52058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

[Docket No. FR–5567–N–01] 

Proposed Fair Market Rents for the 

Housing Choice Voucher Program and 

Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room 

Occupancy Program Fiscal Year 2012 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2012 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. The primary uses of FMRs are 

to determine payment standards for the 

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) 

program, to determine initial renewal 

rents for some expiring project-based 

Section 8 contracts, to determine initial 

rents for housing assistance payment 

contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy program, and 

to serve as rent ceilings in the HOME 

program. Today’s notice provides 

proposed FY 2012 FMRs for all areas 

that reflect the estimated 40th and 50th 

percentile rent levels trended to April 1, 

2012. The FY 2012 FMRs are rebenchmarked using five-year, 2005– 

2009 data collected by the American 

Community Survey (ACS). These data 

are updated using one-year ACS data in 

areas where statistically valid one-year 

ACS data is available. The Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) rent and utility 

indexes are used to further update the 

data from 2009 to the end of 2010. HUD 

continues to use ACS data in different 

ways according to how many twobedroom standard-quality and recentmover sample cases are available in the 

FMR area or its Core-Based Statistical 

Area (CBSA). 

The proposed FY 2012 FMR areas are 

based on current Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) metropolitan area 

definitions and include HUD 

modifications that were first used in the 

determination of FY 2006 FMR areas. 

Changes to the OMB metropolitan area 

definitions through December 2009 are 

incorporated. The bedroom ratios 

developed using 2000 Census data 

continue to be used and state 

minimums, calculated each year from 

the estimated FMRs, continue to be 

applied. 

This notice also includes HUD’s 

responses to comments received on the 

March 9, 2011, (76 FR 12985), Federal 

Register notice (‘‘Trend Notice’’) 

seeking public comment regarding the 

manner in which HUD calculates a 

trend factor, the time period the trend 

factor is applied in the FMR estimation 

process and related issues. 

HUD received four applications to 

participate in the Small Area FMR 

demonstration program. These 

applications are being reviewed and 

information on the demonstration 

program will be made available in a 

notice published at a later date. 

Finally, in an effort to serve HUD’s 

external clients who use HUD’s 

estimates of Area Median Family 

Income (MFI) and their associated 

Income Limits (IL), HUD is requesting 

comments on a proposal to establish a 

certain date for publishing these 

parameters. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: September 

19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

HUD’s estimates of the FMRs and/or 

HUD’s proposed timeline for publishing 

MFIs and ILs, as published in this 

notice, to the Office of General Counsel, 

Rules Docket Clerk, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0001. 

Communications should refer to the 

above docket number and title and 

should contain the information 

specified in the ‘‘Request for 

Comments’’ section. 

Submission of Hard Copy Comments. 

To ensure that the information is fully 

considered by all of the reviewers, each 

commenter who is submitting hard copy 

comments, by mail or hand delivery, is 

requested to submit two copies of its 

comments to the address above, one 

addressed to the attention of the Rules 

Docket Clerk and the other addressed to 

the attention of Economic and Market 

Analysis Division staff in the 

appropriate HUD field office. Due to 

security measures at all federal agencies, 

submission of comments by mail often 

results in delayed delivery. To ensure 

timely receipt of comments, HUD 

recommends that any comments 

submitted by mail be submitted at least 

two weeks in advance of the public 

comment deadline. 

Electronic Submission of Comments. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site can be 

viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow instructions 

provided on that site to submit 

comments electronically. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(Fax) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Comments. All 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available, 

without charge, for public inspection 

and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

weekdays at the above address. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Copies of all comments submitted are 

available for inspection and 

downloading at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 on 

the HUD Web site http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ 

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

50th percentile in Schedule B. For 

informational purposes, 40th percentile 

recent-mover rents for the areas with 

50th percentile FMRs will be provided 

in the HUD FY 2012 FMR 

documentation system at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/ 

fmrs/docsys.html&data=fmr12 and 50th 

percentile rents for all FMR areas will 

be published at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ 

50per.html after publication of final FY 

2012 FMRs. 

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 concerning 

further methodological explanations 

may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or 

Peter B. Kahn, 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 toll-free 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

(Other than the HUD USER information 

line and TDD numbers, telephone 

numbers are not toll-free.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52059 

1As defined in 24 CFR 888.113(c), a minimally 

qualified area is an area with at least 100 census 

tract where 70 percent or fewer of the census tracts 

with at least 10 two bedroom rental units are census 

tracts in which at least 30 percent of the two 

bedroom rental units have gross rents at or below 

the two bedroom FMR set at the 40th percentile 

rent. This is evaluated with 2000 Census tract data, 

while we are awaiting 2010 ACS data to be 

aggregated using 2010 Census tract definitions. 

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 

geographic areas. In the HCV 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 HCV program 

must meet reasonable rent standards. 

HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR 888.113 

permit it to establish 50th percentile 

FMRs for certain areas. 

Electronic Data Availability: This 

Federal Register notice is available 

electronically from the HUD User page 

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

fmr.html. Federal Register notices also 

are available electronically from http:// 

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

U.S. Government Printing Office Web 

site. Complete documentation of the 

methodology and data used to compute 

each area’s proposed FY 2012 FMRs is 

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

portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

docsys.html&data=fmr12. Proposed FY 

2012 FMRs are available in a variety of 

electronic formats at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ 

fmr.html. FMRs may be accessed in PDF 

format as well as in Microsoft Excel. 

Small Area FMRs based on Proposed FY 

2012 Metropolitan Area Rents are 

available in Microsoft Excel format at 

the same web address. Please note that 

these Small Area FMRs are for reference 

only, and will only be used by PHAs 

participating in the Small Area FMR 

demonstration. 

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. 

HUD’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. Minimally 

qualified areas 1 are reviewed each year 

unless not qualified to be reviewed. 

Areas are not qualified to be reviewed 

if they have been made a 50th-percentile 

area within the last three years or have 

lost 50th-percentile status for failure to 

de-concentrate within the last three 

years. 

In FY 2011 there are 18 areas using 

50th-percentile FMRs. Of these 18 areas, 

10 of them have completed three years 

of program participation and are due for 

re-evaluation. The following table lists 

these 10 areas. 

FY 2011 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS RE-EVALUATED FOR ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION IN FY 2012 

Albuquerque, NM 

MSA.

Chicago-JolietNaperville, IL 

HMFA2. 

Denver-Aurora, CO 

MSA.

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT HMFA. 

Houston-BaytownSugar Land, TX 

HMFA.

Kansas City, MO–KS, 

HMFA. 

Milwaukee-WaukeshaWest Allis, WI MSA.North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, 

FL MSA. 

Richmond, VA HMFA Tacoma, WA HMFA. 

2 HMFA stands for HUD Metropolitan FMR 

Area. 

Only three of the 10 areas up for reevaluation will continue to be 50thpercentile FMR areas: 

FY 2011 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS THAT CONTINUE AS 50THPERCENTILE AREAS, NEXT EVALUATION IN FY 2015 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT HMFA.

Houston-BaytownSugar Land, TX 

HMFA. 

North Port-BradentonSarasota, FL MSA.

Two areas ‘‘graduated’’ from the 50thpercentile FMR program. This means 

that the concentration of HCV tenants is 

below what is required to be eligible for 

a 50th-percentile FMR. These two areas 

may be evaluated annually and may 

return to the program: 

FY 2011 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS THAT ‘‘GRADUATE,’’ EVALUATED ANNUALLY

Milwaukee-WaukeshaWest Allis, WI MSA.Richmond, VA 

HMFA. 

The remaining five areas failed to 

deconcentrate and will not be eligible 

for evaluation for three years, until the 

FY 2015 FMRs are evaluated: 

FY 2011 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS THAT FAILED TO

DECONCENTRATE, ELIGIBLE FOR

EVALUATION IN FY 2015 

Albuquerque, NM 

MSA.

Chicago-JolietNaperville, IL 

HMFA. 

Denver-Aurora, CO 

MSA.

Kansas City, MO–KS, 

HMFA. 

Tacoma, WA HMFA.

Of the remaining eight 50th-percentile 

FMR areas that were not eligible for 

review, seven will complete three years 

in the program and be reviewed for the 

FY 2013 FMRs, as shown below: 

FY 2012 CONTINUING 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR AREAS SLATED FOR

EVALUATION IN FY 2013 

Baltimore-Towson, 

MD MSA.

Fort Lauderdale, FL 

HMFA. 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA.New Haven-Meriden, 

CT HMFA. 

Philadelphia-CamdenWilmington, PA– 

NJ–DE–MD MSA.

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

DC–VA–MD 

HMFA. 

West Palm BeachBoca Raton, FL 

HMFA.

The eighth FY 2011 area, BergenPassaic, NJ HMFA, was granted 

authorization to use 50th-percentile 

FMRs in FY 2011. Therefore, under 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
52060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

3For areas with a two-bedroom standard quality 

gross rent from the ACS that have a margin of error 

greater than the estimate or no estimate due to 

inadequate sample in the 2009 5-year ACS, HUD 

uses the two-bedroom state non-metro rent for nonmetro areas. 

4HUD ensures that the recent mover estimate for 

each non-metropolitan portion of the state has at 

least 100 ACS sample observations. If any state nonmetropolitan recent mover rent is based on fewer 

than 100 observations, the recent mover factor 

would be calculated based on the 1-year recent 

mover data and 5-year standard quality data for the 

entire state. 

5The change is considered statistically significant 

if Z is greater than 1.645 where Z is equal to the 

change between the estimate for the 1-year data and 

the 5-year estimate, over the square root of the sum 

of the squared standard error for the 1-year estimate 

and the squared standard error of the 5-year 

estimate. 

6For metropolitan areas that cross state 

boundaries, and where there are not 100 2-bedroom 

recent mover observations, HUD uses the weighted 

average update factors for the encompassing state 

metropolitan areas. HUD performs the Z-score test 

for statistical difference between the 1-year recentmover rent and 5-year standard-quality rent 

separately for each state metropolitan part prior to 

computing the weighted average update factor. 

current regulations, Bergen-Passaic, NJ 

HMFA, will continue in the 50th 

percentile program for FY 2012 and will 

be evaluated when the FY 2014 FMRs 

are calculated. 

There will be 10 additional 50thpercentile FMR areas, one that is new to 

the program, Sacramento—ArdenArcade—Roseville, CA HMFA. The 

other 9 areas, as listed below, all failed 

to deconcentrate when evaluated for the 

FY 2009 FMRs, but have been reinstated 

as 50th-percentile FMRs: 

FY 2012 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR 

AREAS REINSTATED EVALUATION IN

FY 2015 

Austin-Round RockSan Marcos, TX 

MSA.

Fort Worth-Arlington, 

TX HMFA. 

Honolulu, HI MSA ...... Las Vegas-Paradise, 

NV MSA. 

Orange County, CA 

HMFA.

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ MSA. 

Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, 

CA HMFA.

Tucson, AZ MSA. 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA–NC MSA.

In summary, there will be 21 50thpercentile FMR areas in FY 2012. These 

areas are indicated by an asterisk in 

Schedule B, where all FMRs are listed 

by state. 

III. FMR Methodology 

This section provides a brief overview 

of how the FY 2012 FMRs are 

computed. For complete information on 

how FMR areas are determined, and on 

how each area’s FMRs are derived, see 

the online documentation at: http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/ 

fmrs/docsys.html&data=fmr12. 

The proposed FY 2012 FMRs are 

based on current OMB metropolitan 

area definitions and standards that were 

first used in the FY 2006 FMRs. OMB 

changes to the metropolitan area 

definitions through December 2009 are 

incorporated. There have been no area 

definition changes published by OMB 

since the publication of the FY 2011 

FMRs; therefore, the FY 2012 area 

definitions are the same as those used 

in FY 2011. 

A. Base Year Rents 

The U.S. Census Bureau released 

standard tabulations of 5-year ACS data 

collected between 2005 through 2009 in 

December of 2010. This is the first time 

that updated data are available for all 

FMR areas and their component 

geographies since the release of the 2000 

Decennial Census data (previous ACS 

releases only covered areas with 20,000 

or more in population). Because of this 

new data availability, HUD has the 

ability to estimate new base rents based 

on the 5-year ACS data. 

FMRs are typically based on gross 

rents for recent movers (those who have 

moved into their current residence in 

the last 24 months). FMRs prior to FY 

2012 were calculated based on recent 

mover gross rent estimates from the 

2000 Census or from more recent HUD 

commissioned surveys. However, due to 

the way the 5-year data are constructed, 

the notion of recent mover is a murky 

concept. The 5-year data aggregates all 

survey data collected between January 

2005 and December 2009 for a given 

area. Dollar values such as gross rents 

are transformed from the time period in 

which they were collected to an overall 

2009 value using the national CPI. 

Attempting to limit the 5-year data to 

those who have moved in the last 24 

months severely limits the usefulness of 

the 5-year data. Consequently, all areas 

are assigned as a base rent the estimated 

two-bedroom standard quality 5-year 

gross rent from the ACS.3 Because 

HUD’s regulations mandate that FMRs 

must be published as recent mover gross 

rents, HUD has created a recent mover 

bonus factor to apply to the standard 

quality base rents assigned from the 5- 

year ACS data. The recent mover bonus 

is described below. 

Local area rent surveys conducted in 

2010 by HUD or PHAs are used instead 

of ACS-base rents when the survey 

results are statistically different from the 

ACS based rents. The surveys for 

Williamsport, PA, MSA and Pike 

County, HMFA were evaluated and are 

being used in place of the 2009 ACS 

data. A survey conducted in 2010 for 

the county group, Bradford-SullivanTioga, PA, was also evaluated, but there 

was no statistical difference from the 

2009 ACS data, updated to 2010. 

B. Recent Mover Bonus Factor 

Following the assignment of the 

standard quality two-bedroom rent 

described above, HUD applies a recent 

mover bonus to these rents. The 

following describes the process for 

determining the appropriate recent 

mover bonus. 

For non-metropolitan areas, HUD 

calculated the percentage change 

between the 5-year standard quality rent 

for the non-metropolitan portion of the 

state and the 1-year recent mover rent 

for the same area.4 HUD then computes 

a z-score to determine if the 5-year 

standard quality rent and the 1-year 

recent mover rent are statistically 

different.5 If the two rents have a 

statistically significant difference, the 

recent mover bonus factor is set at the 

difference between the state nonmetropolitan 1-year recent mover rent 

and the state non-metropolitan 5-year 

standard quality rent expressed as a 

percentage of the state non-metropolitan 

5-year standard quality rent. If the two 

rents are not statistically different, the 

recent mover bonus is set to 1.0. 

For metropolitan areas, the recent 

mover bonus is calculated in a similar 

fashion. HUD selects the smallest 

geographic area which encompasses the 

metropolitan area in question that has at 

least 100 recent mover observations to 

use in the calculation of the recent 

mover bonus factor. For HUD-defined 

subareas of OMB defined metropolitan 

areas, this means that the recent mover 

bonus factor may be based on the recent 

mover data for the subarea, the entire 

metropolitan area, the metropolitan 

portions of the state, or finally the entire 

state depending on which geographic 

level has 100 or more recent mover 

observations.6 Once the area with 100 or 

more recent mover cases has been 

determined, HUD calculates a z-score 

comparing the 1-year recent mover twobedroom gross rent with the 5-year 

standard quality two-bedroom gross rent 

for the recent mover bonus area. If the 

two rents are statistically different, HUD 

sets the recent mover bonus for the FMR 

area as the percentage change between 

the two rents for the recent mover bonus 

area. If the difference in rents is not 

statistically different, the recent mover 

bonus factor for the FMR area is set to 

1. 

For FMR areas without 100 recent 

mover rents, a recent mover bonus is 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52061 

7The Pacific Islands (Guam, Northern Marianas 

and American Samoa) as well as the US Virgin 

Islands are not covered by ACS data. As part of the 

2010 Decennial Census, these areas were covered by 

a long-form survey. The results gathered by this 

long form survey will not be available until 2012. 

Therefore, HUD uses the national change in gross 

rents, measured between 2008 and 2009 to update 

last year’s FMR for these areas. Puerto Rico is 

covered by the Puerto Rico Community Survey 

within the American Community Survey; however, 

the gross rent data produced by the 2005–2009 ACS 

are not sufficient to adequately house voucher 

holders in Puerto Rico. This is due to the limited 

ability to eliminate units that do not pass the 

voucher program’s housing quality standards. 

Consequently, HUD is updating last year’s FMRs for 

Puerto Rico using the change in rents measured 

from all of Puerto Rico measured between the 2008 

and 2009. For details behind these calculations, 

please see HUD’s Proposed FY 2012 FMR 

documentation system available at: http:// 

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

docsys.html&data=fmr12. 

calculated at the smallest area level that 

does have 100 recent movers. For 

metropolitan areas, this order is subarea, 

metropolitan area, state metropolitan 

area, and state. For a nonmetropolitan 

area a recent mover bonus based on the 

state nonmetropolitan area, or if that is 

not available it is calculated on the basis 

of the whole state. For an example of 

how the recent mover bonus is 

calculated for these areas, please review 

this methodology for Abilene, TX MSA 

and Baldwin County, AL, in the FY 

2012 documentation system: http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/ 

fmrs/docsys.html&data=fmr12. 

This process produces an ‘‘as of’’ 2009 

recent mover two-bedroom base gross 

rent for the FMR area.7

C. Updates From 2009 to 2010 

The ACS data is updated through 

2009 using the one-half of the change in 

annual CPI measured between 2008 and 

2009. This data is further updated 

through the end of 2010 using the 

annual change in CPI from 2009 to 2010. 

As in previous years, HUD uses Local 

CPI data for FMR areas with at least 75 

percent of their population within Class 

A metropolitan areas covered by local 

CPI data. HUD uses Census region CPI 

data for FMR areas in Class B and C size 

metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan 

areas without local CPI update factors. 

D. Trend From 2010 to 2012 

The national 1990 to 2000 average 

annual rent increase trend of 3 percent 

is applied to end-of-2010 rents for 15 

months, to derive the proposed FY 2012 

FMRs with a date of April 2012. 

On March 9, 2011 (76 FR 12985), 

HUD published a notice requesting 

public comment regarding the manner 

in which it calculates the trend factor 

used in determining FMR estimates to 

meet the statutory requirement that 

FMRs be ‘‘trended so the rentals will be 

current for the year to which they 

apply.’’ HUD’s notice provided several 

proposed alternatives to the current 

trend factor and requested comments on 

the alternatives as well as suggestions of 

other ideas. These comments are 

discussed in further detail later in this 

notice, but, in short, the commenters 

did not arrive at a consensus over how 

to change the trending methodology. 

Therefore, HUD will continue to 

consider the suggestions provided in the 

comments and make plans to implement 

a new methodology with the publication 

of FY 2013 Proposed FMRs. 

E. Bedroom Rent Adjustments 

HUD calculates the primary FMR 

estimates for two-bedroom units. This is 

generally the most common size of 

rental units and, therefore, the most 

reliable to survey and analyze. 

Formerly, after each Decennial Census, 

HUD calculated rent relationships 

between two-bedroom units and other 

unit sizes and used them to set FMRs for 

other units. HUD did this 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. HUD 

did the last update of bedroom-rent 

relationships using 2000 Census data. A 

publicly releasable version of the data 

file used for the derivations of rent 

ratios is available at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/index.html. 

HUD made adjustments using 2000 

Census data to establish rent ratios for 

areas with local bedroom-size intervals 

above or below what are considered 

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 that rent 

for more than typical one-bedroom 

units). HUD established bedroom 

interval ranges based on an analysis of 

the range of such intervals for all areas 

with large enough samples to permit 

accurate bedroom ratio determinations. 

These ranges are: efficiency FMRs are 

constrained to fall between 0.65 and 

0.83 of the two-bedroom FMR; onebedroom FMRs must be between 0.76 

and 0.90 of the two-bedroom FMR; 

three-bedroom FMRs must be between 

1.10 and 1.34 of the two-bedroom FMR; 

and four-bedroom FMRs must be 

between 1.14 and 1.63 of the twobedroom FMR. HUD adjusts bedroom 

rents for a given FMR area if the 

differentials between bedroom-size 

FMRs were inconsistent with normally 

observed patterns (i.e., efficiency rents 

are not allowed to be higher than onebedroom rents and four-bedroom rents 

are not allowed to be lower than threebedroom rents). 

HUD further adjusts the rents for 

three-bedroom and larger units to reflect 

HUD’s policy to set higher rents for 

these units than would result from using 

unadjusted 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 

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. FMRs for single-room 

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

For low-population, nonmetropolitan 

counties with small 2000 Census 

samples of recent-mover rents, HUD 

uses Census-defined county group data 

to determine rents for each bedroom 

size. HUD made this adjustment 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. 

The 2010 Decennial Census did not 

collect the information necessary to 

update unit bedroom rent relationships. 

HUD intends to use the 2006–2010 5- 

year ACS data to update these 

relationships for the FY 2013 FMRs. 

HUD is choosing to wait until next year 

to ensure something closer to a 

consistent 10 year time period, but more 

importantly, because the 2010 ACS data 

will be published based on the 2010 

Decennial Census geographic 

definitions. 

IV. Manufactured Home Space Surveys 

The FMR used to establish payment 

standard amounts for the rental of 

manufactured home spaces in the HCV 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
52062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

(including the cost of utilities) for the 

entire FMR area. 

All approved exceptions to these rents 

that were in effect in FY 2011 were 

updated to FY 2012 using the same data 

used to estimate the Housing Choice 

Voucher program FMRs. If the result of 

this computation was higher than 40 

percent of the new 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. 

V. Review of Comments and HUD’s 

Responses Regarding the Methodology 

for Calculating the FMR Trend Factor 

As previously stated, the comments 

delivered to HUD in response to the 

March 9, 2011 (76 FR 12985) Federal 

Register notice concerning the trend 

factor methodology yielded only one 

consensus, the need for a trend factor. 

This section summarizes the comments 

received and provides HUD’s responses. 

In order to respond to all comments 

received, HUD has summarized the 

comments below, and has grouped the 

comments into two sections: General 

Comments and Comments on Specific 

HUD Questions. 

A. General Comments 

1. Ensure fairness in FMR 

methodology. One commenter states 

that one of the most basic needs is 

housing and, especially in these times, 

many citizens who are willing to work 

lack opportunities to do so. As a result, 

these individuals may not have enough 

to meet their basic needs. The 

commenter requests that whatever 

methodology chosen, that it fairly and 

accurately evaluate the FMR for those in 

need, so that they might assist these 

individuals in meeting this most basic 

need. 

HUD Response: HUD’s methodology 

for calculating Fair Market Rents is 

constructed to be as fair as possible 

using the most recent data available. 

HUD will keep these comments in mind 

as it determines the appropriate method 

for future FMR calculation decisions. 

2. FMR methodology fails to consider 

the cost of accessible units. Another 

commenter states that the process for 

calculating FMRs is neither fair nor 

sensible when applied to units that are 

wheelchair accessible. The current HUD 

process treats accessible and nonaccessible units as being similar, both in 

terms of availability and price, when 

evidence suggests the opposite. The 

commenter states that until HUD 

requires a separate analysis of FMRs for 

accessible units, HUD will be making 

policy in the dark. 

HUD Response: HUD’s regulations 

allow PHAs to approve a higher 

payment standard on a case-by-case 

basis, as a reasonable accommodation 

for a family with a person with 

disabilities (refer to PIH Notice 2010–11, 

which was extended by PIH Notice 

2011–19). There is no data available that 

would allow HUD to calculate a 

separate FMR for accessible units. 

3. Correct failure of FMRs to consider 

cost of accessible units. The same 

commenter recommends that HUD, to 

correct the defect with respect to FMRs 

for wheelchair accessible units, (1) grant 

a 10 percent increase in rent (not to the 

50th percentile, but 10 percent more 

dollars to the FMR), (2) grant an 

additional 10 percent increase with 

HUD approval; and (3) grant an 

extension of time (allowing the family to 

search longer for an apartment which 

may not even exist in that price range). 

The commenter notes that while there 

may not be statistical evidence 

regarding the availability of accessible 

apartments at current FMRs, the 

commenter’s experience as a person 

with a disability and an attorney with 

30 years experience in housing law is 

that families looking for accessible units 

have fewer housing choices that cost 

more than average. 

HUD Response: HUD’s regulations 

concerning housing for disabled persons 

allow PHAs to request exception 

payment standards as a reasonable 

accommodation for families with a 

disabled family member. 

4. Maintain the publication of FMRs 

in a timely manner and on a certain 

date. Two commenters emphasize the 

importance of timely publication of 

HUD’s FMRs. They state that timely 

publication permits PHAs and property 

owners to be able to forecast and plan 

for rent adjustments and operating 

expense budgets. Further, FMRs are 

used in the determination of annual 

income limits which cannot be 

published until FMR calculations are 

completed. Without a date certain for 

publication of FMRs, uncertainty 

surrounding the timing of the 

publication of income limits could 

worsen and owners of Low Income 

Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties 

would not be able to set annual rents. 

HUD Response: Under current 

statutes and regulations, the publication 

date for Final FMRs remains October 1. 

Under current rules, FMRs must also be 

published for comment and given at 

least a 30-day comment period. HUD 

has suggested changes to the manner in 

which the publication of FMRs is 

completed, and due to the local 

coverage of ACS data, HUD has 

recommended that proposed FMRs no 

longer are necessary and that comments 

with requests for FMR reviews could be 

made following the publication of Final 

FMRs. 

5. Review of Alternative Tending 

Methodologies. One commenter 

addressed each of the alternative 

trending methods suggested in the 

notice. The commenter states that it 

does not support Alternative 1 (use of 

overall Consumer Price Index (CPI) 

data) because local and regional CPI 

provides a more accurate FMR 

calculation for specific geographic areas 

than national CPI data. It also 

recommends that should HUD use 

national CPI data rather than local or 

regional data, it should limit its use to 

rent and utility, instead of overall, CPI 

data. The commenter supports 

Alternative 2 (use of rent and utilities 

CPI) since, according to the commenter, 

the use of a local or regional trend factor 

is a more appropriate way to calculate 

FMRs. The commenter does not support 

the use of proprietary information 

(Alternative 3) since the likelihood of 

this data providing timely, complete, 

and usable data, particularly for rural 

and remote areas, is low. The 

commenter also supports alternative 4 

(seeking legislative change, trending to 

the midpoint of the fiscal year) as 

providing a good balance between the 

use of the most recent local data 

available and the need to publish the 

trend factor in advance. Finally, the 

commenter does not support 

Alternatives 5 (seeking legislative 

change, trending to the beginning of the 

fiscal year) and requests more 

information to fully consider 

Alternative 6 (eliminating the need for 

trending by using the most recent halfyearly CPI and publishing final FMRs 

between October and December). 

HUD Response: HUD takes these 

comments under advisement, and 

continues to consider all of these 

methods as well as others suggested by 

different commenters. 

B. Comments on Specific HUD 

Questions 

HUD Question: Should HUD continue to 

use a constant trend factor or should the 

trend factor be updated annually to 

attempt to capture market changes? 

1. Four commenters recommend that 

HUD use a trend factor that is updated 

annually, noting that a constant trend 

factor can substantially understate true 

costs and put clients who depend on 

rental assistance and landlords who 

accept vouchers, at risk. One 

commenter, for example, states that the 

volatility of utility costs makes it critical 

that the trend factor be updated 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52063 

annually to capture market changes. 

According to the commenter, this is 

especially important in the Northeastern 

United States where heating accounts 

for a significant portion of utility costs 

and price volatility is exacerbated by the 

significant use of fuels such as fuel oil 

and natural gas. According to the 

commenter, unless the trend factor is 

updated annually HUD will not be able 

to fairly account for utility price 

volatility. Annual updates of the trend 

factor would minimize the negative 

impacts of market changes. 

2. A commenter states that the use of 

the CPI Fuels & Utilities Index masks 

changes in specific fuels used for home 

energy, and recommends that HUD 

replace the use of the Fuels & Utilities 

Index with three indices (Electricity, 

Utility (piped) Gas service and Motor 

Fuels) with the indices used to calculate 

a state specific trend factor by weighting 

them based on the percentage of rental 

units in the state heated by each of the 

3 fuels, as provided by the ACS. The 

commenter recommends use of a fuel 

oil-specific index if one was available, 

but believes that the price of heating 

fuel oil tracks motor fuel prices enough 

that the Motor Fuels Index is a fair 

substitute. 

3. Another commenter supports use of 

a trend factor that is updated annually 

but cautioned that HUD build in 

stopgaps that eliminate sharp peaks and 

valleys due to short-term instability. 

HUD might consider, for example, a 

stopgap that prevents the factor from 

changing more than a certain percentage 

each year. Another commenter 

recommends that HUD use a rolling 

average or other techniques to eliminate 

significant increases or decreases in 

FMRs. A third commenter states that 

using a national, constant trending 

factor does not make sense in a world 

where many of HUD’s programs depend 

on the local market and its changing 

activity. The commenter recommends 

the use of a trend factor that can be 

updated annually and based on local or 

regional data. The commenter also 

cautions that the trend factor should not 

be negative, as that could have serious 

programmatic implications, particularly 

for Section 8 project-based and taxcredit properties. As a result, HUD 

should treat trends less than or equal to 

zero growth as zero growth. 

4. One commenter recommends that 

HUD continue its use of a constant trend 

factor since it minimizes large 

fluctuations from year to year. The 

commenter stated that a 10-year or 5- 

year trending factor would accomplish 

this goal. The commenter specifically 

recommends, however, that HUD use a 

single, national trend factor, based on a 

rolling five years of national median 

gross rent in the ACS. Since the 

commenter does not believe that ACS 

data are reliable enough to use as a basis 

for a trend factor prior to 2005, the year 

that the ACS was first fully 

implemented and collected data from 

every county or county equivalent in the 

country, the commenter states that a 5- 

year rolling average using ACS could be 

implemented within a year, as soon as 

the ACS data becomes available. 

HUD Response: While more 

commenters supported the use of a 

trend factor updated annually, all were 

concerned with controlling volatility in 

the trend factor. Some who want an 

annual trend factor were only willing to 

consider annual increases. Instituting 

caps and floors for annual trend factors 

would be new to the FMR estimation 

process and not necessarily improve the 

process. Using more detailed utility data 

would be of little benefit. The more 

detailed the index of the CPI, the larger 

the geographic area for which this data 

is available on a current basis. The ACS 

does not provide data based on type of 

heating fuel for rental units, as one 

commenter suggested, so allocating 

national utility data to states and 

determining an appropriate fuel index 

cannot be done with the ACS. Caps and 

floors, such as never allowing the trend 

factor to be less than zero, could be 

instituted to reduce volatility, but this 

would also reduce anticipated 

improvements in accuracy of trend 

estimates. 

HUD Question: The constant trend 

factor that HUD has used in the past 

cannot be replicated for 2000 to 2010 

based on available 2010 Census data. If 

a constant trend factor is appropriate, 

what data and time period should be 

used for a constant trend factor? 

1. One commenter restates its position 

that a constant trend factor is not 

appropriate because the results will not 

reflect the reality of the local rental 

marketplace. Another commenter that 

expressed support for a trend factor that 

is updated annually, and states, should 

HUD use a constant trend factor, that 

HUD consider using ACS data for a 

similar period as has been used 

previously (10 years). 

2. Another commenter expressed a 

preference for the CPI as the most 

appropriate basis for the trend factor, 

and restating the disadvantages of using 

proprietary data on rental markets. The 

commenter states that CPI would not 

add too much additional variation to 

FMR estimates, noting that FMRs 

already vary considerably from year-toyear, which in some years, has nothing 

to do with market conditions but rather 

with corrections from prior years. 

Should the CPI be selected as the basis 

for the trend factor, the commenter 

recommends that HUD use the BLS 

series that calculate annual changes to 

avoid seasonality issues, since seasonal 

adjustments are not available at the 

local/regional level. 

3. The same commenter states that 

HUD’s use of a rolling average of local/ 

regional ACS increases in gross rent 

would be a viable option, as long as 

HUD determined that such use better 

met programmatic needs of key 

constituencies using FMRs in their 

operations. The commenter concludes 

that any factor that is more locallyderived and that reflects changes in the 

market would be an improvement over 

the current constant, nationally-derived 

factor. 

HUD Response: Since most 

commenters do not support a constant 

trend factor, any consensus on this issue 

is irrelevant. The one commenter that 

supports the use of a constant trend 

factor would use the gross rents from 

the ACS to calculate the trend factor and 

that is the only way to have a constant 

long-term trend factor. Although some 

commenters recommend using CPI data 

for a constant long-term trend factor, 

their comments lacked specificity as to 

how to make the concept operational. 

CPI data seems best suited to a trend 

factor that changes on an annual albeit 

lagged, basis. 

HUD Question: Is a national trend factor 

appropriate, or should HUD limit itself 

to use of more local options such as 

regional factors? 

1. One commenter states that a 

regional or local trend factor is more 

appropriate than a national factor 

because it provides the most accurate 

FMR calculation for specific geographic 

areas. A second commenter agreed, 

adding that ideally the trend factors 

should be state specific because there 

can be substantial differences in utility 

costs (and the factors that affect them) 

even within a region. A third 

commenter encouraged HUD update 

factors based on regional trends and 

those in the largest metro areas, or use 

a data set that provides the lowest level 

of geography without causing undue 

problems with sample size or 

computation or delays in the release. 

2. A commenter recommends that 

HUD consider using regional CPI 

indices as they are readily available and 

include regional Fuels and Utilities 

Index, and more specific Indices for 

certain utilities (e.g., piped gas). 

Another commenter states that basing 

the trend factor on monthly local or 

regional CPI data would be particularly 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
52064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

ill-advised because monthly CPI 

numbers are available for a very limited 

set of local areas, and when available, 

only every other month or semiannually. In addition, the commenter 

states that only the national CPI data are 

seasonally adjusted and that potential 

problems with using seasonally 

unadjusted monthly data should be 

enough to preclude their use in 

computing FMRs. 

HUD Response: As with the other two 

issues, one commenter is concerned 

with the volatility of the data and 

prefers the use of a national, constant 

trend factor other commenters want the 

trend factor to change annually and be 

at least regional, or the lowest level of 

geography that is possible. HUD 

reiterates that these suggestions are 

contradictory: The more detailed the 

data the less often it is published, and 

then at a broader geography. That is, 

more detailed fuel data cannot be used 

along with data for the lowest geography 

possible. 

HUD Question: Should HUD allow 

changes between the proposed and final 

FMRs resulting from updated trend 

factors? 

1. One commenter states that HUD 

should be able to allow changes 

between proposed and final FMRs as 

long as the changes result in rents that 

more accurately reflect current, local 

market conditions. A second commenter 

agrees that permitting HUD to make 

changes would permit HUD to use the 

most recent and most local data 

possible. The commenter also stated 

that it would be more effective to 

discontinue the publication of proposed 

FMRs, but allow for public comments 

on the final FMRs, releasing revised 

final FMRs as needed. 

2. One commenter states that allowing 

updates would provide for less certainty 

for housing entities. Assuming the 

proposed FMRs are susceptible to 

challenge prior to becoming final, the 

commenter concludes that automatic 

changes due to updated trend factors 

should not be necessary. 

HUD Response: The purpose of the 

publishing proposed FMRs would be 

circumvented if HUD re-estimated 

FMRs for the final publication using 

more current data. All proposed FMRs 

would be subject to change. HUD would 

prefer not to publish proposed FMRs for 

comment, but such a change would 

require a change to the statute. 

HUD Question: Is using the more 

current data for estimating the FMRs 

more important than providing for 

public comment before establishing 

final FMRs for effect? 

1. Most commenters support HUD’s 

continued publication of the FMRs for 

comment. One commenter, for example, 

notes that the opportunity to comment 

may present HUD with current data that 

ensures that changes to FMRs reflect 

actual changes in the local rental 

market. The commenter states that a 

shorter comment period of 30 days may 

be appropriate and reasonable if HUD 

uses regional data adjusted for state 

specific characteristics for estimating 

trends. The commenter added that a 90- 

day comment period should apply if 

HUD changes more than just FMR 

levels, (e.g., changing the geographic 

regions where the FMRs apply) or if 

HUD does not start with regional and 

State specific data for estimating trends. 

2. Another commenter that supports 

the elimination of a constant national 

trend factor states that using the most 

recent data possible would still not 

merit eliminating the public comment 

period. The commenter stated public 

comment permits its members to assess 

the proposed FMRs and whether they 

need to request reevaluation in light of 

current market conditions. Changing the 

FMRs between the publication of the 

proposed and final estimates would 

render the public comment process 

meaningless. 

3. A third commenter states that 

HUD’s use of more current regional or 

local factors is more important than 

providing for public comment before 

establishing the final FMRs as long as 

there is the opportunity for public 

comments on the final FMRs and HUD 

is willing to revise the FMRs as 

necessary. The commenter recommends, 

however, that HUD release as proposed 

for public comment any significant 

changes to the data sources and the 

methodology it intends to use in 

calculating final FMRs at least 60 days 

prior to their release. 

4. One commenter strongly opposes 

the elimination of a public comment 

period, stating that public comment 

adds to the reliability of the FMRs by 

ensuring that the expertise of 

individuals affected by the FMRs is 

considered before HUD publishes its 

final FMRs. Without a public comment 

period, there would be no way to 

contest FMR levels, changes in 

methodology, or other policy issues. 

The commenter concludes that while 

HUD suggests that using CPI data would 

provide more recent data and 

potentially shorten the trending period, 

it does not believe this is an acceptable 

trade off for losing the certainty of 

publication on October 1 and for losing 

the public comment period. 

HUD Response: HUD would prefer to 

eliminate the comment period, but no 

commenters support this position. The 

commenters, if anything, want a longer 

comment period whenever there are 

substantial changes to FMR estimation 

methodology. Given the timing of the 

data releases, longer comment periods 

of 60 to 90 days are not possible even 

when there are major changes, such as 

for geographic areas. In the past HUD 

has dealt with this issue of short 

comment periods by publishing revised 

final FMRs and sees this as an 

appropriate mechanism for the future. 

Clearly the commenters want a formal 

comment period for FMRs, so HUD will 

take this under advisement. 

HUD Question: Is the seasonality of rent 

and utility prices important in 

considering what month to collect data 

for trending? If so, how should HUD 

select the month to use or to compare 

it with? 

1. One commenter that strongly 

supported the use of an annually 

updated trend factor states that if 

current, regional data with appropriate 

state adjustments are used, seasonality 

adjustments should be relatively 

unimportant. Another commenter states 

that seasonality is an important 

consideration if trending uses data 

releases separated by less than a year. A 

third commenter states that seasonality 

should be used rather than be avoided, 

particularly depending on the 

geographic area affected. 

HUD Response: There is disagreement 

on whether seasonality is a concern. 

HUD views seasonality as a concern 

because it potentially adds to the 

volatility of the FMR estimate. While 

some have proposed caps and floors for 

trend factor changes to reduce the 

volatility of FMR estimates, caps and 

floors tend to increase the noise in an 

estimate so that constrained trends will 

add little accuracy to FMR estimates. 

HUD Question: Is double counting of 

CPI data a concern? 

1. Two commenters address this 

issue. Both stated that they recognize 

this issue but under the current 

proposals either do not have a strong 

concern about the issue or feel that the 

issue is not significant. 

HUD Response: HUD believes that 

when prices are increasing, the double 

counting of the CPI indices will not be 

a concern except possibly for budgetary 

reasons. However, when prices are 

falling and the FMRs could drop, this 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52065 

would become an issue with tenants, 

and landlords. For these reasons HUD 

does not find double-counting the CPI 

data, which is already lagged when used 

for the FMRs, to be an effective forecast 

of trend. 

HUD Question: Is it more important to 

base a trend on the most recent data 

possible, or on the most specific 

geography? 

1. One commenter states that both 

issues are important, and it should not 

be necessary to choose one over the 

other. The commenter notes that there 

are good data sources available that 

allow for use of both recent and locally 

relevant data, such as the CPI and ACS. 

Another commenter gave slight 

preference to more specific geography, 

but within limits. Specifically, the 

commenter states that if using data for 

areas smaller than the largest metro 

areas and census regions requires using 

significantly older data and leads to 

significant lags in the release of the 

FMRs, then more local specificity would 

cease to be the priority. 

2. A third commenter states that 

geography is more important because 

market conditions are more likely to 

show greater variance from region to 

region over a given time period than 

that reflected in local or regional market 

conditions over the same period. 

HUD Response: HUD is already using 

the most current ACS and CPI data at 

the lowest level of geography. There is 

no way to use current data at the lowest 

level of geography without ensuring 

publication of the proposed FMRs 

regularly in mid- to late-August. The 

only more current data at the lowest 

geographic level that could be 

incorporated for a trend factor, would be 

the CPI data for the first-half of the year, 

which comes out late July. Waiting this 

late for calculation of FMRs would push 

the proposed FMR Federal Register 

notice to mid-August at the earliest. 

There would barely be time for a 30-day 

comment period and recalculation of 

final FMRs in time for the October 1 

final FMR publication. There would still 

be double counting of the CPI data, 

which HUD considers problematic. 

HUD Question: Is it better to use rent 

and utility CPI data in developing a 

trend factor or should other prices be 

included? 

1. One commenter states that in 

addition to capturing changes in rent 

and utilities generally, it is also 

important to account for changes in 

heating fuel prices specifically because 

the impacts can vary significantly State 

by State, and even within a region. A 

second commenter states that it would 

not in advance exclude from 

consideration additional specific data 

that would assist FMRs to better reflect 

the price a household must be able to 

pay in a specific location in order to be 

reasonably assured of finding a decent, 

modest and safe home. The commenter 

states, however, that generally rent and 

utility costs in the CPI are likely 

sufficient. 

HUD Response: HUD believes that the 

rent and utility CPI data currently used 

is appropriate. The utility CPI data 

cannot be changed to provide a greater 

emphasis on heating fuel as appropriate 

weighting of this fuel sources is not 

possible. 

HUD Question: Should HUD pursue 

legislative and regulatory changes to 

reduce or eliminate the need for 

trending? 

1. One commenter supported HUD 

seeking the legislative changes as 

proposed in the FY 2012 HUD budget, 

trending to the midpoint of the fiscal 

year and using CPI rent and utility data 

to calculate the trend. According to the 

commenter, this alternative provides a 

good balance between the use of the 

most recent local data available and the 

need to publish the trend factor in 

advance. The use of local and regional 

CPI rent and utility data would provide 

for more accurate FMR calculations than 

the use of national CPI data, and the 

application of the factor through the 

midpoint of the fiscal year would 

provide balance in the final FMR 

calculation. Another commenter states 

that solutions other than trending in the 

calculation of FMR may be acceptable as 

long as the calculation includes some 

mechanism for considering current 

market conditions. 

HUD Response: HUD would prefer to 

reduce the period of trending down 

from a 15-month period to a 6-month or 

9-month period, to reduce the impact of 

this factor. To do so would require a 

legislative change that assumes the FMR 

represents a beginning of fiscal year 

rent, rather than a middle of fiscal year 

rent. 

HUD Question: Is there a data source or 

aggregation of sources of data provided 

on a more current basis than the CPI 

that could be used in the FMR 

estimation process? 

1. No commenter responded that it 

was aware of any data source or 

aggregation of sources of data provided 

on a more current basis than the CPI 

that could be used in the FMR 

estimation process. 

HUD Response: HUD agrees, but the 

use of the most current CPI data at the 

lowest level of geography is the use of 

the first half of the year data and, as 

discussed earlier, incorporating this 

data makes the publication of the 

proposed FMR so late as to not allow 

time for meaningful comments. 

Given the divergence in comments, 

HUD has determined that additional 

study is required to select an 

appropriate methodology to employ for 

this program parameter. HUD will 

announce a new trending methodology 

in the FY 2013 proposed FMRs. 

VI. Proposal To Formalize a 

Publication Date for Income Limits 

In the comments filed regarding the 

trend factor, several commenters 

reminded HUD of the need for 

publication of FMRs by a certain date. 

One of the reasons submitted is because 

HUD uses FMRs in the calculation of 

income limits used in various federal, 

state and local housing programs. 

Currently, there is no statutorily 

required publication date for income 

limits. In recent years, HUD has 

attempted to incorporate the most recent 

vintage of ACS data into the income 

limits calculations; however, due to the 

increase in the number and scope of 

ACS data products, the publication date 

for income limits has become later each 

year. 

In an attempt to be responsive to the 

concerns of the users of Income Limits, 

HUD is proposing to give the 

publication of area median family 

income estimates and income limits a 

more certain date. Currently, HUD is 

considering two possible timeframes for 

the publication of median family 

incomes and income limits. The first 

date would be October 1 at the same 

time that Final FMRs are published. The 

second date would be December 1. In 

either case, if HUD were to move the 

publication date, the FY 2012 Median 

Family Income estimates and the 

Income Limits would not benefit from 

any additional ACS data over what was 

included in the FY 2011 publication. 

The FY 2012 Median Family Income 

estimates and Income Limits, published 

on either October 1, 2011, or December 

1, 2011, under this proposal, would be 

updated with the FY 2012 FMRs for the 

purposes of evaluating areas of 

relatively high or low income to housing 

cost relationships and would be further 

updated with CPI to the end of 2010 and 

trended to the mid-point of FY 2012 in 

a manner similar to what was done with 

the FY 2011 Median Family Income 

estimates and Income Limits. The FY 

2013 Median Family Income estimates 

and Income Limits, published on 

October 1, 2012, or December 1, 2012, 

would be the first set of median family 

income estimates and income limits 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
52066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 

updated with ACS data collected from 

2006–2010. 

VII. Request for Public Comments 

HUD seeks public comments on the 

methodology used to calculate FY 2012 

Proposed FMRs and the FMR levels for 

specific areas. Comments on FMR levels 

must include sufficient information 

(including local data and a full 

description of the rental housing survey 

methodology used) to justify any 

proposed changes. Changes may be 

proposed in all or any one or more of 

the unit-size categories on the schedule. 

Recommendations and supporting data 

must reflect the rent levels that exist 

within the entire FMR area. 

For the supporting data, HUD 

recommends the use of professionally 

conducted Random Digit Dialing (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–$50,000. 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 twobedroom units are significantly different 

from the FMRs proposed by HUD. 

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 may 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 statistically different 

from 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 are available from HUD 

USER on 800–245–2691, or from HUD’s 

Web site, in Microsoft Word or Adobe 

Acrobat format, 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 2005–2009 5-year ACS data should 

be used as a means of verifying if a 

sample is representative of the FMR 

area’s rental housing stock. 

Most surveys cover only one- and 

two-bedroom units, which has statistical 

advantages. If the survey is statistically 

acceptable, HUD will estimate FMRs for 

other bedroom sizes using ratios based 

on the 2000 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. 

HUD is also soliciting comments on 

its proposal to give the publication of 

Median Family Income estimates and 

income limits a certain date. 

Commenters should provide their 

assessments of the advantages and 

disadvantages of a certain publication 

date as well as their preference among 

the dates proposed herein. 

VIII. Environmental Impact 

This Notice involves the 

establishment of fair market rent 

schedules, which do not constitute a 

development decision affecting the 

physical condition of specific project 

areas or building sites. Accordingly, 

under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent 

Schedules, which will not be codified in 

24 CFR part 888, are proposed to be 

amended as shown in the Appendix to 

this notice: 

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—Most 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 is using the 

metropolitan CBSAs, which are made 

up of one or more counties, as defined 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (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 FY 

2012 proposed 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 subareas 

are established, it is HUD’s view for 

programmatic purposes 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 MSAs) may be modified to allow for 

subarea 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 

FY 2005 FMRs. Collectively they 

include 1999-definition MSAs/Primary 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs), 

metro 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.) Subareas of MSAs are 

assigned their own FMRs when the 

subarea 2000 Census Base Rent differs 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52067 

by at least 5 percent from (i.e., is at most 

95 percent or at least 105 percent of) the 

MSA 2000 Census Base Rent, or when 

the 2000 Census Median Family Income 

for the subarea differs by at least 5 

percent from the MSA 2000 Census 

Median Family Income. MSA subareas, 

and the remaining portions of MSAs 

after subareas have been determined, are 

referred to as 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 Schedule B addendum shows Small 

Area FMRs for PHAs operating using 

Small Area FMRs within the Dallas, TX 

HMFA. 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 zerobedroom 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 

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 

non-metropolitan county listings. 

d. The New England towns and cities 

included in a nonmetropolitan county 

are listed immediately following the 

county name. 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2
52068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52069 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.001</GPH>
52070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52071 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.003</GPH>
52072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52073 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.005</GPH>
52074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52075 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.007</GPH>
52076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52077 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.009</GPH>
52078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52079 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.011</GPH>
52080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52081 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.013</GPH>
52082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52083 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.015</GPH>
52084 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52085 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.017</GPH>
52086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52087 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.019</GPH>
52088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52089 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.021</GPH>
52090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52091 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.023</GPH>
52092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52093 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.025</GPH>
52094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52095 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.027</GPH>
52096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52097 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.029</GPH>
52098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52099 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.031</GPH>
52100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52101 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.033</GPH>
52102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52103 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.035</GPH>
52104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52105 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.037</GPH>
52106 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52107 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.039</GPH>
52108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52109 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.041</GPH>
52110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52111 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.043</GPH>
52112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52113 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.045</GPH>
52114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.046</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52115 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.047</GPH>
52116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.048</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52117 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.049</GPH>
52118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.050</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52119 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.051</GPH>
52120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52121 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.053</GPH>
52122 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.054</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52123 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.055</GPH>
52124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.056</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52125 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.057</GPH>
52126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.058</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52127 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.059</GPH>
52128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.060</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Notices 52129 

[FR Doc. 2011–20932 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with NOTICES2EN19AU11.061</GPH>