50552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5328–N–02] 

Final Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 

2010 for the Housing Choice Voucher 

Program and Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy Program 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Fair Market 

Rents (FMRs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. 

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. The primary uses of FMRs are 

to determine payment standard amounts 

for the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, to determine initial renewal 

rents for some expiring project-based 

Section 8 contracts, to determine initial 

rents for housing assistance payment 

(HAP) contracts in the Moderate 

Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy 

program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a 

rent ceiling in the HOME rental 

assistance program. Today’s notice 

provides final FY 2010 FMRs for all 

areas that reflect the estimated 40th and 

50th percentile rent levels trended to 

April 1, 2010. The FY 2010 FMRs are 

based on 2000 Census data updated 

with more current survey data. For FY 

2010, FY 2009 FMRs are updated using 

2007 American Community Survey 

(ACS) data, and more recent Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) rent and utility 

indexes. HUD continues to use ACS 

data in different ways according to how 

many two-bedroom standard-quality 

and recent-mover sample cases are 

available in the FMR area or its CoreBased Statistical Area (CBSA). Revised 

2007 FMRs based on Census and ACS 

data have been updated with CPI data 

through the end of 2008 and then 

trended to April 2010, the mid-point of 

FY 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: The FMRs 

published in this notice are effective on 

October 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information on the 

methodology used to develop FMRs or 

a listing of all FMRs, please call the 

HUD USER information line at (800) 

245–2691 or access the information at 

the following link on the HUD Web site: 

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

fmr.html. FMRs are listed at the 40th or 

50th percentile in Schedule B. An 

asterisk before the FMR area name 

identifies a 50th percentile area. Any 

questions related to use of FMRs or 

voucher payment standards should be 

directed to the respective local HUD 

program staff. Questions on how to 

conduct FMR surveys or further 

methodological explanations 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 number (202) 708– 

0590. Persons with hearing or speech 

impairments may access this number 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

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 by 

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 U.S. Government 

Printing Office Web site, http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Complete documentation of the 

methodology and data used to compute 

each area’s Final FY 2010 FMRs is 

available at http://www.huduser.org/ 

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr10. 

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). 

In addition, HUD’s regulations at 24 

CFR 888.113 set out procedures for HUD 

to assess whether areas are eligible for 

FMRs at the 50th percentile. Areas that 

currently have 50th percentile FMRs are 

evaluated for progress in voucher tenant 

deconcentration after three years in the 

program. Continued eligibility is 

determined using HUD administrative 

data that show levels of voucher tenant 

concentration. The levels of voucher 

holder concentration must be above 25 

percent and show a decrease in 

concentration since the last evaluation. 

At least 85 percent of the voucher units 

in the area must be used to make this 

determination. For FY 2009, there were 

14 areas that were designated as 50th 

percentile areas. Ten current 50th 

percentile FMR areas were not 

evaluated this year because they have 

not completed three years of program 

participation. These 10 areas, listed 

below, will complete their three-year 

program period and be evaluated to 

determine if they remain 50th percentile 

FMR areas in the proposed FY 2012 

FMR publication. 

FY 2009 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS NOT SLATED FOR ELIGIBILITY

EVALUATION AND CONTINUING WITH

50TH-PERCENTILE FMRS IN FY 

2010 

Albuquerque, NM MSA. 

Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA. 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA. 

Denver-Aurora, CO MSA. 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 

HMFA. 

Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA. 

Kansas City, MO-KS, HMFA. 

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA. 

Richmond, VA HMFA. 

Tacoma, WA HMFA. 

The remaining four current 50th 

percentile FMR areas had been in the 

program for a three-year period and 

were reviewed to determine if 

deconcentration had occurred. A list of 

these four areas is shown below. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50553 

FY 2009 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS REVIEWED FOR ELIGIBILITY

AS FY 2010 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS

Dallas, TX HMFA. 

Fort Lauderdale, FL HMFA. 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA. 

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL HMFA. 

Two of the four current 50th 

percentile areas eligible for review fail 

to qualify for the 50th percentile FMR 

program for FY 2010. One of these areas, 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 

MSA, no longer qualifies for the 50thpercentile FMR program because the 

area no longer meets the voucher holder 

concentration standards set out in the 

50th percentile FMR program, at 24 CFR 

888.113. Based on current tenant data, 

less than 25 percent of the tenant-based 

rental program participants reside in the 

5 percent of census tracts in the 

metropolitan area with the largest 

number of program participants. This 

area will be reviewed annually to see if 

its concentration changes to above 25 

percent so it can be reinstated as a 50th 

percentile area. The San Diego-CarlsbadSan Marcos, CA MSA could re-qualify 

as 50th percentile FMR areas as early as 

the FY 2011 FMRs. 

As noted in the publication of 

proposed FY 2010 FMRs, the Dallas, TX 

HMFA failed to deconcentrate over the 

three-year period. Under current 

regulations, the Dallas, TX HMFA is not 

eligible for participation in the 50th 

percentile FMR program until FY 2013. 

The Dallas, TX HMFA will be reviewed 

in time for the proposed FY 2013 FMRs 

to determine if they can meet 50th 

percentile FMR criteria. 

Two of the four areas reviewed will 

continue to use 50th percentile FMRs 

for another three-year period. These two 

areas will not be re-evaluated until FY 

2013. 

FY 2009 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS EVALUATED AND CONTINUING

WITH 50TH-PERCENTILE FMRS IN

FY 2010 

Fort Lauderdale, FL HMFA. 

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL HMFA. 

For FY 2010, five areas that were not 

designated as 50th percentile FMRs in 

FY 2009 were evaluated to determine if 

they met all of the qualifications for 

designation this year. All five of these 

areas are 50th percentile areas effective 

October 1st for a three-year period 

beginning with the FY 2010 FMRs. 

These areas are listed in the table below. 

AREAS REVIEWED FOR ELIGIBILITY AS

FY 2010 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA. 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA. 

New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA. 

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DEMD MSA. 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD 

HMFA. 

In total, 17 areas will have 50th 

percentile FMRs in FY 2010, including 

10 areas that will be evaluated for FY 

2012, two areas that passed review and 

will be re-evaluated for FY 2013, and 

five areas that did not have 50th 

percentile FMRs in FY 2009, and will 

also be evaluated for FY 2013. Included 

in these five newly-designated 50th 

percentile FMR areas is Washington, 

DC, which was not considered a 50th 

percentile FMR area in the proposed 

publication because the reporting rate 

for the area was less than 85 percent. 

Additional data was provided by the DC 

Housing Authority, the analysis was 

completed, and all 50th percentile 

criteria were met. 

III. Proposed FY 2010 FMRs 

On August 4, 2009 (74 FR 38716), 

HUD published proposed FY 2010 

FMRs. As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed FMRs, the FMRs for FY 2010 

reflect the use of both one-year and 

three-year 2007 ACS data to update June 

2006 rent estimates for each area. In 

addition, the FY 2010 FMRs include all 

changes made to metropolitan area 

definitions made by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), as of 

November 2008. 

During the comment period, which 

ended September 2, 2009, HUD received 

10 public comments on the proposed FY 

2010 FMRs. None of the comments 

received included the data needed to 

support FMR changes. Several of these 

comments expressed that proposed FY 

2010 FMRs are incorrect for their 

respective market areas. The comments 

received are discussed in more detail 

later in this notice. 

IV. FMR Methodology 

The FY 2010 FMRs are based on 

current OMB metropolitan area 

definitions that were first used in the FY 

2006 FMRs. The changes OMB made to 

the Metropolitan Area Definitions in 

November 2008 are incorporated. This 

means that there are five Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) name changes 

that reorder, add, or delete a primary 

city name. Additionally, three 

micropolitan areas were re-defined as 

metropolitan areas: Cape GirardeauJackson, MO-IL MSA, Manhattan, KS 

MSA, Mankato-North Mankato, MN 

MSA. The area definitions based on 

2000 Census data have the advantages of 

providing more relevant commuting 

interchange standards, and more current 

measures of housing market 

relationships than those based on 1990 

Census data and used prior to the FY 

2006 FMRs. 

At HUD’s request, the Census Bureau 

prepared a special publicly releasable 

census file that permits almost exact 

replication of HUD’s 2000 Base Rent 

calculations, except for areas with few 

rental units. This data set is located on 

HUD’s HUD USER Web site at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/. 

A. Data Sources—2000 Census and 

American Community Survey 

As in all post-FY 2006 FMR 

publications, FY 2010 FMRs start with 

base rents generated using Census 2000 

long form survey data. They are updated 

with American Community Survey 

(ACS) data and Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) 

data. FY 2010 FMRs are FY 2009 FMRs 

updated by replacing the CPI data used 

for FY 2009 FMRS with ACS 2007 

survey data and updated CPI data. 

Specifically, the FY 2009 rent (as of 

date: April, 2009) is deflated to June 

2006 by dividing it by 18 months of CPI 

data representing June 2006 through 

December 2007 inflation, and the usual 

15 month trend factor. This June 2006 

rent is the best and most recent rent 

estimate available using only ACS 

survey and eliminating all other update 

data. It is this rent that is updated with 

additional ACS data and new CPI data. 

In order to preserve additional 

information gathered by HUD through 

random digit dialing (RDD) surveys, 

areas surveyed after June 2007 are 

updated separately, the details of which 

can be found at the Web site listed 

above. 

B. Updates from 2006 to 2007—2007 

ACS 

ACS survey data continues to be 

applied to areas based on the type of 

area (CBSA, metropolitan sub-area, or 

non-metropolitan county), the amount 

of survey data available, and the 

reliability of the survey estimates. Both 

one- and three-year ACS 2007 data are 

used to update June 2006 rents. All 

areas are updated with the change from 

2006 to 2007 in State or metropolitan 

one-year standard quality median rents. 

In a methodological update from 

previous years’ estimates intended to 

minimize fluctuations in rents due to 

survey error, these rent changes are 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
50554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

1The change is considered statistically significant 

if Z > 1.645 where (see equation above) and EST1

= ACS 2007. Estimate, EST2 = ACS 2006 Estimate, 

SE1 = Standard Error of Estimate 1 and SE2 = 

Standard Error of Estimate 2. 

2The recent mover estimate from the three year 

data includes all those who moved in the most 

recent 24 month period. That means that no 2005 

survey data are included in this three-year recent 

mover classification and the likelihood of having a 

valid (with 200 or more cases) three-year recent 

mover rent is lower for these estimates. 

tested for statistical significance 1 before 

being applied to 2006 rents. Any state 

or metropolitan level change that is not 

statistically significant is not applied, 

that is the updated 2007 rent is the same 

as the 2006 rent. Metropolitan level rent 

changes are used for CBSA areas and 

sub-areas that have more than 200 

standard quality cases in 2006 and 2007. 

All other areas are updated with state 

level rent changes. For sub-areas, State 

and CBSA change factors continue to be 

selected based on which factor brings 

the sub-area rent closer to the CBSAwide rent. Sub-areas which have 200 or 

more local standard quality survey 

observations are updated with their 

local area update factor. 

Z EST EST

SE SE

= −

( ) +

1 2

1

2

2

2

After all areas have been updated 

with a standard quality median rent 

change, local areas with estimates that 

reflect more than 200 one-year recent 

mover cases are evaluated further. If the 

updated rent is outside the confidence 

interval of the ACS recent mover 

estimate, the updated rent is replaced 

with the ACS recent mover rent 

estimate. In areas without 200 or more 

one-year ACS recent mover 

observations, but with 200 or more 

three-year ACS recent mover 

observations, the three year estimate 2 is 

used if it is statistically different from 

the updated 2007 rent based on the 

standard quality median rent change. 

This process creates a June 2007 rent. 

C. Updates From 2007 to 2008 

ACS 2007 data updates the June 2006 

rents used in the FY 2009 FMRs forward 

by 12 months to June 2007. Six months 

of 2007 and 12 months of 2008 CPI rent 

and utilities price index data are used 

to update the June 2007 rents to the end 

of 2008. Local CPI data are used for 

FMR areas with at least 75 percent of 

their population within Class A 

metropolitan areas covered by local CPI 

data. Census region CPI data are used 

for FMR areas in Class B and C size 

metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan 

areas without local CPI update factors. 

D. Updates From 2008 to 2010 

The national 1990 to 2000 average 

annual rent increase trend of 1.03 is 

applied to end-of-2008 rents for 15 

months, to derive the proposed FY 2010 

FMRs. 

The area-specific data and 

computations used to calculate 

proposed FY 2010 FMRs and FMR area 

definitions can be found at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr10. 

E. Large Bedroom Rents 

FMR estimates are calculated for twobedroom units. This generally is the 

most common size of rental units, and 

therefore the most reliable to survey and 

analyze. After each decennial census, 

rent relationships between two-bedroom 

units and other unit sizes are calculated 

and used to set FMRs for other units. 

This is done because it is much easier 

to update two-bedroom estimates and to 

use pre-established cost relationships 

with other bedroom sizes than it is to 

develop independent FMR estimates for 

each bedroom size. This was last done 

using 2000 Census data. A publicly 

releasable version of the data file used 

that permits derivations of rent ratios is 

available at http://www.huduser.org/ 

datasets/fmr/CensusRentData/ 

index.html. Rent ratio derivations are 

also shown in the FMR documentation 

system at http://www.huduser.org/ 

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr10. 

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 bonuses of 

8.7 percent to the unadjusted threebedroom FMR estimates and adds 7.7 

percent to the unadjusted four-bedroom 

FMR estimates. The FMRs for unit sizes 

larger than four bedrooms are calculated 

by adding 15 percent to the fourbedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. 

For example, the FMR for a fivebedroom unit is 1.15 times the fourbedroom FMR, and the FMR for a sixbedroom unit is 1.30 times the fourbedroom FMR. FMRs for single-room 

occupancy units are 0.75 times the zerobedroom (efficiency) FMR. 

A further adjustment was made using 

2000 Census data in establishing rent 

ratios 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. HUD’s 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 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 

ranges used were: 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 (i.e., efficiency rents were not 

allowed to be higher than one-bedroom 

rents and four-bedroom rents were not 

allowed to be lower than three-bedroom 

rents). 

For low-population, nonmetropolitan 

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 due to insufficient sample 

sizes. The areas covered by this 

estimation method had less than the 

HUD standard of 200 two-bedroom 

census-tabulated observations. 

V. Public Comments 

A total of 10 public comments were 

received on the proposed FY 2010 

FMRs. Two of the comments filed were 

concerned with HUD’s presentation of 

proposed FMR data. These comments 

requested that HUD publish both the 

current proposed and most recent final 

FMRs together in a spreadsheet. The 

concept of comparing proposed rents to 

current effective rents is relevant so 

HUD has added this comparison to its 

on-line documentation system to 

provide interested users with a 

comparison of current year proposed 

rents to final rents from the previous 

year. This functionality will only be 

available in the proposed FMR 

documentation systems. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern with either increases or 

decreases in their FMRs. HUD will 

shortly be issuing guidance on costrelated issues in the housing voucher 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.063</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50555 

program including the setting of 

payment standards. However, as a 

reminder, whether there is a decrease or 

an increase in the FY 2010 FMR, a PHA 

is not required to decrease or increase 

the dollar amount of their payment 

standards unless the FMR results in the 

payment standard being outside the 

basic range of 90-to-110 percent of the 

FMR. 

A comment from the Housing 

Authority of the City of Reno stated that 

proposed FY 2010 FMRs are too high. 

The Reno comment claims that no 

increase in its FMR is needed and asks 

HUD to hold its FMRs at the FY 2009 

level. Reno includes an analysis that 

states that the three-percent annual 

trend factor is the cause of the increase 

in Reno’s FMR from FY 2009 to FY 

2010, and requests that HUD revise its 

trend factor downward. However, the 

actual source of the increase comes from 

the nearly 6-percent increase in ACS 

measured 2 bedroom rents between 

2006 and 2007. No data were submitted 

by the Housing Authority to support 

their claim that FMRs are too high in the 

area, but because the increase in the 

FMR for Reno is based on an update 

factor using standard quality, not recent 

mover, ACS data between 2006 ACS and 

2007 ACS HUD will conduct a RDD 

survey in the area to see if more current 

rents support a lower FMR. 

A real estate management firm serving 

customers in New Bedford, MA 

commented that FMRs are too low for 

their professionally managed and 

maintained communities; therefore, 

their communities will not be able to 

accommodate voucher tenants. The 

comment specifically requested that 

HUD not conduct a RDD survey. Absent 

sufficient data reflecting rent levels that 

exist in the entire FMR area, HUD has 

no mechanism for adjusting FMRs in 

this area. 

The Oklahoma City Housing 

Authority commented that the proposed 

3.5 percent decrease in FMRs for the 

Oklahoma City, OK MSA is not 

justified. They cite a 3-percent increase 

in aggregate rental rates per square foot 

between 2007 and 2008 as quoted from 

a full-service commercial real estate 

firm as the basis for the objection. The 

decrease in the proposed FY 2010 FMR 

for Oklahoma City, OK is driven by a 1- 

year 2007 ACS recent-mover survey 

result that measured a statistically 

significant drop in two-bedroom unit 

rents between 2006 and 2007. This 2007 

ACS result qualifies as the new basis for 

the Oklahoma City FMR. Activity in the 

rental market subsequent to 2007 is 

measured by 18 months of CPI rent and 

utility indexes and the traditional trend 

factor. These indexes lend credence to 

the quoted increases in rental rates. 

From mid-2007 to the end of 2007 this 

CPI measured increase was 

approximately 2 percent and from the 

end of 2007 to the end of 2008, this 

increase was approximately 5 percent. 

However, because the 2007 ACS survey 

result indicates that the base rent in 

Oklahoma City was too high in 2007, 

this downward adjustment is necessary. 

The Lafayette Housing Authority 

disagrees with HUD’s decision to 

increase FMRs for the Lafayette, IN HUD 

Metro FMR Area ‘‘when funding for the 

HCV program continues to lag so far 

behind that we must continue to 

decrease the number of households we 

can assist.’’ The 1.4 percent increase in 

the FMR for Lafayette is based on 

measured increases in rent and utility 

indexes in the CPI and is the most 

current data available for the area. 

The Minot Housing Authority serving 

Ward County, North Dakota filed a 

comment that FMRs are too low in the 

area. The Minot area has experienced an 

extremely low vacancy rate due to 

increased energy exploration and 

production in the area. Additionally, a 

substantial expansion of personnel at 

the Minot Air Force Base will place 

additional strain on the housing market 

of the area. Minot is currently using a 

success rate payment standard to 

increase its FY 2009 FMRs, but claims 

that increased payment standards are 

still needed. HUD will survey this area 

and will publish a revision to the FMRs 

once the study is completed and if 

statistically different rent results are 

obtained. 

The Department of Housing for the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

submitted a comment stating that FMRs 

throughout the entire Commonwealth 

are too low. They base this assertion on 

the claim that CPI measures of rent and 

utility increases measured for the South 

Census region do not accurately reflect 

the price changes experienced in Puerto 

Rico. Between 2000 and 2006, the 

Department of Labor and Human 

Resources of the Government of Puerto 

Rico created a CPI measure for Puerto 

Rico in consultation with officials from 

the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. HUD was not 

aware of this activity so previous FMRs 

have not included this Puerto Rico 

specific CPI data. HUD will incorporate 

consideration of this new CPI index into 

its FMR Process Review. 

The National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) 

submitted a general comment not 

specific to any FMR area. In their 

comment, NAHRO recommends 

multiple topics for future improvement 

of both the FMR and the Income Limit 

methodology. Briefly, these topics 

include: (1) HUD’s implementation of 

the OMB area definitions in FY 2006; (2) 

use of tenant data when developing 

Annual Adjustment Factors; (3) 

continuation of HUD’s Hold Harmless 

policy for Income Limits (Comments 

referencing HUD’s Hold Harmless 

policy should be referred to Docket No. 

FR–5323–N–01 published on September 

14th); (4) enhancements to the 

methodology for identifying substandard housing units in the ACS; (5) 

the relationship between quality of the 

rental housing stock and FMRs, (6) 

determination of 50th percentile FMR 

areas; (7) improvements in HUD’s RDD 

methodology; (8) the impact of HUD’s 

definition of ‘‘recent movers’’ and 

‘‘stayers’’ on FMRs; and (9) exception 

payment standards. In the preamble to 

the proposed FY 2010 FMR notice, HUD 

solicited topics for inclusion in future 

FMR notices regarding reforms and 

changes to the FMR methodology. HUD 

will incorporate this list of topics into 

future discussions dealing with FMR 

reform. 

A comment filed by the National 

Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

made four specific requests: (1) Conduct 

RDD surveys in the areas with a 

decrease of more than 5 percent; (2) 

incorporate language into proposed and 

final FMR notices concerning the 

adjustments made by HUD to control for 

the presence of inadequate and 

subsidized units; (3) explain the way 

that a particular area becomes eligible 

for 50th percentile FMRs; and (4) the 

loss of the 50th percentile FMR 

designation in the Dallas, TX HUD 

Metro FMR Area. 

FY 2010 proposed FMRs include two 

areas that experience more than a 5 

percent decline in FMRs. One is San 

Diego, CA, whose decline is a result of 

the loss of the 50th percentile, and the 

other is Ann Arbor, MI. HUD is required 

by law to use the most recent, reliable 

data available in estimating FMRs. 

Limiting either increases or decreases 

would be counter to the current law. 

FMRs for both of these areas are based 

on local ACS survey results; conducting 

an RDD would use scarce resources to 

produce less reliable data than that 

available from the ACS. In addition, no 

comments were filed by any party 

within either of the two areas. 

NAHB has requested additional 

language be added to FMR publications 

concerning adjustments made to source 

data to account for sub-standard and 

subsidized units. In response to a 

similar comment from NAHB last year 

HUD published a document outlining 

the procedure for these adjustments. A 

link to this document is available within 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
50556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

the FY 2010 on-line documentation 

wherever the adjustments are made to 

the underlying data distributions and 

not just in determining the 2000 Census 

Base rent as reported by NAHB. HUD 

believes that the on-line documentation 

system is the best venue for discussing 

methodological details and believes that 

interested parties will be able to find the 

explanation at the appropriate location 

within the on-line system. 

HUD continues to provide specific 

details regarding the 50th percentile 

status for all areas meeting the eligibility 

requirements for inclusion in this 

program. In response to the NAHB 

request that HUD include information 

regarding ‘‘success rate payment 

standards’’ HUD reiterates here that all 

of the rules and conditions for becoming 

eligible for and for maintaining 

eligibility of 50th percentile status are 

given in 24 CFR 888.113 and 24 CFR 

982.503, including the rules applying to 

the success rate payment standard. 

Finally, with regard to the loss of 50th 

percentile standing for the Dallas, TX 

HUD Metro FMR area, NAHB 

recommends that HUD ‘‘look further 

into the circumstances of areas that 

stand to lose the 50th percentile 

designation because of failure to 

materially deconcentrate in three 

years.’’ Furthermore, NAHB suggests 

that there may be instances where an 

additional year is warranted. Current 

program regulations do not allow for an 

additional year of eligibility for areas 

that do not deconcentrate over the threeyear period. 

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. For FY 

2010, HUD received no comments or 

data concerning manufactured home 

space rents. 

All approved exceptions to these rents 

that were in effect in FY 2009 were 

updated to FY 2010 using the same data 

used to estimate the Housing Choice 

Voucher program FMRs if the respective 

FMR area’s definition remained the 

same. 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. The FMR area definitions 

used for the rental of manufactured 

home spaces are the same as the area 

definitions used for the other FMRs. 

Areas with definitional changes that 

previously had exceptions to their 

manufactured housing space rental 

FMRs are requested to submit new 

surveys to justify higher-than-standard 

space rental FMRs if they believe higher 

space rental allowances are needed. 

VII. HUD Rental Housing Survey 

Guides 

For the supporting data, 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 approximately $35,000. Areas with 

2,000 or more program units usually 

meet this cost criterion, and areas with 

fewer units may meet it if actual rents 

for two-bedroom units are significantly 

different from the FMRs proposed by 

HUD. In addition, HUD has developed 

a 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, at a cost of $5,000 or less. 

PHAs in nonmetropolitan areas may, 

in certain circumstances, conduct 

surveys of groups of counties. HUD 

must approve all county-grouped 

surveys in advance. 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 the relationship 

of rents in that area to the combined 

rents in the cluster of FMR areas. In 

addition, PHAs are advised that 

counties where FMRs are based on the 

combined rents in the cluster of FMR 

areas will not have their FMRs revised 

unless the grouped survey results show 

a revised FMR above the combined rent 

level. 

PHAs that plan to use the RDD survey 

technique should obtain a copy of the 

appropriate survey guide. Larger PHAs 

should request HUD’s survey guide 

entitled ‘‘Random Digit Dialing Surveys; 

A Guide to Assist Larger Public Housing 

Agencies in Preparing Fair Market Rent 

Comments.’’ Smaller PHAs should 

obtain the guide entitled ‘‘Rental 

Housing Surveys: A Guide to Assist 

Smaller Public Housing Agencies in 

Preparing Fair Market Rent Comments.’’ 

These guides, in Microsoft Word format, 

are available from HUD USER at HUD’s 

Web site at the following address: 

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

fmr.html. 

Other survey methodologies are 

acceptable in providing data to support 

comments, if the survey methodology 

can provide statistically reliable, 

unbiased estimates of the gross rent. 

Survey samples should preferably 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 to be statistically 

representative of the entire rental 

housing stock of the FMR area. Surveys 

must include units at 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 means of verifying if a sample is 

representative of the FMR area’s rental 

housing stock. 

Most surveys of FMR areas cover only 

one- and two-bedroom units. If the 

survey is statistically acceptable, HUD 

will estimate FMRs for other bedroom 

sizes using ratios based on the decennial 

census. 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 may find it appropriate 

to relax normal sample size 

requirements. 

HUD will consider increasing 

manufactured home space FMRs where 

public comment demonstrates that 40 

percent of the two-bedroom FMR is not 

adequate. In order to be accepted as a 

basis for revising the manufactured 

home space FMRs, comments must 

include a pad rental survey of the 

mobile home parks in the area, identify 

the utilities included in each park’s 

rental fee, and provide a copy of the 

applicable public housing authority’s 

utility schedule. 

Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent 

Schedules, which will not be codified in 

24 CFR Part 888, are amended as 

follows: 

Dated: September 23, 2009. 

Raphael W. Bostic, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 

and Research. 

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. The FY2010 

FMRs reflect a change in metropolitan 

area definitions. HUD is using the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50557 

metropolitan Core Based Statistical 

Areas (CBSA), which are made up of 

one or more counties, as defined by the 

OMB, with some modifications. HUD is 

generally assigning separate FMRs to the 

component counties of CBSA 

Micropolitan Areas. 

b. Modifications to OMB Definitions— 

Following OMB guidance, the 

estimation procedure for the FY2010 

FMRs incorporates the current OMB 

definitions of metropolitan areas based 

on the CBSA standards as implemented 

with 2000 Census data, but makes 

adjustments to the definitions to 

separate subparts of these areas where 

FMRs or median incomes would 

otherwise change significantly if the 

new area definitions were used without 

modification. In CBSAs where sub-areas 

are established, it is HUD’s view that the 

geographic extent of the housing 

markets are not yet the same as the 

geographic extent of the CBSAs, but 

may become so in the future as the 

social and economic integration of the 

CBSA component areas increases. 

Modifications to metropolitan CBSA 

definitions are made according to a 

formula as described below. 

Metropolitan area CBSAs (referred to 

as Metropolitan Statistical Areas or 

MSAs) may be modified to allow for 

sub-area FMRs within MSAs based on 

the boundaries of old FMR areas (OFAs) 

within the boundaries of new MSAs. 

(OFAs are the FMR areas defined for the 

FY2005 FMRs. Collectively, they 

include 1999 definition MSAs/PMSAs, 

metropolitan counties deleted from 

1999 definition MSAs/PMSAs by HUD 

for FMR purposes, and counties and 

county parts outside of 1999 definition 

MSAs/PMSAs referred to as 

nonmetropolitan counties.) Sub-areas of 

MSAs are assigned their own FMRs 

when the sub-area 2000 Census Base 

Rent differs by at least 5 percent from 

the MSA 2000 Census Base Rent (i.e., by 

at most 95 percent or at least 105 

percent), or when the 2000 Census 

Median Family Income for the sub-area 

differs by at least 5 percent from the 

MSA 2000 Census Median Family 

Income. MSA sub-areas, and the 

remaining portions of MSAs after subareas have been determined, are referred 

to as HUD Metro FMR Areas (HMFAs) 

to distinguish these areas from OMB’s 

official definition of MSAs. 

The specific counties and New 

England towns and cities within each 

state in MSAs and HMFAs are listed in 

Schedule B. 

2. Bedroom Size Adjustments 

Schedule B shows the FMRs for zerobedroom through four-bedroom units. 

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 four-bedroom FMR, and the 

FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 

times the four-bedroom FMR. FMRs for 

single-room-occupancy (SRO) units are 

0.75 times the zero-bedroom FMR. 

3. Arrangement of FMR Areas and 

Identification of Constituent Parts 

a. The FMR areas in Schedule B are 

listed alphabetically by metropolitan 

FMR area and by nonmetropolitan 

county within each state. The exception 

rents for manufactured home spaces 

FMRs are listed alphabetically in 

Schedule D. 

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. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
50558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.142</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50559 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.143</GPH>
50560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.144</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50561 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.145</GPH>
50562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.146</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50563 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.147</GPH>
50564 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.148</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50565 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.149</GPH>
50566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.150</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50567 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.151</GPH>
50568 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.152</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50569 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.153</GPH>
50570 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.154</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50571 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.155</GPH>
50572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.156</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50573 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.157</GPH>
50574 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.158</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50575 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.159</GPH>
50576 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.160</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50577 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.161</GPH>
50578 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.162</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50579 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.163</GPH>
50580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.164</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50581 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.165</GPH>
50582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.166</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50583 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.167</GPH>
50584 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.168</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50585 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.169</GPH>
50586 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.170</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50587 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.171</GPH>
50588 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.172</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50589 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.173</GPH>
50590 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.174</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50591 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.175</GPH>
50592 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.176</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50593 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.177</GPH>
50594 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.178</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50595 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.179</GPH>
50596 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.180</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50597 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.181</GPH>
50598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.182</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50599 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.183</GPH>
50600 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.184</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50601 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.185</GPH>
50602 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.186</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50603 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.187</GPH>
50604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.188</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50605 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.189</GPH>
50606 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.190</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50607 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.191</GPH>
50608 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.192</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50609 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.193</GPH>
50610 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.194</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50611 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.195</GPH>
50612 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.196</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50613 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.197</GPH>
50614 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.198</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50615 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.199</GPH>
50616 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.200</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50617 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.201</GPH>
50618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.202</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50619 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.203</GPH>
50620 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.204</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50621 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.205</GPH>
50622 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.206</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50623 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.207</GPH>
50624 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.208</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50625 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.209</GPH>
50626 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.210</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50627 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.211</GPH>
50628 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.212</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50629 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.213</GPH>
50630 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.214</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50631 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.215</GPH>
50632 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.216</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50633 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.217</GPH>
50634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.218</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50635 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.219</GPH>
50636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.220</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50637 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.221</GPH>
50638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.222</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50639 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.223</GPH>
50640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.224</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50641 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.225</GPH>
50642 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.226</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50643 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.227</GPH>
50644 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.228</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50645 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.229</GPH>
50646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.230</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50647 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.231</GPH>
50648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.232</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50649 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.233</GPH>
50650 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.234</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50651 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.235</GPH>
50652 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.236</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50653 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.237</GPH>
50654 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.238</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50655 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.239</GPH>
50656 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.240</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50657 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.241</GPH>
50658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.242</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50659 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.243</GPH>
50660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.244</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50661 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.245</GPH>
50662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.246</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50663 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.247</GPH>
50664 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–23477 Filed 9–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN30SE09.248</GPH>