50138 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–4995–N–02; HUD–2005–

0017] 

Proposed Fair Market Rents for Fiscal 

Year 2006 for Housing Choice 

Voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy and Certain 

Other HUD Programs; Supplemental 

Notice on 50th Percentile Designation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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, 

to be effective on October 1 of each year. 

On June 2, 2005, HUD published a 

notice on proposed fair market rents 

(FMRs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. In the 

June 2, 2005, notice, HUD advised that 

it would also publish a separate notice 

to identify any areas that may be newly 

eligible for 50th percentile FMRs as well 

as any areas that remain eligible or that 

are no longer eligible for 50th percentile 

FMRs, as provided in HUD’s 

regulations. This notice provides this 

information. It identifies 24 areas 

eligible for 50th percentile FMRs, which 

consists of areas that remain eligible for 

50th percentile FMRs plus areas that are 

newly eligible.

DATES: Comments Due Date: September 

26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

HUD’s estimates of the FMRs, as 

published in this notice, to the Office of 

the 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. To ensure that the 

information is fully considered by all of 

the reviewers, each commenter is 

requested to submit two copies of its 

comments, one to the Rules Docket 

Clerk and the other to the Economic and 

Market Analysis Staff in the appropriate 

HUD field office. A copy of each 

communication submitted will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

(8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time) at the 

above address.

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 at http://

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html.

FMRs are listed at the 40th or 50th 

percentile in Schedule B of this notice. 

For informational purposes, a table of 

40th percentile recent mover rents for 

the areas with 50th percentile FMRs 

will be provided on the same Web site 

noted above. Any questions related to 

use of FMRs or voucher payment 

standards should be directed to the 

respective local HUD program staff. 

Questions on how to conduct FMR 

surveys or further methodological 

explanations may be addressed to Marie 

L. Lihn or Lynn A. Rodgers, Economic 

and Market Analysis Division, Office of 

Economic Affairs, Office of Policy 

Development and Research, telephone 

(202) 708–0590. Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at (800) 877–8339. (Other than the HUD 

USER information line and TTY 

numbers, telephone numbers are not toll 

free.) Electronic Data Availability: This 

Federal Register notice is available 

electronically from the HUD news page: 

http://www.hudclips.org. Federal 

Register notices also are available 

electronically from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office Web site at http://

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 

1437f) authorizes housing assistance to 

aid lower income families in renting 

safe and decent housing. Housing 

assistance payments are limited by 

FMRs established by HUD for different 

areas. In the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, the FMR is the basis for 

determining the ‘‘payment standard 

amount’’ used to calculate the 

maximum monthly subsidy for an 

assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In 

general, the FMR for an area is the 

amount that would be needed to pay the 

gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of 

privately owned, decent, and safe rental 

housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature 

with suitable amenities. In addition, all 

rents subsidized under the Housing 

Choice Voucher program must meet 

reasonable rent standards. The interim 

rule published on October 2, 2000 (65 

FR 58870), established 50th percentile 

FMRs for certain areas. 

Section 8(c) of the USHA requires the 

Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less frequently 

than annually. HUD’s regulations 

implementing section 8(c), codified 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.) HUD 

published its notice on proposed 

FY2006 FMRs on June 2, 2005 (70 FR 

32402), and provided a 60-day public 

comment period. In the June 2, 2005, 

notice, HUD advised that it would 

publish a separate notice to identify any 

areas that may be newly eligible for 50th 

percentile FMRs as well as any areas 

that remain eligible or no longer remain 

eligible for 50th percentile FMRs, as 

provided in HUD’s regulations. 

Fiftieth percentile FMRs were 

establish by a rule published on October 

2, 2000 (65 FR 58870), that also 

established the eligibility criteria used 

to select areas that would be assigned 

50th rather than the normal 40th 

percentile FMRs. The objective was to 

give PHAs a tool to assist them in deconcentrating voucher program use 

patterns. The preamble to the October 2, 

2000, rule noted that a PHA for which 

50th percentile FMRs were provided 

could advise HUD that its jurisdiction 

does not require the higher payment 

standards based on the 50th percentile 

and obtain HUD approval to continue or 

establish payment standards below 90 

percent of the 50th percentile. (See 65 

FR 58871). The three criteria for 50th 

percentile FMRs are: 

The three FMR area eligibility criteria 

were: 

1. FMR Area Size: the FMR area had 

to have at least 100 census tracts. 

2. Concentration of Affordable Units:

70 percent or fewer of the tracts with at 

least 10 two-bedroom units had at least 

30 percent of these units with gross 

rents at or below the 40th percentile 

two-bedroom FMR; and, 

3. Concentration of Participants: 25 

percent or more of the tenant-based 

rental program participants in the FMR 

area resided in the 5 percent of census 

tracts with the largest number of 

program participants.

The rule also specified that areas 

assigned 50th percentile FMRs were to 

be re-evaluated after three years, and 

that the 50th percentile rents would be 

rescinded unless an area has made at 

least a fraction of a percent progress in 

reducing concentration and otherwise 

remains eligible. (See 24 CFR 888.113.) 

As noted in the June 2, 2005, notice, the 

three-year period for the first areas 

determined eligible to receive the 50th 

percentile FMRs, following 

promulgation of the regulation in 

§ 888.113, has come to a close. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 50139

II. 50th Percentile FMR Areas for 

FY2006 

Based on its assessment, HUD has 

determined that only 14 of the 48 areas 

assigned 50th percentile FMRs in the 

June 2, 2005, notice shall continue to be 

assigned 50th percentile FMRs. Only 

these 14 areas met the regulatory 

requirements for continued eligibility. 

In addition to these 14 areas that 

continue to remain eligible for 50th 

percentile FMRs, HUD identified 10 

areas currently assigned 40th percentile 

FMRs that are eligible for 50th 

percentile FMRs. These 24 areas are as 

follows (note that the acronym MSA 

refers to metropolitan statistical area, 

and HMFA refers to HUD Metro FMR 

area as defined in the June 2, 2005, 

notice):

Albuquerque, NM MSA. 

Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA. 

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA. 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA. 

Denver-Aurora, CO MSA. 

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA. 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA. 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT HMFA. 

Honolulu, HI MSA. 

Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 

HMFA. 

Kansas City, MO-KS HMFA. 

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA. 

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 

MSA. 

New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA. 

Orange County, CA HMFA. 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA. 

Providence-Fall River, RI-MA HMFA. 

Richmond, VA HMFA.

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 

MSA. 

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA. 

Tacoma, WA HMFA. 

Tucson, AZ MSA. 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA-NC MSA. 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DCVA-MD HMFA. 

The following section provides the 

analysis undertaken by HUD to 

determine 50th percentile eligibility and 

50th percentile continued eligibility. 

III. Procedures for Determining 50th 

Percentile FMRs 

This section describes the procedure 

HUD followed in evaluating which new 

and currently designated areas are 

eligible for 50th percentile FMRs under 

HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR part 888. 

Additionally, in accordance with HUD’s 

Information Quality Guidelines 

(published at 67 FR 69642), certain FMR 

areas were deemed ineligible for 50th 

percentile FMRs because the 

information on concentration of voucher 

program participants needed to make 

the eligibility determination was of 

inadequate quality as described in this 

section. Table 1 lists the 48 FMR areas 

that were assigned proposed FY2006 

FMRs set at the 50th percentile based on 

new FMR area definitions. Table 1 

includes the 39 areas originally 

determined eligible for 50th percentile 

FMRs (following the October 2000 final 

rule that allowed 50th percentile FMRs) 

plus subparts of these areas that were 

separated from the original areas in 

accordance with the new Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

metropolitan area definitions. Those 

areas marked by an asterisk (*) in Table 

1 failed to meet one or more eligibility 

criteria as described below, including 

measurable deconcentration. Those 

areas marked by a plus sign (+) in Table 

1 had insufficient information, as 

described below, upon which to 

determine concentration of voucher 

program participants and are deemed 

ineligible for 50th percentile FMRs. 

Only 14 of these areas met all of the 

eligibility criteria including information 

quality requirements and had 

measurable deconcentration.

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS LISTED IN

JUNE 2, 2005, NOTICE

Albuquerque, NM MSA 

*Allegan County, MI 

*Ashtabula County, OH 

*Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA HMFA 

Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 

*Baton Rouge, LA HMFA 

*Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA 

*Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA 

*Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA 

+Dallas, TX HMFA 

Denver-Aurora, CO MSA 

*Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI HMFA 

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA 

*Holland-Grand Haven, MI MSA 

*Hood County, TX 

Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA 

Kansas City, MO-KS HMFA 

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA 

+Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 

MSA 

*Minneapolis-St. PaulBloomington, MN-WI MSA 

*Mohave County, AZ 

*Monroe, MI MSA 

*Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI MSA 

*+Newark, NJ HMFA 

*Nye County, NV 

*Oakland-Fremont, CA HMFA 

*Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA 

*Oklahoma City, OK HMFA 

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS LISTED IN

JUNE 2, 2005, NOTICE—Continued

Orange County, CA HMFA 

*Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA 

*+Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJDE-MD MSA 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA 

*Pottawatomie County, OK 

Richmond, VA HMFA 

*+Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, 

CA 

*Salt Lake City, UT HMFA 

*San Antonio, TX HMFA 

*San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA 

*San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HMFA 

*St. Louis, MO-IL HMFA 

*Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 

*Tulsa, OK HMFA 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VANC MSA 

*Warren County, NJ HMFA 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD 

HMFA 

*Wichita, KS HMFA 

The following subsections describe 

HUD’s application of the eligibility 

criteria for 50th percentile FMRs, set 

forth in 24 CFR 888.113, to the proposed 

FY2006 50th percentile FMR areas, and 

explain which areas lost eligibility for 

the 50th percentile FMR based on each 

criterion. The application of HUD’s 

Information Quality Guidelines and 

findings of ineligibility of FMR areas on 

the basis of inadequate information on 

concentration of participants are 

described in the subsection on the 

‘‘concentration of participants’’ 

(Concentration of Participants) criterion. 

The final section identifies 10 

additional proposed FY2006 FMR areas 

originally assigned 40th percentile 

FMRs that are eligible, under the 

regulatory criteria and information 

quality guidelines, for 50th percentile 

FMRs. 

Continued Eligibility: FMR Area Size 

Criterion 

Application of the modified new 

OMB metropolitan area definitions 

results in several peripheral counties of 

FY2005 50th percentile FMR areas being 

separated from their core areas. The 

separated areas become either nonmetropolitan counties, parts of different 

metropolitan areas, or form entirely new 

metropolitan areas. Table 2 shows 

proposed FY2006 FMR areas that are 

ineligible to receive 50th percentile 

FMRs because, as a result of the new 

metropolitan area definitions, they each 

have fewer than 100 census tracts and 

therefore fail to meet the FMR area size 

criterion.

50140 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

1The 1990 percent of tracts containing 10 or more 

rental units where at least 30 percent of rental units 

rent for the 40th percentile 2-bedroom FMR or less 

is the figure computed for the original olddefinition FMR area that was assigned the 50th 

percentile FMR in 2000. The 2000 figure may differ 

both because of change between the two decennial 

censuses as well as change in the geographic 

definition of the FMR areas.

2Section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for FY2001 (Pub.L. 

106–554) directed the OMB to issue 

governmentwide guidelines that ‘‘provide policy 

and procedural guidance to federal agencies for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information (including 

statistical information) disseminated by federal 

agencies.’’ Within one year after OMB issued its 

guidelines, agencies were directed to issue their 

own guidelines that described internal mechanisms 

by which agencies ensure that their information 

meets the standards of quality, objectivity, utility, 

and integrity. The mechanism also must allow 

affected persons to seek and obtain correction of 

information maintained and disseminated by the 

agency that does not comply with the guidelines. 

OMB issued its final guidelines on September 28, 

2001 (66 FR 49718), but requested additional 

comment on one component of the OMB guidelines. 

The OMB guidelines addressing additional public 

comment were published on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 

369), and republished on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 

6452). HUD issued its Final Information Quality 

Guidelines on November 18, 2002 (67 FR 69642), 

which follow public comment on proposed 

guidelines published on May 30, 2002 (67 FR 

37851).

3Note that 13 U.S.C. 9 governs the confidentiality 

of census data. The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552) 

governs confidentiality of the data used to evaluate 

the Concentration of Participants criterion.

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS WITH

FEWER THAN 100 CENSUS TRACTS

Tracts 

Allegan County, MI ....................... 21 

Ashtabula County, OH .................. 22 

Holland-Grand Haven, MI MSA .... 36 

Hood County, TX .......................... 5 

Mohave County, AZ ...................... 30 

Monroe, MI MSA .......................... 39 

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI 

MSA .......................................... 45 

Nye County, NV ............................ 10 

Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA ........... 93 

Pottawatomie County, OK ............ 15 

Warren County, NJ HMFA ........... 23 

Continued Eligibility: Concentration of 

Affordable Units 

The original 50th percentile FMR 

determination in 2000 measured the 

Concentration of Affordable Units 

criterion with data from the 1990 

Census because 2000 Census data were 

not available. According to 2000 Census 

data, the FMR areas, shown in Table 3, 

and assigned proposed FY2006 50th 

percentile FMRs have more than 70 

percent of their tracts containing 10 or 

more rental units where at least 30 

percent of rental units rent for the 40th 

percentile two-bedroom FMR or less. 

These areas therefore fail to meet the 

Concentration of Affordable Units 

criterion and are not eligible for 50th 

percentile FMRs (FMR areas that are 

listed above as too small and also fail to 

meet this criterion are not listed here). 

In Table 3, the percentages following 

each FMR area name are, respectively, 

the 1990 Census and 2000 Census 

percent of tracts containing 10 or more 

rental units where at least 30 percent of 

rental units rent for the 40th percentile 

two-bedroom FMR or less. This number 

must be no greater than 70 percent for 

an FMR Area to qualify for 50th 

percentile FMRs.

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS WHERE

AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE NOT CONCENTRATED

FMR Area 19901 2000 

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA HMFA ................. 69.5 72.8 

Baton Rouge, LA HMFA ....... 69.2 80.3 

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS WHERE

AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE NOT CONCENTRATED—Continued

FMR Area 19901 2000 

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 

MSA .................................. 67.7 75.4 

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 

MSA .................................. 62.3 70.3 

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 

HMFA ................................ 65.7 72.7 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 

MSA .................................. 65.0 73.1 

Oakland-Fremont, CA HMFA 67.8 74.4 

Oklahoma City, OK HMFA ... 63.1 71.5 

Oxnard-Ventura, CA MSA .... 68.1 71.8 

St. Louis, MO-IL HMFA ........ 69.9 71.1 

Salt Lake City, UT HMFA ..... 66.3 70.6 

San Antonio, TX HMFA ........ 66.0 70.7 

San Jose-Santa Clara, CA 

HMFA ................................ 67.5 74.8 

Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 

MSA .................................. 63.9 74.1 

Tulsa, OK HMFA .................. 67.5 70.4 

Wichita, KS HMFA ................ 68.4 70.2 

Continued Eligibility: Concentration of 

Participants 

The Concentration of Participants 

criterion requires that 25 percent or 

more of voucher program participants 

be located in the five percent of census 

tracts with the highest number of 

voucher participants. Otherwise, an area 

is not eligible for 50th percentile FMRs. 

The data for evaluating the 

Concentration of Participants criterion 

comes from HUD’s Public Housing 

Information Center (PIC). All public 

housing authorities (PHAs) that 

administer Housing Choice Voucher 

(HCV) programs must submit, on a 

timely basis, family records to HUD’s 

PIC as set forth by 24 CFR part 908 and 

the consolidated annual contributions 

contract (CACC). PIC is the 

Department’s official system to track 

and account for HCV family 

characteristics, income, rent, and other 

occupancy factors. PHAs must submit 

their form HUD–50058 records 

electronically to HUD for all current 

HCV families. Under HUD Notice PIH 

2000–13 (HA), PHAs were required to 

successfully submit a minimum of 85 

percent of their resident records to PIC 

during the measurement period covered 

by this notice (this requirement was 

raised to 95 percent by HUD Notice PIH 

2005–17 (HA), but this higher reporting 

rate requirement is not used for 

purposes of this notice because it does 

not become effective until December 31, 

2005, data submissions by PHAs). 

Under HUD’s Information Quality 

Guidelines,2 the data used to determine 

eligibility for 50th percentile FMRs 

qualifies as ‘‘influential’’ and is 

therefore subject to a higher ‘‘level of 

scrutiny and pre-dissemination review’’ 

including ‘‘robustness checks’’ because 

‘‘public access to data and methods will 

not occur’’ due to HUD’s statutory duty 

to protect private information.3 HUD 

cannot reasonably base the eligibility 

decision on inadequate data.

The information used to determine 

which FMR areas are assigned 50th 

percentile FMRs is ‘‘influential’’ 

because it has ‘‘a clear and substantial 

impact,’’ namely because it can 

potentially affect how voucher subsidy 

levels will be set in up to 108 large FMR 

areas containing about 59 percent of 

voucher tenants, thereby affecting ‘‘a 

broad range of parties.’’ PHA voucher 

payment standards are set according to 

a percentage of the FMR, so the setting 

of 50th percentile FMRs ‘‘has a high 

probability’’ of affecting subsidy levels 

for tenants in the affected FMR areas. 

An ‘‘important’’ public policy is affected 

by the decisions rendered from the 

information, namely the goal of 

deconcentrating voucher tenants and 

improving their access to jobs and 

improved quality of life. 

Under HUD’s Final Information 

Quality Guidelines, influential 

information that is developed using data 

that cannot be released to the public 

under Title XIII or for ‘‘other compelling 

interests’’ is subject to ‘‘robustness 

checks’’ to address, among other things, 

‘‘sources of bias or other error’’ and 

‘‘programmatic and policy 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 50141

4For most PHAs the reporting rate comes directly 

from the Delinquency Report and is the ratio of 

form 50058 received to required units. In some 

cases, the number of 50058 required units was 

inconsistent with other figures on the number of 

HCV participants served by the PHA and was 

replaced with either the December 2004 leased 

units (if available) or Annual Contribution 

Contracts (ACC) units. The two significant instances 

where this procedure was used and negatively 

affected FMR area reporting rates in this table 

because the resulting PHA rates were below 85 

percent are as follows: Dallas, TX HA (15,975 ACC 

units, PHA Report Rate 78.3%) and Philadelphia, 

PA HA (15,641 leased units, PHA Report Rate 

0.0%).

5The Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA 

HUD FMR, in a measure based on inadequate data, 

also had a concentration ratio of less than 25 

percent but is deemed ineligible based on data 

quality.

implications.’’ The typical reason for a 

low overall reporting rate in an FMR 

area is very low reporting rates by the 

largest PHAs in the FMR area (or nonreporting in the case of Moving-to-Work 

program PHAs that are not required to 

report). Unless it could be shown that 

underreporting is essentially random 

(which would be difficult and impose a 

major administrative burden on HUD), 

low reporting rates render any results 

derived from the data inaccurate, 

unreliable, and biased. 

The setting of a reporting rate 

threshold for consideration of eligibility 

for 50th percentile FMRs is, therefore, 

justified because it constitutes a 

‘‘robustness check’’ on ‘‘influential 

information’’ as defined in HUD’s Final 

Information Quality Guidelines. HUD 

sets the overall FMR area minimum 

reporting rate standard at 85 percent 

based on the minimum requirements 

established for PHA reporting rates. 

Of the 21 areas passing the FMR Area 

Size and Concentration of Affordable 

Units criteria, the five listed below in 

Table 4 have data quality issues in 

measuring Concentration of Participants 

in 2005 because of low reporting by 

PHAs in the FMR area.

TABLE 4.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS MEETING

FMR AREA SIZE AND CONCENTRATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS CRITERIA, BUT HAVING REPORTING

RATES BELOW 85 PERCENT AS DERIVED FROM THE MAY 31, 2005, 

DELINQUENCY REPORT 4

Dallas, TX HMFA ................................ 83.2 

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, 

FL MSA ........................................... 83.5 

Newark, NJ HMFA .............................. 79.9 

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA ........................ 54.0 

Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, 

CA HMFA ........................................ 62.7 

The only area with a proposed 

FY2006 50th percentile FMR that met 

the first two eligibility criteria, had 

adequate data to measure Concentration 

of Participants, but failed to meet 25 

percent concentration criterion, is the 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 

MSA.5

Continued Eligibility: Deconcentration 

of Participants 

HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR 888.113 

specify that areas assigned 50th 

percentile rents are to be reviewed at the 

end of three years, and that the 50th 

percentile rents will be rescinded if no 

progress has been made in 

deconcentrating voucher tenants. FMR 

Areas that failed this test are ineligible 

for 50th percentile FMRs for the 

subsequent three years. Three FMR 

areas with proposed FY2006 50th 

percentile FMRs that passed the other 

50th percentile eligibility tests failed to 

deconcentrate voucher tenants between 

2000 and 2005. They are the BergenPassaic, NJ HMFA, the Newark, NJ 

HMFA, and the Philadelphia-CamdenWilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA. 

With the exception of the BergenPassaic, NJ HMFA, however, this 

conclusion is based on poor quality 

data. The other two areas do not have 

sufficient reporting rates as derived 

from the May 31, 2005, Delinquency 

Report to measure deconcentration 

progress. Therefore, the Newark, NJ 

HMFA and the Philadelphia-CamdenWilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA are 

ineligible for 50th percentile FMRs 

because neither concentration nor 

deconcentration progress can be 

measured accurately based on data 

provided by PHA reporting. If reporting 

in these FMR areas has increased 

sufficiently when future evaluations of 

deconcentration are made, and 

eligibility can be established with 

increased reporting rates, the 50th 

percentile FMRs could be reinstated 

before the end of a three-year hiatus. 

Since the Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA 

has not demonstrated progress in 

deconcentrating voucher participants, 

and this measurement is made with data 

of adequate quality (85.7 percent 

reporting rate), the Bergen-Passaic, NJ 

HMFA is ineligible for FY2006 50th 

percentile FMRs. The 40th percentile 

Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA FMR is 

almost identical to the revised proposed 

New York-Bergen-Passaic-MonmouthOcean NY-NJ HMFA of which the 

originally proposed Bergen-Passaic, NJ 

HMFA is a part. So, as a result of losing 

its 50th percentile status, the BergenPassaic, NJ HMFA is combined into the 

revised proposed New York-BergenPassaic-Monmouth-Ocean, NY-NJ 

HMFA and shares the same revised 

proposed FY2006 FMRs with the 

component counties of this area as 

indicated in Schedule B of this notice. 

Table 5 lists the areas, originally 

assigned 50th percentile FMRs, and also 

assigned proposed FY2006 50th 

percentile FMRs that meet all eligibility 

criteria, that have shown evidence of 

participant deconcentration, and have 

sufficient Reporting Rates as derived 

from the May 31, 2005, Delinquency 

Report to make an accurate assessment 

of participant concentration.

TABLE 5.—PROPOSED FY2006 50TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS THAT

SHOULD CONTINUE AS 50TH PERCENTILE AREAS

Albuquerque, NM MSA 

Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA 

Denver-Aurora, CO MSA 

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA 

Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA 

Kansas City, MO-KS HMFA 

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA 

Orange County, CA HMFA 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA 

Richmond, VA HMFA 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VANC MSA 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD 

HMFA 

Newly Eligible Areas 

Table 6 lists the FY2006 FMR areas 

not originally assigned proposed 50th 

percentile FMRs that meet the eligibility 

requirements for 50th percentile FMRs 

and have sufficient Reporting Rates as 

derived from the May 31, 2005, 

Delinquency Report (more than 85 

percent overall for the FMR area) to 

evaluate the Concentration of 

Participants. There were no FY2006 

FMR areas originally assigned proposed 

40th percentile FMRs that otherwise 

met the eligibility requirements for 50th 

percentile FMRs, but were deemed 

ineligible by having insufficient 

Reporting Rates as derived from the May 

31, 2005, Delinquency Report.

TABLE 6.—PROPOSED FY2006 40TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS THAT

SHOULD BE ASSIGNED 50TH PERCENTILE FMRS

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 

HMFA 

Honolulu, HI MSA 

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA 

New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA 

Providence-Fall River, RI-MA HMFA 

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA 

50142 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

TABLE 6.—PROPOSED FY2006 40TH

PERCENTILE FMR AREAS THAT

SHOULD BE ASSIGNED 50TH PERCENTILE FMRS—Continued

Tacoma, WA HMFA 

Tucson, AZ MSA 

Revised proposed FY2006 FMRs for 

the areas affected by this notice are 

listed in Schedule B of the June 2, 2005, 

notice. Consistent with current 

regulations, PHAs must obtain the 

approval of their governing board to 

implement use of 50th percentile FMRs 

or payment standards based on those 

FMRs. Other information pertaining to 

the proposed FY2006 FMRs is 

unchanged from the June 2, 2005, 

notice.

Dated: August 12, 2005. 

Roy A. Bernardi, 

Deputy Secretary.

BILLING CODE 4210–32–P

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 50143


EN25AU05.060</GPH>
50144 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 


EN25AU05.061</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 50145


EN25AU05.062</GPH>
50146 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 


EN25AU05.063</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 50147


EN25AU05.064</GPH>
50148 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 05–16865 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–32–C


EN25AU05.065</GPH>