13744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–6277–N–02] 

Fair Market Rents for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program, Moderate 

Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy 

Program, and Other Programs Fiscal 

Year 2022; Revised 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Revised Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2022 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and 

Discussion of Comments on FY 2022 

FMRs. 

SUMMARY: This notice updates the FY 

2022 FMRs for 12 areas based on new 

survey data. Further, HUD responds to 

comments received on the FY 2022 

FMRs. 

DATES: Applicable Date: The revised FY 

2022 FMRs for these 12 areas are 

applicable on April 11, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions related to use of FMRs or 

voucher payment standards should be 

directed to the respective local HUD 

program staff. 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 (toll-free), email the 

Program Parameters and Research 

Division via pprd@hud.gov, or access 

the information on the HUD USER 

website: http://www.huduser.gov/ 

portal/datasets/fmr.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

6, 2021, HUD published the FY 2022 

FMRs, requested comments on the FY 

2022 FMRs, and outlined procedures for 

requesting a reevaluation of an area’s FY 

2022 FMRs (86 FR 43260). This notice 

revises FY 2022 FMRs for 12 areas based 

on data provided to HUD. In addition to 

providing revised FY 2022 FMRs, this 

notice also provides responses to the 

public comments HUD received on the 

notice referenced above. 

I. Revised FY 2022 FMRs 

The FMRs appearing in the following 

table supersede the use of the FY 2021 

FMRs for the twelve areas that provided 

statistically valid data. The updated FY 

2022 FMRs are based on surveys 

conducted by the area public housing 

agencies (PHAs) and reflect the 

estimated 40th percentile rent levels 

trended to Fiscal Year 2022. 

The FMRs for the affected areas are 

revised as follows: 

2022 Fair market rent area 

FMR by number of bedrooms in unit 

0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 

Abilene, TX MSA ................................................................. $688 $732 $945 $1,288 $1,598 

Asheville, NC HUD Metro FMR Area .................................. 1,188 1,209 1,378 1,879 2,359 

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH HUD Metro FMR Area 1,803 1,986 2,399 2,966 3,253 

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA MSA .......................................... 1,174 1,368 1,765 2,435 2,909 

Iron County, UT ................................................................... 615 757 926 1,268 1,585 

New York, NY HUD Metro FMR Area ................................. 2,018 2,054 2,340 2,952 3,173 

Portland, ME HUD Metro FMR Area ................................... 1,143 1,330 1,721 2,195 2,689 

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA ....................... 1,416 1,512 1,735 2,451 2,903 

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA MSA ............................................ 1,573 1,739 2,232 3,099 3,795 

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA MSA ................................. 1,875 2,157 2,516 3,316 3,790 

Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area ...................... 1,674 1,739 2,044 2,796 3,285 

Transylvania County, NC ..................................................... 706 711 935 1,156 1,364 

HUD has published these revised 

FMR values on the HUD USER website 

at: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/ 

datasets/fmr.html. HUD has also 

updated the FY 2022 Small Area FMRs 

(SAFMRs) for metropolitan areas with 

revised FMRs, which may be found at 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ 

datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html. 

HUD has also updated the 50th 

percentile rents for all FMR areas, 

which are published at http://

www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ 

50per.html. 

II. Public Comments on FY 2021 FMRs 

This summary of comments addresses 

the most significant concerns raised by 

the commenters. Commenters are 

identified in the summary by the last 

four numbers of the electronic 

rulemaking number used at 

www.regulations.gov. 

The public comment period for the 

August 6, 2021, notice closed on 

September 30, 2021, and HUD received 

99 distinct comments relating to the 

notice. The comments were from 

housing authorities, community 

development agencies, homeless 

shelters, healthcare providers, social 

workers, counselors, and nonprofit 

social service providers. 

Concerns Regarding the Accuracy of the 

Current FMR Methodology 

Commenters noted concerns with the 

methodology used to calculate the FMRs 

in light of rapid changes in housing 

costs. One commenter stated that the 

current FMR calculations are inadequate 

for rural counties because it is often 

difficult to gather valid data in rural 

counties, and the use of contiguous 

county data may not accurately reflect 

the rates present within the jurisdiction 

and suggested that HUD should develop 

a methodology that would accurately 

reflect the FMRs for rural areas. Another 

commenter noted that HUD’s use of the 

40th percentile in calculating FMR rates 

limits the available housing to 

individuals in the voucher plans. 

Other commenters stated that the use 

of the 2019 American Community 

Survey (ACS) data does not adequately 

represent a tightening rental market, 

even if the survey was an accurate 

representation of the FMR in previous 

years. Commenters stated that using 

current local data from reliable sources 

would more accurately reflect the 

changes in the rental market since 2019. 

One commenter suggested that HUD use 

commercial data to calculate the FMRs, 

as the data may be more up-to-date and 

accurately reflect the individual markets 

and would ensure that the gross rent 

data used in the calculation is accurate 

to current markets, which the 

commenter stated would prove more 

effective than HUD’s previous research 

into the trend factor. Another 

commenter supported HUD’s previously 

announced intent to explore alternative 

methodologies for FMR calculation. One 

commenter supported their 

jurisdiction’s FMR value. 

HUD Response: HUD’s current 

regulations require it to set the FMR at 

the 40th percentile rent paid by recent 

movers. Assessing the accuracy of FMRs 

is difficult because at any given time the 

true 40th percentile rent paid by recent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Notices 13745 

movers is unknown. Commercial 

sources of rent data do not provide an 

estimate of the 40th percentile rent paid 

by recent movers, and what data they do 

provide are often not based on the 

entirety of the rental market, such as by 

building type or by geographic area. 

Survey-based estimates of rent are 

subject to sampling and non-sampling 

error. For the Voucher program, HUD’s 

policy addresses these sources of 

uncertainty by allowing the payment 

standard to be set from 90–110 percent 

of the FMR, as well as above 110 

percent of the FMR through the use of 

exception payment standards. HUD has 

provided for expedited waivers of 

payment standard regulation per PIH 

Notice 2021–34. HUD remains 

committed to continually assessing its 

FMR calculation methodology to 

attempt to deal with its inherent 

challenges, through both in-house 

research and working with external 

research partners. 

Small Area FMR Determinations 

A commenter stated that the Small 

Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR) 

calculations do not adequately represent 

the true market rent, citing as an 

example a significant decrease in a 

county’s SAFMR in one ZIP Code 

despite being a high opportunity area. 

The commenter noted that the 2- 

bedroom SAFMR for the ZIP Code in 

question was nearly $1000 below 

surrounding ZIP Codes, while other ZIP 

Codes in their jurisdiction more 

accurately reflect existing local 

commercial data on current market 

prices. The commenter also noted that 

the decreased SAFMR for a onebedroom in this ZIP Code is $200 less 

than the fair market rent established by 

a HUD validated rent comparability 

study of the same area from 2019. The 

commenter stated that a decrease in the 

SAFMR would defeat the intent of 

calculating fair market rents for specific 

ZIP Codes. 

A commenter opposed allowing 

certain jurisdictions to opt out or be 

excluded from SAFMR mandates. 

Commenters noted that the use of 

excepted payment standards, rather 

than calculating SAFMR for the areas, 

leaves PHAs without the resources and 

flexibility to adjust to increasing rents in 

the jurisdictions, reducing the 

availability of affordable housing 

options to voucher holders. Commenters 

stated that voucher holders are being 

pushed into low-rent areas in 

jurisdiction that have received an 

exception payment standard, and that 

residents are not receiving reasonable 

accommodations because reasonable 

accommodations are based on the metro 

area’s FMR, not the exceptionally high 

local rental rates that justified the 

excepted payment standards, and 

therefore do not provide any value. 

HUD Response: Calculating SAFMRs 

poses the same challenges as 

metropolitan-level FMRs, with the 

added difficulty of greater uncertainty 

found in ZIP Code-level rent estimates 

due to their smaller size. HUD will 

continue to carefully consider how any 

future changes to its FMR calculation 

affect Small Area FMRs, as well as 

explore any SAFMR-specific 

methodology changes. 

HUD remains committed to evaluating 

the operation of the Housing Choice 

Voucher program in areas that are 

required to set payment standards based 

on Small Area FMRs. 

Concerns Regarding the FMR 

Reevaluation Process 

Commenters raised concerns about 

the current reevaluation process for 

FMRs. Commenters noted that the 

reevaluation surveys require a 

significant amount of time and funding 

and stated that HUD should provide 

funding for PHAs who elect to provide 

local rent surveys. A commenter 

suggested that address-based mail 

surveys could be conducted at a lower 

cost than HUD anticipates, and that a 

yearly allocation of $5,000 to each PHA 

would allow PHAs to conduct the 

necessary reevaluation surveys. 

One commenter noted that rural PHAs 

are often unable to meet the regulatory 

requirements for reevaluation surveys. 

The commenter noted that although 

small, nonmetro counties may conduct 

surveys with one or more contiguous 

nonmetro county to obtain a sufficient 

number of results, this methodology 

does not provide many options to rural 

counties that face lower FMRs than 

neighboring counties. Furthermore, this 

commenter noted that rural PHAs often 

do not have the necessary capacity to 

conduct an in-house survey or the funds 

to hire outside consultants. The 

commenter noted their previous request 

for reevaluation in fiscal year 2021 cost 

the PHA over $27,000 and was 

ultimately rejected by HUD as they only 

received 13 valid responses in a county 

of 34,000 people. As a result, this 

commenter stated that FMRs may 

continue to be inaccurate even if the 

PHA attempts to request reevaluation if 

the jurisdiction’s PHA is unable to 

conduct a valid survey. 

HUD Response: HUD is committed to 

working with PHAs who are interested 

in conducting local rental market 

surveys, and has accepted surveys and 

issued revised FMRs for small nonmetropolitan counties numerous times. 

Surveys and data collection are often 

inherently expensive, and their costs are 

beyond HUD’s control. In addition, 

HUD’s ability to provide funds to PHAs 

for local rental market surveys is 

dependent on the availability of funds 

and their authorized uses specified in 

annual appropriations statutes. 

Requests for Additional Flexibilities in 

PHA Implementation 

A commenter stated that HUD has 

additional authority under the CARES 

Act to implement a ‘‘hold harmless 

policy’’ for FMRs in areas that 

experienced significant FMR reductions. 

This waiver would be in light of the 

additional challenges created by the 

COVID–19 pandemic and would be 

limited to PHAs that experienced a 

significant FMR decrease that could not 

be accounted for through the existing 

flexibilities in payment standards. The 

commenter noted that the waiver would 

be aimed at increasing depressed 

voucher utilization rates. 

Another commenter suggested that 

increased flexibilities for payment 

standards should be implemented 

through permanent statutory changes. 

This would include allowing PHAs to 

utilize payment standards between 80 

and 120 percent of the FMR, with up to 

130 percent available as a reasonable 

accommodation for a person with a 

disability and would ultimately reduce 

the burden of inaccurate FMRs for 

PHAs. 

Another commenter requested 

authorization to increase their 

jurisdiction’s payment standards to 120 

percent or greater for all SAFMRs in 

their jurisdiction. The commenter also 

requested that all ZIP Codes be grouped 

under one payment standard to reduce 

administrative burdens on the PHA. The 

commenter stated that this flexibility 

would provide additional access to safe 

housing in high opportunity areas for 

voucher holders. 

HUD Response: Declines in FMR are 

limited by regulation to 10 percent. 

Additionally, at the PHA’s discretion, 

they may ‘‘hold harmless’’ any in-place 

household from a payment standard 

reduction. Requests for exception 

payment standards should be made to 

local HUD Field Offices. PHAs 

operating under Small Area FMRs may 

group ZIP Codes into one payment 

standard area as long as the combined 

payment standard is within 90–110 

percent of the Small Area FMR. 

The Ability of PHAs To Respond to Rent 

Increases and FMR Changes Through 

the Use of Payment Standards 

Commenters noted that PHAs can 

adjust payment standards within 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
13746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Notices 

statutory limits to provide voucher 

holders access to units above the FMRs, 

thus increasing voucher utilization. 

However, many commenters stated that 

their jurisdictions were already using 

the statutory maximum payment 

standard of 110 percent but continue to 

face challenges in finding units for 

voucher holders, with PHAs continuing 

to experience decreasing success rates. 

For example, one commenter noted that 

available units in their jurisdiction are 

listed at 127 percent to 175 percent of 

the proposed FMR, beyond the statutory 

flexibilities that PHAs have without 

HUD approval. Another commenter 

noted that a lack of available units in 

their jurisdiction within the statutory 

payment standard has caused some onebedroom voucher holders to rent single 

room units within the payment 

standards instead. 

Commenters also noted that using 

payment standards to adjust for 

insufficient FMRs is limited by its effect 

on individuals with fixed incomes or 

the PHA’s ability to provide reasonable 

accommodations. One commenter noted 

that adjusting their jurisdiction’s 

payment standards in response to an 

FMR decrease would greatly increase 

the rent burden for residents that 

depend on fixed Social Security or SSI 

Payments, as cost of living increases in 

those programs are much lower than the 

rise in rent. Other commenters noted 

that the use of excepted payment 

standards for high-rent areas also limits 

the availability of reasonable 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities, and accommodations may 

actually lower the value of vouchers in 

some cases if the FMR is insufficient for 

the area. 

HUD Response: PHAs have a variety 

of options beyond setting payment 

standards at 110 percent of the FMR. 

PHAs may pursue exception payment 

standards above 110 percent of FMR, 

including through the expedited waiver 

process described in PIH Notice 2021– 

34. PHAs may apply for success rate 

payment standards, which allow for 

setting payment standards using the 

50th percentile estimates of rent. PHAs 

may, with HUD approval, establish an 

exception payment standard of more 

than 120 percent of the published FMR 

if required as a reasonable 

accommodation in accordance with 24 

CFR part 8 for a family that includes a 

person with a disability after approval 

from HUD. Finally, PHAs may adopt 

Small Area FMRs (or use Small Area 

FMRs as the basis for exception 

payment standards), which may allow 

for payment standards of up to 160 

percent of the metropolitan FMR in 

high-rent ZIP Codes. 

Market Factors Affecting the Supply of 

Units at FMR Levels 

Commenters noted that the current 

housing market is competitive. 

Commenters stated that the rental 

market for voucher holders is already 

somewhat limited by the 40th percentile 

limitations on the program, and a lack 

of available units for rent has driven 

rising rent prices. Commenters noted 

that units are being converted to short 

term rentals, affected by the impact of 

natural disasters, or utilized by new 

residents or temporary college students. 

This lack of available units can be 

further complicated by the needs of 

voucher holders, as a commenter noted 

necessary features can drive rent prices 

above the FMRs. Even when the 

vouchers are sufficient to meet rent, a 

commenter stated that landlords may 

choose to rent the limited supply to 

residents with the best credit and rental 

histories, further increasing competition 

within the market. 

Commenters also noted that 

increasing rents have limited voucher 

holders’ housing options due to 

insufficient FMR rates. When FMR rates 

are below the current market rates, 

voucher holders face significant 

difficulty in finding units within the 

allowed range. A commenter noted that 

rent has increased in their jurisdiction 

by an average of 9.7 percent, while 

another noted that rent has been 

consistently rising in the three years 

since the 2019 ACS survey. A 

commenter noted that increases in rent 

prices are not being met by increased 

wages, while another commenter noted 

that their jurisdictions have experienced 

rapid job growth in the area, leading to 

increased demand and higher prices. 

One commenter noted that the FMRs in 

their jurisdiction leave little to no room 

for the utility allowance, limiting the 

available options further. 

Other commenters stated that the 

recent end of rent moratoriums imposed 

by states in response to COVID–19 will 

result in rapidly increasing rents. 

Commenters noted that the FMR 

methodology may not fully capture 

these recent changes in rent prices, 

leaving voucher holders with reduced 

options at the FMR level. 

Commenters also noted that landlords 

are unwilling to accept vouchers as the 

FMRs are below the rates they can 

receive on the open market, which 

further reduces voucher holders’ 

options and drives up competition for 

the remaining units. Commenters noted 

that landlords’ costs of operation, 

including taxes, insurance, and repair 

prices, are increasing, forcing landlords 

to prioritize the higher rates available on 

the open market and reducing the 

number of single-family rental units 

available to voucher holders. Another 

commenter stated that while they would 

be interested in accepting voucher 

holders, the current market rates in their 

jurisdiction are between 52 and 123 

percent higher than the FMR. 

Furthermore, a commenter stated that a 

decrease in FMR for their jurisdiction 

could harm their existing efforts to 

address landlord concerns, which could 

result in landlords leaving the program 

before PHAs have the chance to resolve 

previously existing concerns. 

HUD Response: As noted earlier, HUD 

is committed to continuously evaluating 

its FMR calculation methodology, 

including considering the implications 

for areas with rapidly rising rents. HUD 

recognizes the interaction of the level of 

FMR on landlords’ decisions to accept 

Housing Choice Vouchers; at the same 

time, research shows that a variety of 

factors influence landlord participation 

in the program. HUD’s setting the FMR 

at the 40th percentile of rents means 

that by definition a large portion of 

rental units in any given area will not 

be available to voucher holders, 

reflecting HUD’s desire to provide a 

modest unit for low-income families 

and maximize the number of families 

served by HUD’s limited funds. 

Insufficient or Decreasing FMRs Impose 

Hardships 

Commenters noted that FMRs that 

decrease or fail to keep up with market 

rents would result in significant 

hardships for families and individuals 

as the insufficient value would limit the 

available units for voucher holders, 

would require great effort to find units 

even from voucher holders who are able 

to find units, and would limit the ability 

of voucher holders to enter new 

jurisdictions. Commenters noted that 

voucher holders face competition from 

residents with better credit and rental 

history, require accommodations, or 

face additional financial pressure and 

burdens from market inflation and 

disasters, such as the COVID–19 

pandemic. 

Commenters noted that PHAs are 

facing decreasing success rates with 

vouchers at the current FMR rates and 

that additional decreases or gaps 

between the FMR and market rates 

could further depress success rates, 

leaving more voucher holders homeless. 

Commenters stated that landlords are no 

longer accepting vouchers and are 

choosing not to renew voucher holders’ 

leases. One commenter also noted that 

additional COVID–19 response fundings 

allocated to PHAs may remain unused 

if PHAs continue to face decreasing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2022 / Notices 13747 

success rates from below-market FMRs. 

One commenter further noted that this 

has led to almost a 10 percent increase 

in rent burdened households since 2019 

and has led to PHAs being unable to 

realize their full administrative fee 

potential. 

Commenters also noted that limited 

availability of units or insufficient FMRs 

can put a strain on homeless shelters 

and nonprofits, as voucher holders may 

rely on these services when they face 

difficulty using their vouchers. Some 

commenters also expressed concern that 

PHAs have already raised payment 

standards to the statutory maximum but 

remain unable to meet market rates due 

to the FMRs. Furthermore, many 

commenters stated that decreasing 

FMRs will increase the burden on 

voucher holders and PHAs and could 

lead to increased housing instability or 

homelessness. One commenter noted 

that additional vouchers issued under 

the CARES Act to homeless populations 

are facing lower success rates due to a 

decrease in single-bedroom FMRs for 

their jurisdiction, as the target 

population of the CARES Act vouchers 

primarily needs one-bedroom units. As 

a result, many commenters called for 

FMRs to increase this year. 

HUD Response: As noted elsewhere, 

PHAs are not required to reduce the 

payment standard for in-place tenants in 

response to declining FMRs, and PHAs 

with declining voucher success rates 

have a variety of options for setting 

higher payment standards. HUD 

acknowledges the many hardships that 

low-income household face, as well as 

challenges faced by PHAs and other 

partners in working with HUD to 

accomplish its mission. Having an 

accurate FMR is often critical to helping 

address these challenges, and as 

previously discussed, HUD is 

committed to its ongoing evaluation of 

its FMR calculation. At the same time, 

the FMR itself cannot solve all the 

problems associated with keeping lowincome families housed and preventing 

homelessness, particularly those arising 

from a low supply of housing in general. 

The Impact of COVID–19 and Other 

Disasters May Not Be Accurately 

Reflected in the FMRs 

Commenters noted that the COVID–19 

pandemic has greatly affected the 

housing market, leading to potentially 

inaccurate FMRs for Fiscal Year 2022. 

Commenters stated that the pandemic 

has worsened an existing housing crisis 

by increasing rents and decreasing 

affordable housing supply, leading to 

rapidly increasing rental prices. One 

commenter stated that recent data 

shows average rents have increased 9.4 

percent on average since March 2020, 

with anecdotal evidence pointing to 

more drastic increases in recent months. 

Commenters also stated that the nature 

and impact of the pandemic requires 

additional steps to keep people in their 

homes, while PHAs need additional 

support and resources to respond to 

additional burdens imposed by the 

pandemic. Some commenters noted that 

the expiration of state rent moratoriums 

will artificially affect the calculation of 

FMRs, as landlords will begin raising 

rents after the moratoriums expire. This 

would result in voucher holders facing 

difficulty in finding units within the 

FMRs calculated prior to the end of the 

moratorium. 

Other commenters noted that the 

COVID–19 pandemic has driven 

population changes in certain areas, as 

higher-income new residents purchase 

units that would otherwise be available 

as rental units. This decrease in the 

supply of rental units has driven up rent 

prices, which the FMR methodology 

may not be able to account for without 

updated local data. 

Commenters also noted that other 

disasters have contributed to limited 

housing supply, such as floods and 

hurricanes. These disasters can limit the 

housing supply through permanent or 

temporary damage to units, ultimately 

driving prices up due to both increased 

demand from displaced residents and 

decreased supply. For example, one 

commenter noted that flooding in their 

jurisdiction affected over 700 homes, 

increasing an existing deficit in 

affordable units. 

HUD Response: The COVID–19 

pandemic has caused widespread 

volatility in the U.S. economy, 

including in many of the nation’s rental 

markets. Similarly, natural disasters 

often cause major consequences to 

housing markets of the areas they affect. 

In calculating FMRs, HUD is limited by 

the availability of data and its 

requirement to calculate FMRs using the 

current methodology. HUD is 

committed to evaluating the ongoing 

impacts of these disasters and adjusting 

its policies as needed to meet its 

mission. 

Requests for Reevaluations 

Commenters submitted valid requests 

for reevaluation for 28 FMR areas, as 

well as 10 requests that did not meet 

HUD requirements. Commenters 

requesting or in support of a 

reevaluation for the FY 2022 FMRs 

stated that the proposed FMRs were not 

an accurate representation of their area’s 

rental market. Many commenters stated 

that they would undertake a local rent 

survey as part of their request for 

reevaluation. Other commenters stated 

that prior rent surveys are no longer 

accurate predictors of rental prices in 

the market and that new data would 

more accurately reflect the current 

market. One commenter stated they did 

not have the resources to conduct a 

formal rent survey in line with HUD’s 

requirements and submitted other data 

points instead. One commenter 

requested a reevaluation without any 

discussion of the market conditions in 

their jurisdiction or a discussion of rent 

survey data. 

HUD Response: HUD published the 

list of areas requesting reevaluation on 

October 20, 2021, and the list of areas 

without a submission of rental market 

data on January 10, 2022. This notice 

provides the revised FMRs for areas that 

submitted survey data and concludes 

the FY 2022 FMR re-evaluation process. 

III. Environmental Impact 

This Notice involves establishment of 

a rate and does 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). 

Todd M. Richardson, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office 

of Policy Development and Research. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05040 Filed 3–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–7061–N–02] 

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Jobs Plus; OMB Control 

No.: 2577–0281 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for the information collection 

described below. In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is 

requesting comment from all interested 

parties on the proposed collection of 

information. The purpose of this notice 

is to allow for 60 days of public 

comment. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: May 9, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES