union, 

the Georgia Department of Community 

Affairs, and the Oklahoma City Housing 

Authority. Other commenters stated that 

the proposed FMRs resulted in too 

many significant changes and would 

hinder the application of the program. 

This included comments from the States 

of Georgia, New York, New Jersey, 

Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, 

and Puerto Rico.

The Louisville Metro Housing 

Authority commented that significantly 

higher utility costs in the past year 

warranted higher FMRs. Louisville is 

currently undergoing an RDD survey 

that was started in September 2004. The 

utilities used for the FMR come from the 

utility schedule of the PHA, so the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59009

higher utility costs will be included in 

determining the RDD estimate. 

Data of some form were provided to 

support comments made for 30 FMR 

areas. For the most part, the data 

consisted of rent reasonableness studies, 

data on local housing market 

conditions, newspaper ads for rental 

units, voucher rent data, and apartment 

rent data for projects. Only the data 

submitted with the comments of the 

Okanogan County Housing Authority 

met the minimum statistical 

requirement for acceptance. 

Accordingly, the FMRs for the County of 

Okanagon, WA, will be increased from 

the proposed FMR. 

A group of major industry 

organizations (e.g., CLPHA, NAHMA, 

NAHRO, NLIHC, and others) jointly 

submitted a set of comments which 

argued for more time to evaluate the 

impacts of the new OMB definitions, 

more time to permit RDD surveys 

(including HUD’s) to be completed, and 

postponing implementation of decreases 

until all RDD results were available and 

sufficient time had been allowed to 

consider all public comments. They also 

recommended an analysis of the new 

OMB definitions with the objective of 

minimizing the impact of their 

implementation (e.g., by allowing for 

submarket areas patterned after old area 

definitions when appropriate). HUDconducted surveys of all areas with 

significant decreases in large-unit FMRs 

were proposed by commenters, as was 

the continued use of state minimum 

FMRs and the same minimum bedroom 

ratios used in the FY2004 FMRs. 

Concerns about large-unit FMR 

calculations were also expressed. The 

final FMRs address some but not all of 

these concerns. Use of old OMB 

definitions is the simplest way of 

addressing the concerns raised in many 

comments about use of the new 

definitions, and permits the impacts of 

use of new definitions to be 

distinguished from the impacts of new 

data. Many of the other requests were at 

odds with the requirement that HUD use 

the most recent available data in setting 

FMRs. PHAs continue to have the 

discretion to fund their own RDD 

surveys, but HUD’s budget for this 

purpose has been and will continue to 

be limited. 

HUD is permitting areas where HUD 

RDD surveys are being conducted to 

wait for issuance of updated final 

FY2005 FMRs for these areas that reflect 

completed RDD surveys. HUD will do as 

many RDD surveys in the future as 

available funding permits, and will 

continue to concentrate on areas with 

believe that use of local bedroom ratio 

data is appropriate in instances where 

there are large samples. The Census 

provides the best available measure of 

bedroom size rent relationships for most 

larger areas, and shows that small 

differentials, between bedroom sizes 

occur and are valid. In response to 

comments, however, HUD is using 

standard national ratios in instances 

where the statistical reliability of local 

ratios is questionable and has adjusted 

the calculation for the four-bedroom 

FMR to ensure that it is higher than the 

three-bedroom FMR by the minimum 

typical percentage differential even 

when Census data show no difference. 

Both the increases and decreases in 

the bedroom ratios based on 2000 

Census data reflect actual rent 

relationships, and HUD continues to 

add significant rent bonuses for units 

with more than two bedrooms. The 

decrease in the differentials between 

two-bedroom and larger rental units that 

occurs in some FMR areas is due to the 

availability of more current and reliable 

Census data. The same FMR bonuses for 

larger bedroom sizes used in the past 

were also applied in calculating the 

FY2005 FMRs.

VI. Manufactured Home Space Surveys 

The FMR used to establish payment 

standard amounts for the rental of 

manufactured home spaces in the 

Housing Choice Voucher program is 40 

percent of the FMR for a two-bedroom 

unit. HUD will consider modification of 

the manufactured home space FMRs 

where public comments present 

statistically valid survey data showing 

the 40th percentile manufactured home 

space rent (including the cost of 

utilities) for the entire FMR area. 

Manufactured home space FMR 

revisions are published as final FMRs in 

Schedule D. Once approved, the revised 

manufactured home space FMRs 

establish new base year estimates that 

are updated annually using the same 

data used to estimate the Housing 

Choice Voucher program FMRs. The 

FMR area definitions used for the rental 

of manufactured home spaces are the 

same as the area definitions used for the 

other FMRs. 

VII. HUD Rental Housing Survey 

Guides 

HUD recommends the use of 

professionally-conducted RDD 

telephone surveys to test the accuracy of 

FMRs for areas where there is a 

sufficient number of Section 8 units to 

justify the survey cost of $20,000–

$30,000. Areas with 500 or more 

program units usually meet this 

criterion, and areas with fewer units 

may meet it if local rents are thought to 

be significantly different from the FMR 

proposed by HUD. In addition, HUD has 

developed a simplified version of the 

RDD survey methodology for smaller, 

nonmetropolitan PHAs. This 

methodology is designed to be simple 

enough to be done by the PHA itself, 

rather than by professional survey 

organizations. 

PHAs in nonmetropolitan areas may, 

in certain circumstances, do surveys of 

groups of counties. All county-group 

surveys must be approved in advance by 

HUD. PHAs are cautioned that the 

resulting FMRs will not be identical for 

the counties surveyed; each individual 

FMR area will have a separate FMR 

based on its relationship to the 

combined rent of the group of FMR 

areas. 

PHAs that plan to use the RDD survey 

technique may obtain a copy of the 

appropriate survey guide by calling 

HUD USER on 800–245–2691. Larger 

PHAs should request ‘‘Random Digit 

Dialing Surveys; A Guide to Assist 

Larger Housing Agencies in Preparing 

Fair Market Rent Comments.’’ Smaller 

PHAs should obtain ‘‘Rental Housing 

Surveys; A Guide to Assist Smaller 

Housing Agencies in Preparing Fair 

Market Rent Comments.’’ These guides 

are also available on the Internet at 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/

fmr.html. 

HUD prefers, but does not mandate, 

the use of RDD telephone surveys, or the 

more traditional method described in 

the small PHA survey guide. Other 

survey methodologies are acceptable if 

they provide statistically reliable, 

unbiased estimates of the 40th 

percentile gross rent. Survey samples 

preferably should be randomly drawn 

from a complete list of rental units for 

the FMR area. If this is not feasible, the 

selected sample must be drawn so as to 

be statistically representative of the 

entire rental housing stock of the FMR 

area. In particular, surveys must include 

units of all rent levels and be 

representative by structure type 

(including single-family, duplex and 

other small rental properties), age of 

housing unit, and geographic location. 

The decennial Census should be used as 

a starting point and means of 

verification for determining whether the 

sample is representative of the FMR 

area’s rental housing stock. All survey 

results must be fully documented. 

A PHA or contractor that cannot 

obtain the recommended number of 

sample responses after reasonable 

efforts should consult with HUD before 

abandoning its survey; in such 

situations HUD is prepared to relax 

normal sample size requirements. 

Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent 

Schedules, which will not be codified in 

59010 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

24 CFR part 888, are amended as 

follows:

Dated: September 24, 2004. 

Alphonso Jackson, 

Secretary.

Fair Market Rents for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program 

Schedules B and D—General 

Explanatory Notes 

1. Geographic Coverage 

a. Metropolitan Areas—FMRs are 

market-wide rent estimates that are 

intended to provide housing 

opportunities throughout the geographic 

area in which rental-housing units are 

in direct competition. 

HUD uses the OMB Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) and Primary 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) 

definitions, but the current definitions 

from the June 6, 2003 publication have 

not yet been incorporated. Use of these 

new geographic definitions will be 

considered for use in future FMR 

publications. Schedule B FMRs are 

issued for the same metropolitan area 

definitions used by HUD in FY 2004 

with the exceptions discussed in 

paragraph (b). The OMB-defined 

metropolitan areas closely correspond to 

housing market area definitions. 

b. Exceptions to OMB Definitions—

The exceptions are counties deleted 

from several large metropolitan areas 

whose old OMB metropolitan area 

definitions were determined by HUD to 

be larger than the housing market areas. 

The FMRs for the following counties 

(shown by the metropolitan area) are 

calculated separately and are shown in 

Schedule B within their respective 

states under the ‘‘Metropolitan FMR 

Areas’’ listing: 

Metropolitan Area Counties Assigned 

County-Based FMRs 

Chicago, IL 

DeKalb, Grundy and Kendall Counties 

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH–KY–IN 

Brown County, Ohio; Gallatin, Grant 

and Pendleton Counties in 

Kentucky; and Ohio County, 

Indiana 

Dallas, TX 

Henderson County 

Flagstaff, AZ–UT 

Kane County, UT 

New Orleans, LA 

St. James Parish 

Washington, DC–MD–VA–WV 

Berkeley and Jefferson Counties in 

West Virginia; and Clarke, 

Culpeper, King George and Warren 

Counties in Virginia 

c. Nonmetropolitan Area FMRs—

FMRs also are established for 

nonmetropolitan counties and for 

county equivalents in the United States, 

for nonmetropolitan parts of counties in 

the New England states and for FMR 

areas in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands 

and the Pacific Islands. 

d. Virginia Independent Cities—FMRs 

for the areas in Virginia shown in the 

table below were established by 

combining the Census data for the 

nonmetropolitan counties with the data 

for the independent cities that are 

located within the county borders. 

Because of space limitations, the FMR 

visiting in Schedule B includes only the 

name of the nonmetropolitan County. 

The full definitions of these areas, 

including the independent cities, are as 

follows: 

Virginia Nonmetropolitan County FMR 

Area and Independent Cities Included 

With County

County Cities 

Allegheny ........ Clifton Falls, Covington. 

Augusta ........... Staunton and Waynesboro. 

Carroll ............. Galax. 

Frederick ......... Winchester. 

Greensville ...... Emporia. 

Henry .............. Martinsville. 

Montgomery .... Radford. 

Rockbridge ...... Buena Vista and Lexington. 

County Cities 

Rockingham .... Harrisonburg. 

Southampton .. Franklin. 

Wise ................ Norton. 

2. Bedroom Size Adjustments 

Schedules B(1) and B(2) shows the 

FMRs for 0-bedroom through 4-bedroom 

units. The FMRs for unit sizes larger 

than 4 bedrooms are calculated by 

adding 15 percent to the 4-bedroom 

FMR for each extra bedroom. For 

example, the FMR for a 5-bedroom unit 

is 1.15 times the 4-bedroom FMR, and 

the FMR for a 6-bedroom unit is 1.30 

times the 4-bedroom FMR. FMRs for 

single-room-occupancy (SRO) units are 

0.75 times th 0-bedroom FMR.

3. Arrangement of FMR Areas and 

Identification of Constituent Parts 

a. The FMR areas in Schedule B(1) are 

listed alphabetically by metropolitan 

FMR area and by nonmetropolitan 

county within each state. The 

metropolitan areas in Schedule B(2) are 

listed alphabetically by the state and 

metropolitan area for only those 39 

areas currently at the 50th percentile for 

their FMR. The exception FMRs for 

manufactured home spaces in Schedule 

D are listed alphabetically by State. 

b. The constituent counties (and New 

England towns and cities) included in 

each metropolitan FMR area are listed 

immediately following the listings of the 

FMR dollar amounts. All constituent 

parts of a metropolitan FMR area that 

are in more than one state can be 

identified by consulting the listings for 

each applicable state. 

c. Two nonmetropolitan counties are 

listed alphabetically on each line of the 

nonmetropolitan county listings. 

d. The New England towns and cities 

included in a nonmetropolitan part of a 

county are listed immediately following 

the county name. 

BILLING CODE 4210–32–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59011


EN01OC04.000</GPH>
59012 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59013


EN01OC04.002</GPH>
59014 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59015


EN01OC04.004</GPH>
59016 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59017


EN01OC04.006</GPH>
59018 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59019


EN01OC04.008</GPH>
59020 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59021


EN01OC04.010</GPH>
59022 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59023


EN01OC04.012</GPH>
59024 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59025


EN01OC04.014</GPH>
59026 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59027


EN01OC04.016</GPH>
59028 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59029


EN01OC04.018</GPH>
59030 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59031


EN01OC04.020</GPH>
59032 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59033


EN01OC04.022</GPH>
59034 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59035


EN01OC04.024</GPH>
59036 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59037


EN01OC04.026</GPH>
59038 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59039


EN01OC04.028</GPH>
59040 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59041


EN01OC04.030</GPH>
59042 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59043


EN01OC04.032</GPH>
59044 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59045


EN01OC04.034</GPH>
59046 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59047


EN01OC04.036</GPH>
59048 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59049


EN01OC04.038</GPH>
59050 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59051


EN01OC04.040</GPH>
59052 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59053


EN01OC04.042</GPH>
59054 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59055


EN01OC04.044</GPH>
59056 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.045</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59057


EN01OC04.046</GPH>
59058 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59059


EN01OC04.048</GPH>
59060 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59061


EN01OC04.050</GPH>
59062 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.051</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59063


EN01OC04.052</GPH>
59064 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.053</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59065


EN01OC04.054</GPH>
59066 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.055</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59067


EN01OC04.056</GPH>
59068 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 


EN01OC04.057</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 59069


EN01OC04.058</GPH>
59070 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 04–21892 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–32–C


EN01OC04.059</GPH>