This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

2024 

Vol. 77, No. 9 

Friday, January 13, 2012 

1The national conforming limit under FHLMC 

Act for a 1-family home is $417,000. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 203 

[Docket No. FR–5462–P–01] 

RIN 2502–AJ02 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 

Single-Family Mortgage Insurance: 

Elimination of Requests for Alternative 

Mortgage Limits 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

eliminate the process for requesting 

alternative FHA maximum mortgage 

amounts. HUD currently sets the areabased loan limits on a yearly basis and 

permits appeals of these loan limits. At 

the time the regulations permitting 

appeals were promulgated, there were 

no comprehensive, national databases of 

home sales transactions. As a result, 

HUD relied on sales data provided by 

interested parties in determining loan 

limits for certain areas. Today, however, 

HUD has available comprehensive 

direct sales transaction data and indirect 

home value data at the county level. In 

addition, since HUD began this new 

information collection on price trends at 

a county level, the number of parties 

utilizing the appeals process has gone 

from 105 for the 2008 loan limits to zero 

for the 2011 loan limits. For these 

reasons, HUD has determined that the 

regulations governing requests for 

alternative maximum mortgage amounts 

are outdated and unnecessarily disrupt 

HUD’s loan limit determination process. 

The elimination of this appeals process 

would allow HUD to release its annual 

loan limits one month earlier than it has 

for the past three calendar years. This 

difference would provide more certainty 

in the mortgage lending market. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: March 13, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule to the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 

10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Communications must refer to the above 

docket number and title. There are two 

methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. 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 the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the rule. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available 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 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled in 

advance by calling the Regulations 

Division at (202) 708–3055 (this is not 

a toll-free number). Individuals with 

speech or hearing impairments may 

access this number via TTY by calling 

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– 

8339. Copies of all comments submitted 

are available for inspection and 

downloading at http://www.regulations.

gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arlene N. Nunes, Director, Home 

Mortgage Insurance Division, Office of 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 

Room 9266, Washington, DC 20410– 

8000; telephone number (202) 708–2121 

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

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 203(b)(2) of the National 

Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)) 

(NHA) limits the principal obligation of 

FHA-insured single-family mortgages. 

As amended by the Housing and 

Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 

110–289, approved July 30, 2008) 

(HERA), section 203(b)(2) of NHA states 

that an FHA maximum mortgage 

amount is the greater of: (1) 115 percent 

of the median house price for a singlefamily home in the ‘‘area,’’ as 

determined by the Secretary of HUD, or 

(2) 65 percent of the national 

conforming limit, the dollar amount 

determined under section 305(a)(2) of 

the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation Act (12 U.S.C 1454(a)(2)) 

(FHLMC Act) (this 65 percent multiple 

is referred to as the ‘‘floor’’).1 Section 

203(b)(2) of NHA, as amended by HERA, 

also states that in no case may area 

loans limits exceed 150 percent of the 

national conforming limit (this 150 

percent multiple is referred to as the 

‘‘ceiling’’), unless it is a special 

exception area—Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, 

and the Virgin Islands—in which case 

the limit is 150 percent of the ceiling. 

However, in early 2008, Congress 

established temporary rules for FHA 

loan limits in the Economic Stimulus 

Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–185, approved 

February 13, 2008) (ESA). ESA permits 

FHA to calculate loan limits based on 

125 percent of the area median price 

(instead of the 115 percent under NHA 

as amended by HERA), with an upper 

limit ceiling based on 175 percent 

(instead of 150 percent permitted under 

NHA as amended by HERA) of the 

national conforming loan limit for oneVerDate Mar<15>2010 12:20 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM 13JAP1

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2025 

2Pursuant to HERA, the limits will go down to 

the lesser of 115 percent of area median home 

prices or 150 percent of the national conforming 

limit, which would be $625,500. 

3Most recently, HUD Mortgage Letter 2010–40, 

issued on December 1, 2010, announced the 

maximum mortgage limits in effect from January 1, 

2011, until September 30, 2011. Mortgagee Letter 

2010–40 may be downloaded from http://www.hud.

gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/mortgagee/files/ 

10-40ml.pdf. 

family properties, equal to $729,750. 

ESA, like section 203(b)(2) of the NHA, 

as amended by HERA, sets the ‘‘floor’’ 

for such one-family properties at 65 

percent of the national conforming loan 

limits, equal to $271,050. Since the 

enactment of ESA, both the national 

ceiling and the national floor have 

remained static, because the conforming 

limit has not changed from $417,000.2

For each year starting with 2009, 

Congress passed temporary measures 

that required HUD to set the loan limits 

at the greater of what was established 

under ESA and what would otherwise 

be calculated under NHA. The last of 

those expired on September 30, 2011. 

FHA issues a Mortgagee Letter each year 

setting forth the calculated limits 

applicable to the upcoming fiscal year, 

depending on the expiration of the most 

recent temporary measure passed by the 

Congress.3

In no case, however, may the 

individual-insured-mortgage amount 

exceed the appraised value of the 

property used as security for the 

mortgage. Moreover, section 203(b)(2) of 

the NHA specifies that, for purposes of 

the statutory limitation, the term ‘‘area’’ 

means a metropolitan statistical area as 

established by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The loan limits for 

all counties within an OMB-designated 

metropolitan area are based upon that 

county with the highest median price 

within the area. OMB categorizes 

‘‘metropolitan areas’’ into Core Based 

Statistical Areas, Metropolitan 

Statistical Divisions, and Micropolitan 

Areas. HUD recognizes all three types in 

the designation of ‘‘areas.’’ 

HUD’s regulations implementing 

section 203(b)(2) of NHA are codified at 

24 CFR 203.18. Recognizing that there 

may be additional data or other 

information not available to HUD, the 

regulations at § 203.18b provide a 

process by which a party may submit 

documentation in support of an 

alternative mortgage limit. Paragraph (a) 

of § 203.18b provides that ‘‘[i]f any party 

believes that a mortgage limit 

established by the Secretary * * * does 

not accurately reflect the median house 

prices in an area, the party may submit 

documentation in support of an 

alternative mortgage limit.’’ Paragraph 

(b) of § 203.18b specifies that this data 

must be in the form of ‘‘a listing of 

actual sales prices in the area for all or 

nearly all’’ single-family properties sold 

in the area for a period of time that 

varies from one to three months, 

depending on sales volume. For 

example, paragraph (b)(1)(i) states that if 

the number of monthly closed sales in 

an area is 500 or more, the request need 

provide only one month’s worth of data. 

Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) states that if the 

number of monthly home sales in the 

area is below 250, the required data 

period is three months. Paragraph (c) of 

§ 203.18b specifies the manner in which 

the FHA Commissioner may calculate 

home sales prices if the Commissioner 

determines that the median one-family 

house price does not reasonably reflect 

the sales prices of newly constructed 

homes because of an existing stock 

whose values is static or declining. HUD 

has never implemented paragraph (c) of 

§ 203.18b. 

HUD’s current regulations for loan 

limit appeals and determination of 

home sale prices were promulgated in 

the early 1980s. At that time, there were 

no comprehensive national databases of 

home sales transactions. As a result, 

HUD relied upon appeals by interested 

parties, primarily local boards of 

realtors, as part of its loan limit 

determination process. The appeals 

process started when a party provided 

one month of sale transaction data (or 

multiple months if sales were low) to 

their respective HUD Home Ownership 

Center to show that the median price for 

that month or months was higher than 

the median in use by HUD. Appeals 

were typically based on Multiple Listing 

Service (MLS) listings. MLS listings are 

incomplete for sales in any county, and 

even the National Association of 

Realtors (NAR) is unable to obtain data 

from all independent MLSs when it 

compiles data for its existing-home 

median price estimates. In addition, 

reliance on short-term data is 

problematic, because, first, the data can 

have seasonal variations. Second, shortterm data can have aberrations as a 

result of its smaller sample size. For 

example, there could be a large number 

of new home sales in a given month (or 

three-month period) that greatly skew 

the local median price upward. Third, 

permitting continuous appeals, as in the 

former regime, may exacerbate housing 

booms, as sharply increasing housing 

prices continuously generate higher 

mortgage limits that increase the 

number of FHA-insured loans. 

Over time, HUD adopted a secondary, 

end-of-year sweep of loan limits. 

Relying upon the Mortgage Interest Rate 

Survey (MIRS) performed by the Federal 

Housing Finance Board (FHFB), HUD 

would create county-level estimates of 

area median prices. If the median price 

from this data (for a 12-month period 

ending in October) was higher than 

what was currently being used for limit 

determination, then the median price 

and limits in the HUD database would 

be updated. MIRS was a national survey 

that included around 25,000 loans but 

was never intended to be accurate at the 

county level. Data records have ZIP 

Code but not county identifiers. 

However, this was a national source of 

data available to HUD that could be 

used to limit the necessity of relying 

upon uncertain and irregular appeals to 

assure that increases in local area home 

prices were being reflected in updated 

FHA loan limits. 

Starting in 2008, HUD developed a 

new centralized procedure for managing 

and updating FHA loan limits. HUD 

contracts with a data aggregator, 

CoreLogic, to compile comprehensive 

sales transaction information from 

county deed recorders for the defined 

look-back period (January through 

August) on nondistress sales of singlefamily residential properties (no 

condominiums). HUD uses those data to 

compute median home sale prices. 

Through CoreLogic, HUD has available 

comprehensive sale transaction data for 

more than 2,000 counties, representing 

population centers. For the remaining 

approximately 1,200 counties with 

smaller populations, which tend to have 

few transactions, HUD relies upon 

indirect data sources in determining 

home values. The first indirect method 

is to use NAR existing home sale 

median prices at the metropolitan area 

level augmented with American 

Community Survey (ACS) data, in order 

to create county-specific price estimates. 

The next indirect method is to use 

median home values from the most 

recent ACS indexed by Federal Housing 

Finance Agency (FHFA) home price 

indices to create median price estimates 

for the subject look-back period. For 

additional areas with very small 

populations and housing stock, HUD 

uses Decennial Census median value 

estimates, updated to the subject lookback period with price indices 

published by the FHFA. 

HUD has direct price data for the 

counties with a high number of sale 

transactions. Appeals from any counties 

for which HUD has direct price data 

would be rejected, because there is no 

new information that could be provided 

in an appeal. An appeal for a county 

where HUD uses indirect data sources 

would have to meet four conditions to 

be considered: (1) The county is either 

designated as ‘‘non-metro’’ by OMB or, 

if the county is within a designated 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

metropolitan area, it is the county with 

the highest median price high-cost in 

that area; (2) there must be a sufficient 

number of transactions (in practice, 

HUD considers ten or more transactions 

to be a sufficient number) in the county 

in question and during the defined lookback period; (3) the loan limit must be 

already above the national floor or 

would be if the appeal were valid; and 

(4) the loan limit must not be already at 

the national ceiling. Few counties could 

meet this four-part test. The 2010 

median price across the counties for 

which HUD currently uses indirect 

sources of data is under $85,000, and 

the 95th percentile is under $175,000. 

There are currently only ten counties 

out of 3,234 that could possibly make an 

appeal based upon HUD-estimated 

home prices being near or above the 

national floor and their being in nonmetro areas. Four of those are in the 

Northern Marianas Island, and one is in 

Guam. The remaining counties are: a 

rural county in Colorado (population 

800), a resort area in the Virgin Islands 

(St. John), two fishing village 

jurisdictions in Alaska, and a Northern 

Neck county in Virginia (Lancaster 

County) where the median home price 

fluctuates widely each quarter because 

of the small number of sale transactions. 

Over the past seven years, FHA has 

insured no loans in any of the four 

municipalities of the Northern Marianas 

Islands. In only one of the other six 

jurisdictions has FHA insured loans 

each year since 2005 and has insured 

ten or more in any year—Lancaster 

County, Virginia. Thus, at this time only 

one county could qualify for the appeals 

process. HUD seeks comment on 

whether any other counties could 

qualify or will soon qualify for the 

appeals process. 

In addition, since these new 

procedures for establishing median 

prices took effect in 2008, the number 

of appeals received and accepted by 

HUD has dropped to zero. The number 

of requests for an alternative mortgage 

amount reached an all-time high for the 

2005 loan limits, 203 appeals, of which 

180 were accepted. For the 2008 loan 

limits in effect before the passage of 

ESA, there were 105 appeals (in 2007), 

of which 83 were accepted. This 

number dropped to nine appeals under 

the 2009 loan limits, of which seven 

were accepted. For the 2010 loan limits, 

only one appeal was received. That 

appeal was rejected, because HUD 

already had comprehensive sales price 

data for the subject county. For the 2011 

loan limits, for which the open appeals 

period was November through 

December 2010, and during which 

HUD’s data coverage had significantly 

increased, no appeals were received. 

II. This Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would remove 

§ 203.18b, ‘‘Increased mortgage 

amount,’’ in its entirety. As noted, the 

current regulation requires an 

individual who is appealing the 

maximum mortgage amount for an area 

to provide documentation to support the 

request for the increase. Although HUD 

recognizes that home values have 

declined in many areas, the loan floor 

and ceiling have remained static since 

2008; in some areas where the limit is 

between the floor and the ceiling, the 

limit has increased. The current appeals 

process is unnecessary and outdated for 

two reasons: (1) HUD either has 

complete sales transaction data (in the 

case of counties covered by direct price 

data, for which appeals would be 

rejected immediately); (2) the county’s 

median home price falls below the 

national floor or has too few 

transactions to make a valid appeal 

based on these transactions. Related to 

these two reasons, the number of 

appeals in 2011 dropped to zero. HUD 

seeks comment on whether any other 

reasons contributed to the drop in the 

number of appeals. 

HUD anticipates that if this rule were 

not changed, there would be very few, 

if any, successful appeals in the future. 

This projection would be true even if 

local economies improve and home 

prices rise. A valid appeal must provide 

better data than HUD already has 

compiled on home sale transactions or 

home values in a given county, and a 

successful appeal must actually impact 

the area loan limits. As discussed above, 

since HUD’s access to county-level 

home sale data began in 2008, the 

coverage rate has improved each year 

and has limited the number of 

potentially valid appeals. Further, most 

areas with small populations are not 

eligible to file an appeal as a result of 

low home sale prices or low numbers of 

transactions. Nevertheless, in future 

years, if a county currently covered by 

HUD’s indirect median price estimates 

has a basis for filing an appeal under the 

current procedures, HUD will work with 

sources in that county to obtain more 

data on home sale transactions and will 

move to the use of direct data for that 

jurisdiction. Thus, HUD concludes that 

the removal of this regulation would not 

have any impact on the calculation of 

area loan limits now or in the future. 

III. Findings and Certifications 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) reviewed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 12866 (entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’). A 

determination was made that this 

proposed rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of the Order (although not 

economically significant, as provided in 

section 3(f)(1) of the Order). The docket 

file is available for public inspection in 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street SW., Room 10276 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, please schedule 

an appointment to review the docket file 

by calling the Regulation Division at 

(202) 402–3055 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with speech or 

hearing impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the Federal 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 

The benefits of this rule come from 

providing the mortgage industry with 

firm loan limits as early as possible each 

year. The data HUD uses for loan limit 

determination is not available until midOctober, and the preliminary loan limits 

are completed in early-to-mid 

November. Requiring a 30-day appeals 

period for the sake of a possible appeal 

from one of the very small number 

counties that could possibly make a 

valid appeal creates a cost in terms of 

delays in final limit determination for 

the national housing market. Mortgage 

lenders require certainty in order to take 

loan applications in the November and 

December time frame, and loans that 

may not close until the next calendar 

year would be subject to new loan 

limits. HUD strives for direct sale 

transaction price data from any or all of 

the counties for which HUD currently 

uses indirect sources and which meet 

the four-part test outlined above. HUD 

would welcome a relationship with 

entities that could provide direct data, 

if any deviations between HUD’s 

indirect median price estimate and 

actual home prices become material for 

FHA insurance in such areas. Having a 

national appeals period that delays 

implementation of final loan limits 

across the entire nation each year is not 

an effective means of addressing a very 

small number of localized needs in the 

future. 

The President’s Executive Order (EO) 

13563, entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ was signed by 

the President on January 18, 2011, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2027 

published on January 21, 2011, at 76 FR 

3821. This EO requires executive 

agencies to analyze regulations that are 

‘‘outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome, and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with what has been 

learned.’’ For the reasons discussed in 

this preamble, HUD has determined that 

the regulations regarding the appeals 

process for FHA maximum mortgage 

amounts are now outmoded. The 

appeals were once an important source 

of data collection for HUD, but the new 

comprehensive nationwide data sources 

have negated the need for the appeals 

process and the corresponding 

regulations. HUD therefore proposes to 

remove the regulations. HUD seeks 

comment on any of the benefits or costs 

of the proposed removal of the 

regulations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires 

an agency to conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The proposed 

rule will not impose any economic 

burdens. As indicated in the 

Background section of this preamble, 

entities (typically local boards of 

realtors that gather data from local 

MLSs) no longer utilize this appeals 

process and therefore do not, and will 

not in the future, incur expenses as a 

result of this proposed rule. 

Notwithstanding HUD’s 

determination that this rule will not 

have a significant effect on a substantial 

number of small entities, HUD 

specifically invites comments regarding 

any less burdensome alternatives to this 

rule that will meet HUD’s objectives as 

described in the preamble to this rule. 

Environmental Impact 

This rule does not direct, provide for 

assistance or loan and mortgage 

insurance for, or otherwise govern or 

regulate, real property acquisition, 

disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, 

alteration, demolition or new 

construction, or establish, revise, or 

provide for standards for construction or 

construction materials, manufactured 

housing, or occupancy. This rule is 

limited to the procedures governing the 

submission of requests for alternative 

maximum mortgage amounts under the 

FHA single-family programs. In 

addition, part of this rule changes a 

statutorily required and/or discretionary 

establishment and review of loan limits. 

Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1) 

and (c)(6), this rule is categorically 

excluded from environmental review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from 

publishing any rule that has federalism 

implications if the rule either imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments and is not 

required by statute, or the rule preempts 

state law, unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive Order. This 

rule would not have federalism 

implications and would not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments or preempt 

state law within the meaning of the 

Executive Order. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements 

for federal agencies to assess the effects 

of their regulatory actions on state, 

local, and tribal governments, and on 

the private sector. This proposed rule 

would not impose any federal mandates 

on any state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector, 

within the meaning of the UMRA. 

Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance 

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number for the principal 

FHA single-family mortgage insurance 

program is 14.117. 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 203 

Hawaiian Natives, Home 

improvement, Indians—lands, Loan 

programs—housing and community 

development, Mortgage insurance, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Solar energy. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 

24 CFR part 203 to read as follows: 

PART 203—SINGLE FAMILY 

MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

1. The authority citation for part 203 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 

1715z–1716, and 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 

2. Remove section 203.18b. 

Dated: December 28, 2011. 

Carol J. Galante, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing— 

Federal Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2012–581 Filed 1–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2011–0009; Notice No. 

123A; Re: Notice No. 123] 

RIN 1513–AB67 

Proposed Establishment of the 

Middleburg Virginia Viticultural Area; 

Comment Period Reopening 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau is reopening the 

comment period for Notice No. 123, 

Proposed Establishment of the 

Middleburg Virginia Viticultural Area, a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 8, 2011. TTB is taking this 

action in response to a request from a 

local wine industry organization. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed Middleburg Virginia 

viticultural area are now due on or 

before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on 

Notice No. 123 to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: To 

submit comments via the Internet, use 

the comment form for Notice No. 123 as 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2011– 

0009 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal; 

• U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing. 

You may view copies of the petitions, 

supporting materials, published notices, 

and all public comments associated 

with this proposal within Docket No. 

TTB–2011–0009 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You also may 

view copies of the petitions, supporting 

materials, published notices, and all 

public comments associated with this 

proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

Please call 202–453–2270 to make an 

appointment. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS