Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 9609 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

Analysis 

Agency: Department of Homeland 

Security, National Protection and 

Program Directorate. 

Title: Technical Assistance Request 

and Evaluation. 

Form: Not Applicable. 

OMB Number: 1670–NEW. 

Frequency: Annual. 

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal 

government. 

Number of Respondents: 350. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 15 

minutes. 

Total Burden Hours: 175 annual 

burden hours. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

$0. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintaining): $4,273.50. 

Signed: February 12, 2010. 

Thomas Chase Garwood, III, 

Chief Information Officer, National Protection 

and Programs Directorate, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4345 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5298–N–02] 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

(LIHTC) Tenant Data Collection: 

Responses To Advance Solicitation of 

Comment on Data Collection 

Methodology 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice follows the 

publication, on March 30, 2009, of an 

advance notice soliciting public 

comment on methodology for the 

collection of data on low-income 

housing tax credit housing, as required 

by statute. HUD received public 

comments on that advance notice, and, 

after considering the public comment, is 

now issuing the specific information 

collection requirements. This notice 

references the publication in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 8392, February 

24, 2010), of a notice of proposed 

information collection. Copies of the 

actual revised forms may be viewed by 

contacting the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT listed in this notice. The 

proposed information collection is 

published pursuant to HUD’s 

procedures for obtaining Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for information collections, 

and, as such, there is a provision for 

public comment. However, please be 

advised that if you commented on the 

March 30, 2009 notice, your comments 

have already been considered and there 

is no need to resubmit them. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 2, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on LIHTC tenant data 

collection, contact Michael K. Hollar, 

Senior Economist, Economic 

Development and Public Finance 

Division, Office of Policy Development 

and Research, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 

SW., Room 8234, Washington, DC 

20410–6000, telephone number 202– 

402–5878, or send an e-mail to 

Michael.K.Hollar@hud.gov. For specific 

legal questions pertaining to Section 42 

of the Internal Revenue Code, contact 

Branch 5, Office of the Associate Chief 

Counsel, Passthroughs and Special 

Industries, Internal Revenue Service, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20224, telephone 

number 202–622–3040, fax number 

202–622–4451. Additional copies of this 

notice are available through HUD User 

at 800–245–2691 for a small fee to cover 

duplication and mailing costs. 

Copies Available Electronically: This 

notice and additional information about 

the LIHTC program are available 

electronically on the Internet at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/lihtc.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 2835(d) of the Housing and 

Economic Reform Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 

110–289, approved July 30, 2008) 

(HERA) amends Title I of the U.S. 

Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et 

seq.) (1937 Act) to add a new section 36 

(to be codified as 42 U.S.C. 1437z–8) 

that requires each State agency 

administering tax credits under section 

42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

(low-income housing tax credits or 

LIHTC) to furnish HUD, not less than 

annually, information concerning the 

race, ethnicity, family composition, age, 

income, use of rental assistance under 

section 8(o) of the 1937 Act or other 

similar assistance, disability status, and 

monthly rental payments of households 

residing in each property receiving such 

credits through such agency. New 

section 36 of the 1937 Act further 

provides that to the extent feasible, 

collect such information through 

existing reporting processes and in a 

manner that minimizes burden on 

property owners. 

New section 36 requires HUD to 

establish standards and definitions for 

the information to be collected by State 

agencies and to provide States with 

technical assistance in establishing 

systems to compile and submit such 

information and, in coordination with 

other Federal agencies administering 

housing programs, establish procedures 

to minimize duplicative reporting 

requirements for properties assisted 

under multiple housing programs. 

On March 30, 2009, HUD published a 

notice at 74 FR 14149 seeking early 

input from State agencies and other 

interested stakeholders on a 

methodology or approach to meet the 

statutory requirement to furnish HUD 

the required information. HUD received 

approximately 25 comments on this 

notice by the comment due date of May 

29, 2009, from entities including State 

housing finance and tax credit agencies; 

tax credit property managers; housing 

trade associations; research institutes; 

and nonprofit organizations. The 

following summary of public comments 

addresses the significant issues raised 

and the approach HUD is taking in 

response. Additionally, interested 

members of the public may view and 

respond to the notice of information 

collection published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 8392); however, there is 

no need to resubmit comments HUD 

already received in connection with the 

March 30, 2009 notice. 

II. Public Comments 

1. Tenant Data Collection 

Comment: A number of commenters 

supported the general idea of using the 

National Council of State Housing 

Agencies (NCSHA) Tenant Income 

Certification (TIC) for tenant data 

collection, but also suggested that States 

retain flexibility to make modifications. 

It was suggested that a separate page be 

added to collect racial, ethnic, and 

disability status data, along with a 

statement that responding is voluntary. 

Other commenters opposed the use of 

these forms on various grounds. Other 

commenters stated that Housing 

Finance Agencies (HFAs) should be 

given the flexibility to design their own 

forms, but use the NCSHA TIC to obtain 

uniform definitions of the required data, 

which can be adapted. Some 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9610 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 

commenters stated that data should be 

collected on the head of household only 

or only in an aggregated form. Some 

commenters stated that the disability 

status questions were overly detailed 

and intrusive. Some commenters 

objected to the collection of social 

security numbers (SSNs), citing privacy 

concerns and lack of a secure way to 

store the information. Other 

commenters stated that data collected 

should be limited to items specifically 

identified by Congress. Some 

commenters, on the other hand, asked 

for additional data, such as zip codes. 

Response: Generally, HUD will collect 

the data required by the statute, along 

with a minimal amount of additional 

information needed to assist in 

collection of the data while minimizing 

the public burden. Accordingly, HUD 

declines to add questions about zip 

codes and additional breakdowns by 

type of assistance. The statutory 

direction to seek information about 

‘‘disability status’’ seems in its plain 

meaning to simply be seeking 

information on whether a family has a 

member with a disability, and HUD 

accordingly is modifying that particular 

request for information. However, 

collecting data for only the head of 

household or in the aggregate would not 

enable HUD to report on family 

composition, as required by statute. 

As to forms, while HUD is submitting 

forms for approval and use if desired, 

HUD is not requiring the use of specific 

forms. The forms are provided as a way 

to convey the standards and definitions 

of the required data. Thus, States may 

incorporate the required data elements 

into their existing forms, provided that 

the definitions are consistent with those 

put forth by HUD. 

As to SSNs, HUD is balancing 

legitimate privacy concerns against the 

statutory direction to ‘‘establish 

procedures to minimize duplicative 

reporting requirements for properties 

assisted under multiple housing 

programs’’ and to minimize paperwork 

burdens on funding recipients. HUD has 

decided to request partial SSNs. In so 

doing, HUD is protecting privacy but 

also obtaining partial SSNs that will be 

used for data matching with existing 

HUD databases. Thus, HUD can obtain 

information, for example about 

assistance types, without adding to the 

burden on funding recipients. HUD 

plans to require reporting on projectbased assistance, HOME, HOPE VI, 

Community Development Block Grant, 

and Rural Housing Service assistance, 

and use the partial SSNs to match data 

from other assistance programs, to 

obtain the needed data while 

minimizing the burdens of data 

collection. 

Comment: Commenters asked that the 

collection of information be limited in 

frequency, such as at initial move-in 

and annual updates. Racial, ethnic, and 

disability status data should only be 

collected at move-in. Some commenters 

stated that all personal data should only 

be collected once, as HFAs will learn of 

updates at recertification or if a tenant’s 

assistance is modified; conversely, 

insofar as the Internal Revenue Service 

no longer requires income 

recertification, there is no need to 

continue collecting this data after movein and it would not be third-party 

verified. 

Response: The tenant data will be 

collected annually as required by 

statute. HUD is taking steps to minimize 

the compliance burden to the extent 

possible given statutory requirements. 

After the initial data collection, in 

which data on all tenants is required, 

only data on re-certifications and new 

tenants will be required. Consistent 

with statutory changes in HERA, tenants 

residing in 100 percent low-income unit 

properties are not subject to recertification. The racial and ethnic data 

will only need to be collected once, but 

since disability status can change, this 

will need to be collected with recertification. 

Comment: Some commenters asked 

that information collected be limited in 

scope. Some commenters asked that 

HUD specify that data will not be 

collected on tenants not residing in 

LIHTC units. Some commenters asked 

that the age information be limited to 

the number of residents above and 

below the age of 18. 

Response: Pursuant to the statute, 

which covers ‘‘State agencies 

administering tax credits,’’ HUD will not 

require the collection of data on tenants 

in non-LIHTC units. The statutory 

requirement to collect race and ethnicity 

is not limited to head of household and 

thus the best reading of the statute is 

that the information must be collected 

for all tenants. The statutory 

requirement to collect household 

composition and age does not indicate 

a restriction to ‘‘the number of persons 

over/under 18 years old,’’ but rather, the 

plain language of the statute refers only 

to ‘‘age.’’ 

Comment: Some commenters 

addressed data elements on the forms 

proposed by HUD. A commenter stated 

that data elements should include 

whether a project is ‘‘family,’’ ‘‘elderly,’’ 

or ‘‘other’’ in order to ‘‘assist in assessing 

the role of exclusionary land use 

requirements on LIHTC development.’’ 

One commenter generally had the 

following suggestions: (1) Full tenantlevel data on rental assistance are 

provided except where a project has 100 

percent project-based tenants; (2) the 

project-level data are updated 

periodically to show changes in subsidy 

status; and (3) information on the 

specific type of rental assistance is 

available either on the form or through 

data matching with other subsidy 

programs. 

Response: HUD’s proposed project 

data collection form asks whether a 

project is targeted to a particular group, 

including families and elderly. The data 

collection will be consistent with recertification changes in HERA, which 

no longer requires re-certification for 

properties consisting of 100 percent 

low-income properties. While propertylevel data will not need to be updated 

annually, HUD will ask States to update 

any changes. HUD will match tenant 

data to other HUD administrative 

databases to identify assistance from 

other subsidy programs. 

Comment: Commenters suggested 

alternate data transfer formats. Two 

commenters stated that HUD should 

adopt the State Housing Finance 

Agency-LIHTC Data Transfer Standard 

as the methodology for collecting data 

because it is was created by affordable 

housing owners and trade associations, 

is open, accessible, and available to any 

user, and less costly than using a nonstandard format. 

Response: HUD agrees that the LIHTC 

Data Transfer Standard is widely 

adopted and accessible. HUD’s current 

Tenant Rental Assistance Certification 

System (TRACS) system, which is used 

to collect data on Section 8 tenants, uses 

this data transfer standard. HUD will be 

using a system similar to, and based on, 

TRACS. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that data uploads in Extensible 

Markup Language (XML) format should 

be allowed, because XML files are easily 

produced by common software and 

most HFAs are familiar with XML. 

Commenters stated specifically that the 

National Affordable Housing 

Management Association (NAHMA) 

XML standard or a reasonable variation 

should be adopted or used as a starting 

point, as the industry has already 

invested effort in this standard and it 

has broad acceptance. One commenter 

stated that data transmission should 

flexibly allow Excel files or XML format 

files, as some HFAs may have issues 

and/or budget constraints in converting 

data to XML. Some commenters favored 

expanding the existing TRACS system, 

or cross-referencing TRACS, to include 

tax credit projects, but one commenter 

stated that TRACS is not a workable 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Notices 9611 

system as it is not used by many States, 

unless it could be modified to allow 

XML upload and aggregate-only data. 

Response: XML is beneficial since it 

is a commonly used method of 

electronically encoding documents, 

usable over the Internet, and compatible 

with many programming interfaces that 

can be used to extract data. HUD will be 

using a system similar to TRACS to 

accept data files from the State housing 

finance agencies. This system accepts a 

variety of file formats, including XML. 

HUD plans to modify the system for this 

data collection effort to ensure that it 

accepts the requested file formats. 

Comment: HUD should make clear 

that responses to race, ethnicity, and 

disability status data are voluntary; 

whether the requirement to collect data 

exists for the 15-year tax credit 

compliance period or the extended 

period as well, arguing that the data 

collection should not apply after the 

initial 15 year period; and that, since 

there is no built-in enforcement 

mechanism, a good-faith effort to collect 

the data should suffice for compliance. 

One commenter stated that HUD should 

address how the data collection 

methodology will be coordinated with 

the authority HERA grants for State tax 

credit agencies to waive annual 

recertification requirements. 

Response: Data collection will include 

all low-income units monitored for 

compliance as long as they remain in 

the program, including those in the 

extended-use period. Tying the 

collection of information to the actual 

technical use of the credit makes little 

sense as most tax-credit owners actually 

sell or syndicate their credits at the 

outset. The key, rather, is that the units 

have received the benefit of tax credits 

and continue to remain in the program 

as low-income units, and it is those 

complying units that Congress seeks 

information about. 

Data collection will be consistent with 

new HERA re-certification rules for 100 

percent low-income unit properties. As 

to the race, ethnicity, and disability 

questions, a household cannot be forced 

to provide this information. If the 

household does not provide the 

information, the State agency shall make 

its best efforts to report the information 

based on observation or derived from 

other sources. 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

HUD should make available a 

guidebook, procedures manual, or other 

informational guidance. 

Response: HUD is specifying the data 

it is collecting in this notice and in the 

paperwork approval request published 

in the Federal Register. In addition, the 

information contact listed in this rule 

can provide copies of the actual revised 

notices. HUD may publish additional 

guidance in the near future. 

Comment: HUD should make 

development-level data available as 

soon as possible after it is collected so 

that it can be analyzed, for example, to 

determine Fair Housing Act compliance 

or whether families with incomes below 

the poverty line are being served. 

Response: The statute requires HUD 

to compile and make the information 

collected available ‘‘not less than 

annually.’’ HUD plans to fulfill that 

statutory requirement. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

data elements should be precisely 

defined so there is no variability from 

State to State. For example, all States 

should follow the same rounding rules. 

Response: HUD believes that most of 

the data being collected, such as age, 

ethnicity, family composition, disability 

status and age, is expressible in whole 

integers and will not require rounding. 

If it appears that rounding rules could 

affect the data in a statistically 

significant way, HUD may provide 

further guidance as needed. 

Comment: One commenter sought 

additional data collections for civilrights related purposes. This commenter 

stated that HUD should collect racial 

and ethnic data on applicants for LIHTC 

housing to better assess affirmative 

marketing compliance. This commenter 

also stated that when initial data is 

released, HUD should contract with 

‘‘reputable and independent research 

organizations to analyze the civil rights 

performance of LIHTC State agencies 

and project managers/developers’’ to 

identify possible patterns of civil rights 

violations for further action by HUD’s 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity. This commenter states that 

there has been a ‘‘longstanding failure’’ 

to collect racial and ethnic data in the 

LIHTC program. 

Response: HUD does not have 

statutory authority to collect data on 

applicants. While generally HUD 

supports improved civil rights 

performance in assisted housing, this 

particular statute is limited to collecting 

specified information. This information 

includes race, ethnicity, and disability 

status on households residing in 

properties receiving credits under the 

low-income housing tax credit program. 

Congress has not currently provided 

HUD with the authorization or funding 

to conduct the study suggested. 

Comment: Some commenters state 

that there should be transition periods 

of various times to give State agencies 

time to launch their new systems. 

Commenters also stated that compliance 

costs would be significant and that HUD 

should provide or petition Congress to 

provide additional funding to cover the 

extra costs. 

Response: HUD understands that 

States may encounter difficulty in 

completing the data collection requests. 

HUD will address on a State-by-State 

basis the need for additional time and 

is procuring services to assist States in 

their transition. However, while 

Congress has authorized funds for this 

data collection, funds were not 

appropriated for this specific purpose in 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The authorized 

funding amounts are limited to 

$2,500,000 for FY 2009 and $900,000 for 

each of FYs 2010 through 2013. States 

should be aware of this limited funding. 

III. Information Collection 

Parties interested in viewing and 

commenting on the information 

collection requirements may do so by 

responding to the separate notice of 

information collection published in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 8392). 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

Jean Lin Pao, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Development and Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4386 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLMT926000–10–L19100000–BJ0000– 

LRCM08RS4045] 

Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey: 

Montana 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of 

survey. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) will file the plat of 

survey of the lands described below in 

the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, 

Montana, thirty (30) days from the date 

of publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Toth, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch 

of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land 

Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, 

Billings, Montana 59101–4669, 

telephone (406) 896–5121 or (406) 896– 

5009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

survey was executed at the request of 

the Superintendent, Fort Peck Agency, 

through the Rocky Mountain Regional 

Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

was necessary to determine boundaries 

of Trust or Tribal Interest lands. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES