55940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5152–N–02] 

Final Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 

2008 for the Housing Choice Voucher 

Program and Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy Program 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Fair Market 

Rents (FMRs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. 

SUMMARY: Section 8(c)(1) of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) 

requires the Secretary to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less than annually, 

adjusted to be effective on October 1 of 

each year. The primary uses of FMRs are 

to determine payment standard amounts 

for the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, to determine initial renewal 

rents for some expiring project-based 

section 8 contracts, to determine initial 

rents for housing assistance payment 

(HAP) contracts in the Moderate 

Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy 

program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a 

rent ceiling in the HOME rental 

assistance program. Today’s notice 

provides final FY2008 FMRs for all 

areas that reflect the estimated 40th and 

50th percentile rent levels trended to 

April 1, 2008. The FY2008 FMRs are 

based on 2000 Census data updated 

with more current survey data. For the 

first time, HUD is using data from the 

Census Bureau’s American Community 

Survey (ACS). HUD is largely replacing 

the accumulated 2001-through-2005 

FMR update factors from various 

sources with data from ACS’s first full 

implementation year, 2005. HUD uses 

ACS data in different ways according to 

how many two-bedroom, standardquality and recent-mover sample cases 

are available in the FMR area or in its 

Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA), as 

described in detail later in this notice. 

Random digit dialing (RDD) surveys, as 

well as some limited private surveys, 

performed between 2001 and 2005 may 

also be used under certain conditions. 

Revised 2005 FMRs based on 2000 

Census and 2005 ACS data have been 

updated with Consumer Price Index 

(CPI) data through the end of 2006 and 

then trended to April 2008, the 

midpoint of FY2008. FY2008 FMRs are 

the first to be able to take advantage of 

the full-implementation ACS, a major 

new Census survey that is being 

conducted annually. The ACS will 

replace the Decennial Census ‘‘longform’’ sample survey that is the source 

of Decennial Census rent information. 

The ACS will permit more accurate 

FMR estimates each year than were 

possible using the Decennial Census 

trending techniques of previous FMR 

estimates. 

DATES: Effective Date: The FMRs 

published in this notice are effective on 

October 1, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information on the 

methodology used to develop FMRs or 

a listing of all FMRs, please call the 

HUD USER information line at (800) 

245–2691 or access the information at 

the following link on the HUD Web site: 

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

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

50th percentile in Schedule B. An 

asterisk before the FMR area name 

identifies a 50th percentile area. For 

informational purposes, 40th percentile 

recent-mover rents for the areas with 

50th percentile FMRs will be provided 

in the HUD FY2008 FMR 

documentation system at http:// 

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

index.asp?data=fmr08. 

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 for further 

methodological explanations, please 

contact Marie L. Lihn or Lynn A. 

Rodgers, Economic and Market Analysis 

Division, Office of Economic Affairs, 

Office of Policy Development and 

Research, telephone number (202) 708– 

0590. Questions about disaster-related 

FMR exceptions should be referred to 

the respective local HUD office. Persons 

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. (Other 

than the HUD USER information line 

and TTY numbers, telephone numbers 

are not toll-free.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background 

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

1437f) authorizes housing assistance to 

aid lower-income families in renting 

safe and decent housing. Housing 

assistance payments are limited by 

FMRs established by HUD for different 

areas. In the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, the FMR is the basis for 

determining the ‘‘payment standard 

amount’’ used to calculate the 

maximum monthly subsidy for an 

assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In 

general, the FMR for an area is the 

amount that would be needed to pay the 

gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of 

privately owned, decent, and safe rental 

housing of a modest (nonluxury) nature 

with suitable amenities. In addition, all 

rents subsidized under the Housing 

Choice Voucher program must meet 

reasonable rent standards. The interim 

rule published on October 2, 2000 (65 

FR 58870), established 50th percentile 

FMRs for certain areas. 

Electronic Data Availability: This 

Federal Register notice is available 

electronically from the HUD Web site at 

http://www.hudclips.org. Federal 

Register notices are also available 

electronically from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office Web site, http:// 

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

Complete documentation of the 

methodology and data used to compute 

each area’s Final FY2008 FMRs is 

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

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr08. 

II. Procedures for the Development of 

FMRs 

Section 8(c) of the USHA requires the 

Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less frequently 

than annually. Section 8(c) states in 

part, as follows: 

Proposed fair market rentals for an area 

shall be published in the Federal Register 

with reasonable time for public comment and 

shall become effective upon the date of 

publication in final form in the Federal 

Register. Each fair market rental in effect 

under this subsection shall be adjusted to be 

effective on October 1 of each year to reflect 

changes—based on the most recent available 

data trended so the rentals will be current for 

the year to which they apply—of rents for 

existing or newly constructed rental dwelling 

units, as the case may be, of various sizes and 

types in this section. 

The Department’s regulations at 24 

CFR part 888 provide that HUD will 

develop proposed FMRs, publish them 

for public comment, provide a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, 

analyze the comments, and publish final 

FMRs (see 24 CFR 888.115). 

In addition, HUD’s regulations at 24 

CFR 888.113 set out procedures for HUD 

to assess whether areas are eligible for 

FMRs at the 50th percentile. For 

FY2008, no new areas became eligible 

for 50th percentile rents. Final FY2008 

FMRs are published on or before 

October 1, 2007, as required by section 

8(c)(1) of the USHA. 

III. Proposed FY2008 FMRs 

On July 12, 2007, at 72 FR 38398, 

HUD published proposed FY2008 

FMRs. As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed FMRs, the FMRs for FY2008 

reflect the use of the 2005 ACS data for 

metropolitan areas. For all areas, the 

update of the FMRs from the 2000 

Census base rent to 2005 has largely 

been replaced by using ACS update 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55941 

factors. There are some areas where 

RDDs conducted between 2001 and 

2005 are still being used, and some 

areas where the 2005 ACS data provides 

a new benchmark rent. In addition, the 

FY2008 FMRs include all changes made 

to metropolitan area definitions made 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), as of December 2006. 

During the comment period, which 

ended August 13, 2007, HUD received 

30 public comments on the proposed 

FY2008 FMRs. Most of the comments 

received lacked the data needed to 

support FMR changes. The comments 

received are discussed in more detail 

later in this notice. 

IV. FMR Methodology 

The FY2008 FMRs are based on 

current OMB metropolitan area 

definitions that were first used in the 

FY2006 FMRs. The changes OMB made 

to the Metropolitan Area Definitions in 

December 2006 have been incorporated. 

This means there are two new, onecounty metropolitan statistical areas 

(MSAs), and a few areas where MSA 

name changes add or delete a primary 

city name. These definitions have the 

advantages that they are based on more 

current (2000 Census) data, use a more 

relevant commuting interchange 

standard, and generally provide a better 

measure of current housing market 

relationships. HUD had three objectives 

in defining FMR areas for FY2006: (1) 

To incorporate new OMB metropolitan 

area definitions so that the FMR 

estimation system can employ new data 

released according to those definitions, 

(2) to better reflect current housing 

markets, and (3) to minimize the 

number of large changes in FMRs due to 

use of the new OMB definitions. These 

objectives continue to apply to the 

FY2008 FMRs, and area definitions 

were developed to achieve these 

objectives, as follows: 

• FMR Census Base Rents and 

Median Family Incomes were calculated 

for each of the new OMB metropolitan 

areas using 2000 Census data. 

• Subparts of any of the new areas 

that had separate FMRs under the old 

OMB definitions, and that had 

sufficiently large 2000 Census counts of 

recent-mover renter households in 

standard-quality units, were identified, 

and 2000 Census Base Rents and 

Median Family Incomes for these 

subparts were calculated. Only the 

subparts within the new OMB 

metropolitan area were included in 

these calculations (e.g., counties that 

had been excluded from the new OMB 

metropolitan areas were not included). 

• Metropolitan subparts of new areas 

that had previously had separate FMRs 

were assigned their own FMRs if their 

2000 Census Base Rents differed by 

more than 5 percent from the new OMB 

area 2000 Census Base Rent, or if their 

2000 Census Median Family Income 

differed by more than 5 percent from the 

new OMB area 2000 Census Median 

Family Income. 

• Former metropolitan counties 

removed from metropolitan areas get 

their own FMRs. 

At HUD’s request, the Census Bureau 

prepared a special publicly releasable 

census file that permits almost exact 

replication of HUD’s 2000 Base Rent 

calculations, except for areas with few 

rental units. This data set is located on 

HUD’s HUD USER Web site at: http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/. 

A. Data Sources—2000 Census and 

2005 American Community Survey 

FY 2008 FMRs are based on 2000 

Census data updated with more current 

survey data. For the first time, HUD is 

using data from the Census Bureau’s 

ACS; the ACS data are from 2005, the 

full survey’s first implementation year. 

While the Census Bureau intends for the 

ACS to replace the Decennial Census 

sample ‘‘long form’’ for collecting 

detailed socio-economic data, the ACS 

has several important differences from 

the decennial long form. These include: 

• The ACS is conducted on a 

continuous ‘‘rolling’’ basis throughout 

the year. As a result, survey responses 

do not correspond to a particular date, 

whereas the long form responses are as 

of the census date of April 1. This has 

implications for the ‘‘as-of’’ date 

assumed for ACS-based rents. The ‘‘as 

of’’ date for ACS-based rents is set at 

June 30, 2005. 

• The ACS has about one-fifth the 

sample size of the decennial long form, 

which surveyed approximately one out 

of every six households. This means 

that an adequate sample size for oneyear ACS data will be available only for 

very large-population geographic areas, 

and that data for smaller areas will be 

accumulated over 3 or 5 years to form 

the basis of decennial-long-form 

equivalent estimates. 

In the FY 2008 FMRs, HUD is largely 

replacing the accumulated 2001- 

through-2005 FMR update factors from 

various sources with 2005 ACS data 

(RDDs performed between 2001 and 

2005 will be used under certain 

conditions described below). HUD uses 

ACS data in different ways according to 

how many two-bedroom, standardquality and recent-mover sample cases 

are available in the FMR area or the 

CBSA. FMR areas are classified into four 

ACS data-availability categories: 

ACS–1. FMR Areas that have at least 

200 sample cases of two-bedroom, 

standard-quality rents. ACS–1 areas may 

be entire MSAs, sub-areas that are 

assigned the CBSA base rents, other subareas, or large nonmetropolitan 

counties. 

ACS–2. FMR Areas that are sub-areas 

of CBSAs where the sub-area is not 

assigned the CBSA base rent, and the 

sub-area does not have at least 200 

sample cases of two-bedroom, standardquality rents, but the CBSA containing 

the sub-area does have at least 200 

sample cases of two-bedroom, standardquality rents. 

ACS–3. FMR Areas that are MSAs or 

nonmetropolitan counties that have 

fewer than 200 sample cases of twobedroom, standard-quality rents, or subareas of CBSAs that have fewer than 200 

sample cases of two-bedroom, standardquality rents. 

ACS–4. FMR Areas that have at least 

200 sample cases of two-bedroom, 

recent-mover rents. ACS–4 areas may be 

entire MSAs, sub-areas that are assigned 

CBSA rents, other sub-areas, or large 

nonmetropolitan counties. By 

definition, these areas are a subset of 

ACS–1 areas. 

In ACS–1 FMR areas, the 2000 

Census-to-2005 ACS update factor is the 

ratio of the 2005 ACS two-bedroom, 

standard-quality median rent to the 

2000 Census two-bedroom, standardquality median rent for the FMR Area. 

In ACS–2 FMR areas, the 2000 

Census-to-2005 ACS update factor is 

either: (1) the ratio of the 2005 ACS twobedroom, standard-quality median rent 

to the 2000 Census two-bedroom, 

standard-quality median rent for the 

CBSA containing the FMR Area, or (2) 

the ratio of the 2005 ACS two-bedroom, 

standard-quality median rent to the 

2000 Census two-bedroom, standardquality median rent for the entire state 

(or population-weighted average of 

states) containing the FMR area, 

whichever brings its 2005 updated rent 

closer to the value of its CBSA 2005 

updated rent. 

In ACS–3 FMR areas, the 2000 

Census-to-2005 ACS update factor is the 

ratio of the 2005 ACS two-bedroom, 

standard-quality median rent to the 

2000 Census two-bedroom, standardquality median rent for the parts of the 

state not in ACS–1 or ACS–2 FMR areas; 

or the population-weighted average 

factor across such parts of the states 

containing each multi-state FMR area. In 

cases where there are fewer than 200 

sample cases of 2005 ACS two-bedroom, 

standard-quality median rents in the 

parts of the state not in ACS–1 or ACS–

2 areas, HUD uses, as the update factor, 

the ratio of the 2005 ACS two-bedroom, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
55942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 

1For Final FY 2008 FMRs, HUD made one further 

adjustment to this update factor calculation. For 

sub-areas and MSAs that cross state lines (multistate FMR areas), the population-weighted average 

factor is either the sub-area population-weighted 

average factor or the CBSA-wide populationweighted average factor, whichever brings the subarea FMR closer to the CBSA FMR. This adjustment 

produces an increase in rents for Franklin County, 

AR; Gibson County, IN; Stewart County, TN; and 

Martinsburg, WV. 

2The results of certain special case RDDs 

performed in ACS–1, ACS–2, and ACS–4 areas that, 

for example, adjusted bedroom rent ratios derived 

from the 2000 Census, may still be used on a caseby-case basis as noted in the FY2008 FMR 

Documentation System; see http:// 

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

index.asp?data-fmr08. 

standard-quality median rent to the 

2000 Census two-bedroom, standardquality median rent for the entire state 

containing the FMR area 1. 

In ACS–4 FMR areas, the local 2005 

ACS recent-mover rent becomes a new 

base rent for 2005, if the updated 2000 

Census base rent is outside its 90 

percent confidence interval and the 

recent-mover median rent is greater than 

the local standard-quality median rent. 

This means that the ACS is used to 

replace the updated 2000 base rent with 

a 2005 local ACS base rent. 

B. Data Sources—Legacy RDDs 

The Department regularly obtains 

additional rent survey data to update 

the FMRs in the form of RDD telephone 

rent surveys meeting the Department’s 

statistical criteria for updating FMRs. 

HUD conducted numerous RDD surveys 

between 2001 and 2005, and also 

accepted a number of non-HUD RDD 

surveys to update FMRs during this 

time period. Since these RDDs were 

performed according to the FMR area 

geography in place at the time, they may 

not provide usable coverage of FY2008 

FMR areas. RDD surveys performed 

between 2001 and 2005 are used to 

update or replace 2000 Census base 

rents in ACS–2 and ACS–3 FMR areas 

under the following conditions (in 

ACS–1 and ACS–4 FMR areas, the ACS 

results are deemed superior to legacy 

RDD results, and legacy RDDs are not 

evaluated 2): 

• The RDD was the most recent RDD 

performed for the area. 

• The RDD is ‘‘Accepted,’’ meaning 

the updated 2000 Census base rent for 

the RDD area (prorated to the RDD 

month) is outside the 95 percent 

confidence interval of the RDD. 

• If the Accepted RDD area covers at 

least 75 percent of the population of the 

FMR area, and the FMR area’s 

population in the Accepted RDD area is 

at least 75 percent of the Accepted RDD 

area, the new base rent is the Accepted 

RDD result. If these conditions do not 

hold, the RDD is not used. 

FMR area base rents affected by 

Legacy RDDs from 2001 to 2005 are 

updated to 2005 using the prorated 2000 

Census to 2005 ACS update factor (from 

the RDD month to June 2005) for the 

area. 

C. FMR Updates from 2005 to 2006 

Local CPI data is used to move rents 

from June 2005 to the end of 2006 for 

FMR areas with at least 75 percent of 

their population within Class A 

metropolitan areas covered by local CPI 

data. Census region CPI data is used for 

FMR areas in Class B and C size 

metropolitan areas and in 

nonmetropolitan areas without local CPI 

update factors. 

D. FMR Updates from 2006 to 2008 

The national 1990-to-2000 average 

annual rent increase trend of 3 percent 

is applied for 1.25 years (from December 

2006 through April 2008). 

E. Additional Rent Surveys and Other 

Data 

Post-2005 RDDs are evaluated against 

the 2005 ACS-based rent trended to the 

RDD month by the appropriate 

proportion (root) of the 2005-to-2008 

update factors. For example, if the RDD 

was conducted in August 2006, then the 

appropriate root (14/18) of the 2005-to2006 CPI-based update is used to update 

the 2005 ACS rent. If the RDD was 

conducted in February 2007, then the 

entire CPI update factor is applied to the 

2005 rent, and the appropriate root (2/ 

15) of the December 2006-to-April 2008 

update is applied. If the updated 2005 

rent is outside the 95 percent 

confidence interval of the RDD, then the 

RDD is ‘‘Accepted.’’ Accepted RDD 

results are trended to April 2008 using 

the remainder of the 2005-to-2008 

update factors. 

The FMR bonuses related to the 

impact of Hurricane Katrina for Baton 

Rouge and New Orleans, which were 

first applied on March 6, 2006, are 

proposed to continue to be applied in 

the FY2008 FMRs. The 2005 ACS was 

conducted largely before the impact of 

Katrina, in particular its effects on the 

rental market, could be detected in the 

survey. Because the ACS indicates that 

the 2000-to-2005 FMR update factors for 

these areas should be lower than for 

other data sources used in FY2007 and 

earlier FMRs, HUD is adjusting the 

bonus percentages to 15 percent in 

Baton Rouge and 35 percent in New 

Orleans, since subsequent research 

shows that the tight rental market 

conditions in both areas indicate that 

FMRs should not be reduced. 

The area-specific data and 

computations used to calculate 

proposed FY2008 FMRs and FMR area 

definitions can be found at: http:// 

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

index.asp?data=fmr08. 

F. Large Bedroom Rents 

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

most common size of rental units, and, 

therefore, the most reliable to survey 

and analyze. After each Decennial 

Census, rent relationships between twobedroom units and other unit sizes are 

calculated and used to set FMRs for 

other units. This is done because it is 

much easier to update two-bedroom 

estimates and to use pre-established cost 

relationships with other bedroom sizes 

than it is to develop independent FMR 

estimates for each bedroom size. This 

was last done using 2000 Census data. 

A publicly releasable version of the data 

file used that permits derivations of rent 

ratios is available at: http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/index.html. 

The rents for three-bedroom and 

larger units continue to reflect HUD’s 

policy to set higher rents for these units 

than would result from using normal 

market rents. This adjustment is 

intended to increase the likelihood that 

the largest families, who have the most 

difficulty in leasing units, will be 

successful in finding eligible program 

units. The adjustment adds bonuses of 

8.7 percent to the unadjusted threebedroom FMR estimates and adds 7.7 

percent to the unadjusted four-bedroom 

FMR estimates. The FMRs for unit sizes 

larger than four bedrooms are calculated 

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

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

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

A further adjustment was made using 

2000 Census data in establishing rent 

ratios for areas with local bedroom-size 

intervals above or below what are 

considered to be reasonable ranges or 

where sample sizes are inadequate to 

accurately measure bedroom rent 

differentials. HUD’s experience has 

shown that highly unusual bedroom 

ratios typically reflect inadequate 

sample sizes or peculiar local 

circumstances that HUD would not 

want to utilize in setting FMRs (e.g., 

luxury efficiency apartments that rent 

for more than typical one-bedroom 

units). Bedroom interval ranges were 

established based on an analysis of the 

range of such intervals for all areas with 

large enough samples to permit accurate 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55943 

3 During the process of reviewing the 2005 

Okanogan County, WA, survey, HUD found two 

additional private surveys that had not been 

applied: Those for Kanabec County, MN, and Mille 

Lacs County, MN. Their surveys have now been 

applied and the final FY2008 FMRs reflect these 

increases. 

bedroom ratio determinations. The 

ranges used were: efficiency units are 

constrained to fall between 0.65 and 

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

and 0.90 of the two-bedroom unit; threebedroom units must be between 1.10 

and 1.34 of the two-bedroom unit; and 

four-bedroom units must be between 

1.14 and 1.63 of the two-bedroom unit. 

Bedroom rents for a given FMR area 

were then adjusted if the differentials 

between bedroom-size FMRs were 

inconsistent with normally observed 

patterns (i.e., efficiency rents were not 

allowed to be higher than one-bedroom 

rents, and four-bedroom rents were not 

allowed to be lower than three-bedroom 

rents). 

For low-population, nonmetropolitan 

counties with small census samples for 

recent-mover rents, census-defined 

county group-data were used in 

determining rents for each bedroom 

size. This adjustment was made to 

protect against unrealistically high or 

low FMRs due to insufficient sample 

sizes. The areas covered by this new 

estimation method had less than the 

HUD standard of 200 two-bedroom, 

census-tabulated observations. 

V. Public Comments 

A total of 30 public comments were 

received on the proposed FY2008 FMRs. 

The local Public Housing Agency 

(PHAs) for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA, 

FMR area conducted a survey that HUD 

found acceptable. The PHAs’ survey, 

however, resulted in only a small 

increase over the FY2008 proposed 

FMRs. A manufactured housing survey, 

also conducted for the Seattle-Bellevue 

area and found acceptable, is discussed 

in the following section. 

Comments with data were submitted 

concerning Santa Rosa, CA; Casper, WY; 

Grand Junction, CO; the Counties of 

Moffat and Rio Blanco in Colorado; 

Rock Springs, WY; and Martinsburg, 

WV. None of the data were sufficient to 

determine new FMRs. Three towns in 

Southern Connecticut also submitted 

data; however, data for those towns 

were found to be unacceptable. For data 

to be acceptable, there must be 

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. The data must be statistically 

significant, and newspaper ads are 

specifically excluded. The qualifications 

on the acceptance of data and 

conducting statistically significant 

surveys were discussed in the preamble 

to the proposed FMRs and should be 

followed when providing comments. 

The National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB) commended HUD for 

the use of FMR bonuses to help New 

Orleans and Baton Rouge continue its 

recovery from Hurricane Katrina. The 

NAHB also requested that HUD 

undertake RDD surveys for all areas 

with more than a 5 percent decrease in 

the FMR, a solution that HUD does not 

consider practical. HUD does not have 

the funds to survey all of these areas, 

and only two of the nine areas with 

decreases of more than 5 percent 

provided comments concerning their 

lower FMRs. There were several 

comments filed by Pittsburgh, PA, 

housing organizations, with some 

requesting a survey, but the FY2008 

FMRs for Pittsburgh are based on the 

2005 ACS local data for this area. This 

data shows that FMRs for Pittsburgh 

were overestimated in the past, and 

therefore, they have been lowered based 

on the 2005 ACS data. Okanogan 

County, WA, is the only other area to 

request a review of its decrease in FMRs 

and asked HUD to accept a simple 

survey conducted of its area, similar to 

one conducted and accepted in 2005. In 

reviewing this survey and the one 

conducted in 2005, HUD discovered 

that it mistakenly did not apply the 

2005 survey.3 The effect of applying the 

2005 survey is shown in these final 

FMRs, and results in an increase for the 

two-bedroom FMR. 

The NAHB disagreed with HUD’s use 

of a substandard unit proxy set at the 

75th percentile of public housing units, 

and instead recommended increasing 

this to the 95th percentile. It should be 

noted that HUD did not arbitrarily 

establish the cutoff at the 75th 

percentile of the regional public housing 

rent. It chose this level based on assisted 

housing data from the AHS. Instituting 

a 95th percentile of the regional public 

housing rent would be arbitrary, unlike 

the current standard. 

Burlington County, NJ, while noting 

that it has historically been part of the 

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA–

NJ–DE, MSA, requested a change in its 

geographic definition to make it part of 

markets to the north in New Jersey. It 

claimed that its rents are higher than 

those in the Philadelphia metropolitan 

area. HUD would not be able to make 

this change in geographic definition. 

This is because HUD’s FMR areas must 

follow the metropolitan area definitions 

as determined by OMB, which are based 

on commuting patterns. If there is such 

a rent disparity between Burlington 

County, NJ, and the rest of the 

Philadelphia metropolitan area, 

Burlington County, NJ, may qualify for 

an exception rent of up to 120 percent 

of the FMR or more. Procedures for 

requesting exception rents are outlined 

at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ 

publications/notices/02/pih2002–20.pdf 

and in the regulations at 24 CFR 

982.503(c). HUD field offices have the 

authority to increase payment standards 

up to 120 percent above published FMR 

levels, and should be contacted to 

pursue this approach. Requests for 

exceptions above 120 percent of 

published FMRs have additional 

requirements specified in the referenced 

HUD notice and regulations. 

The Mansfield Housing Authority, 

representing three towns in southern 

Connecticut that are part of the 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT, MSA, also requested higher FMRs, 

but may also qualify for exception rents. 

The information on rents provided by 

the PHA could not be used as a basis for 

higher FMRs because such data must be 

representative of the entire metropolitan 

area. Also, because a valid survey was 

not conducted, the information on rents 

also could not be used to determine an 

exception rent for the three towns. 

Nevertheless, these three areas could 

look into using the 2000 Census median 

rents if they qualify for exception rents 

over 110 percent of the FMR. 

The Housing Authority of the City of 

Alameda, CA, appears to also have a 

concern about its geographic definition. 

Alameda asserts that the change in the 

geographic definition in FY2006 has 

resulted in a dilution of the FMR below 

what it would have been without the 

inclusion of former nonmetropolitan 

counties. This is not correct; the 

Oakland-Fremont HMFA is comprised 

of the same two counties that were 

included in FY2005. Alameda City may 

consider the use of an exception 

payment standard to receive higher 

rents. 

Several comments were filed in 

support of higher FMRs for 

Transylvania County, NC. This 

nonmetropolitan county borders the 

metropolitan area of Asheville, NC, and 

even neighboring nonmetropolitan 

counties have higher rents. A survey 

was conducted of this area and 

supported an increase in the FMR. 

Another area requesting an FMR review 

and where HUD implemented an RDD 

survey was Kershaw County, SC, a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
55944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 

county that has been separated from the 

metropolitan area, Columbia, SC, and 

the disparity in the FMR has been 

significant. The survey, halted for cost 

considerations, was not showing an 

increase in the FMR. Baker County, FL, 

has a situation that is similar to 

Kershaw County, SC: It is also a 

metropolitan county given its own rent 

because of the disparity with the rent for 

its metropolitan area, Jacksonville, FL. 

In this case, however, the rent and 

income disparity is significantly greater 

than for Kershaw County. To increase 

its rents, Baker County, FL, may be able 

to use the success rate payment 

standard, where the FMR is set between 

90 percent and 110 percent of the 50th 

percentile rent (see 24 CFR 982.503(e)). 

Genesee County, MI (Flint, MI, MSA), 

also sounds like a candidate for the 

success rate standard payment program. 

The Michigan State Housing 

Development Authority noted that the 

approximately 3 percent decrease in the 

FMRs for Genesee County, MI (Flint, MI, 

MSA), would create many programmatic 

problems, including an increase in rent 

burden for the tenants, a decrease in 

landlord participation, reduction in 

deconcentration, difficulty in serving 

the elderly and disabled, and lower 

voucher leasing rates. A survey of rents 

is not requested by Genesee County, MI, 

and would not likely improve the FMR. 

The Oklahoma City Housing 

Authority brought up the issue of 

conducting ongoing and periodic RDD 

surveys for all FMR areas. In the past, 

HUD attempted to conduct surveys of 

all major metropolitan areas every 4 to 

5 years. This is no longer possible, 

because RDD surveys have become more 

expensive as funding for these surveys 

has decreased and the ACS has 

eliminated the need to survey most large 

metropolitan areas. The PHA for 

Oklahoma City also requested a longer 

comment period. 

Casper, WY, and Rock Springs, WY, 

have filed comments for the past 2 years 

suggesting that their FMRs are too low. 

Casper has been using the success rate 

payment standard program to increase 

its rents, and, even with the 10 percent 

increase in the FY2008 FMRs, does not 

believe the FMRs will be high enough 

to manage its program effectively. HUD 

is conducting field work to determine if 

an RDD is warranted. Rock Springs faces 

a tightening rental market as a result of 

the extensive natural gas development 

activity in the area, and claims the 

FMRs are too low. HUD will also 

consider a survey of this area, perhaps 

combined with other contiguous 

counties that may also be affected. ACS 

data on small areas will not be available 

for at least a year, and then it will be 

an aggregation of data from 2005 to 

2007. Other areas in the Rocky 

Mountain region that commented on 

tightening rental markets include Grand 

Junction, Montrose County, Moffat 

County, and Rio Blanco County, all in 

Colorado. These areas will also be 

reviewed to determine if rents have 

increased and if they can be measured 

by an RDD survey. HUD carefully 

considers conducting surveys in tight 

markets, because historically there is a 

time lag between rental rate increases 

and an RDD survey’s ability to 

effectively capture the changes. While 

most comments were concerned with 

the low FMRs, two comments, filed by 

the City and County of Honolulu, HI, 

and the Housing Authority of 

Owensboro, KY, requested significant 

reductions in their FY2008 FMRs. 

Honolulu stated that the increase in its 

FMR of 27 percent does not reflect the 

rental market for 2008, and requested an 

early review of its 50th percentile status, 

and requested that HUD conduct an 

RDD survey. Because Honolulu qualifies 

for a 50th percentile FMR, HUD cannot 

evaluate its progress for the 3-year 

period, as set forth in the regulations 

(see 24 CFR 888.113(c) (2)). An RDD 

survey will not be conducted. The 

FY2008 FMR is based on its own local 

recent-mover rents from the 2005 ACS 

survey, and this annual survey data will 

be available each year. To help manage 

its program, Honolulu may apply for an 

exception rent that is more than 90 

percent below the FMR. 

Owensboro, KY, notes that the higher 

FMRs are not needed. It has short 

waiting lists for the voucher program, its 

tenants are not paying more than 30 

percent of the median, and there is no 

shortage of affordable units. Unlike 

Honolulu, the FY2008 FMR is not 

‘‘rebenchmarked’’ to 2005 using its own 

rents from the ACS; Owensboro is 

updated to 2005 using state-level ACS 

data, so there is the possibility that its 

FMRs are too high and that it may 

benefit from a survey. The data 

provided by Owensboro was not 

statistically valid, but HUD will review 

the area to determine if an RDD survey 

is warranted. In the interim, Owensboro 

will have to seek relief by requesting 

exception rents below 90 percent of its 

FMR. 

VI. Manufactured Home Space Surveys 

The FMR used to establish payment 

standard amounts for the rental of 

manufactured home spaces in the 

Housing Choice Voucher program is 40 

percent of the FMR for a two-bedroom 

unit. HUD will consider modification of 

the manufactured home space FMRs 

where public comments present 

statistically valid survey data showing 

the 40th percentile manufactured home 

space rent (including the cost of 

utilities) for the entire FMR area. HUD 

modified manufactured home space 

FMRs for Seattle-Bellevue, WA, based 

on survey data showing the 40th 

percentile manufactured home space 

rent (including the cost of utilities) for 

the entire FMR area. 

All approved exceptions to these rents 

that were in effect in FY2007 were 

updated to FY2008 using the same data 

used to estimate the Housing Choice 

Voucher program FMRs, so long as the 

respective FMR area’s definition 

remained the same. If the result of this 

computation was higher than 40 percent 

of the rebenchmarked two-bedroom 

rent, the exception remains and is listed 

in Schedule D. The FMR area 

definitions used for the rental of 

manufactured home spaces are the same 

as the area definitions used for the other 

FMRs. Areas with definitional changes 

that previously had exceptions to their 

manufactured housing space rental 

FMRs are requested to submit new 

surveys to justify higher-than-standard 

space rental FMRs, if they believe 

higher space rental allowances are 

needed. 

VII. HUD Rental Housing Survey 

Guides 

For the supporting data, HUD 

recommends the use of professionally 

conducted RDD telephone surveys to 

test the accuracy of FMRs, for areas 

where there is a sufficient number of 

Section 8 units to justify the survey cost 

of approximately $35,000. Areas with 

2,000 or more program units usually 

meet this cost criterion, and areas with 

fewer units may meet it if actual rents 

for two-bedroom units are significantly 

different from the FMRs proposed by 

HUD. In addition, HUD has developed 

a version of the RDD survey 

methodology for smaller, 

nonmetropolitan PHAs. This 

methodology is designed to be simple 

enough to be done by the PHA itself, 

rather than by professional survey 

organizations, and at a cost of $5,000 or 

less. 

PHAs in nonmetropolitan areas may, 

in certain circumstances, conduct 

surveys of groups of counties. HUD 

must approve all county-grouped 

surveys in advance. PHAs are cautioned 

that the resulting FMRs will not be 

identical for the counties surveyed. 

Each individual FMR area will have a 

separate FMR based on the relationship 

of rents in that area to the combined 

rents in the cluster of FMR areas. In 

addition, PHAs are advised that 

counties where FMRs are based on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55945 

combined rents in the cluster of FMR 

areas will not have their FMRs revised, 

unless the grouped-survey results show 

a revised FMR above the combined rent 

level. 

PHAs that plan to use the RDD survey 

technique should obtain a copy of the 

appropriate survey guide. Larger PHAs 

should request HUD’s survey guide 

entitled ‘‘Random Digit Dialing Surveys; 

A Guide to Assist Larger Public Housing 

Agencies in Preparing Fair Market Rent 

Comments.’’ Smaller PHAs should 

obtain the guide entitled ‘‘Rental 

Housing Surveys: A Guide to Assist 

Smaller Public Housing Agencies in 

Preparing Fair Market Rent Comments.’’

These guides are available from HUD 

USER at HUD’s Web site, in Microsoft 

Word 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. 

Preferably, survey samples should be 

randomly drawn from a complete list of 

rental units for the FMR area. If this is 

not feasible, the selected sample must 

be drawn to be statistically 

representative of the entire rental 

housing stock of the FMR area. Surveys 

must include units at all rent levels and 

be representative by structure type 

(including single-family, duplex, and 

other small rental properties), age of 

housing unit, and geographic location. 

The Decennial Census should be used as 

a means of verifying if a sample is 

representative of the FMR area’s rental 

housing stock. 

Most surveys of FMR areas cover only 

one- and two-bedroom units. If the 

survey is statistically acceptable, HUD 

will estimate FMRs for other bedroom 

sizes using ratios based on the 

Decennial Census. A PHA or contractor 

that cannot obtain the recommended 

number of sample responses, after 

reasonable efforts, should consult with 

HUD before abandoning its survey; in 

such situations, HUD may find it 

appropriate to relax normal sample size 

requirements. 

HUD will consider increasing 

manufactured home space FMRs where 

public comment demonstrates that 40 

percent of the two-bedroom FMR is not 

adequate. In order to be accepted as a 

basis for revising the manufactured 

home space FMRs, comments must 

include a pad rental survey of the 

mobile home parks in the area, identify 

the utilities included in each park’s 

rental fee, and provide a copy of the 

applicable public housing authority’s 

utility schedule. 

Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent 

Schedules, which will not be codified in 

24 CFR Part 888, are amended as 

follows: 

Dated: September 24, 2007. 

Darlene F. Williams, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Development 

and Research. 

Fair Market Rents for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program 

Schedules B and D—General 

Explanatory Notes 

1. Geographic Coverage 

a. Metropolitan Areas—FMRs are 

market-wide rent estimates that are 

intended to provide housing 

opportunities throughout the geographic 

area in which rental-housing units are 

in direct competition. The FY2008 

FMRs reflect a change in metropolitan 

area definitions. HUD is using the 

metropolitan Core Based Statistical 

Areas (CBSA), which are made up of 

one or more counties, as defined by the 

OMB, with some modifications. HUD is 

generally assigning separate FMRs to the 

component counties of CBSA 

Micropolitan Areas. 

b. Modifications to OMB 

Definitions—In keeping with OMB 

guidance, the estimation procedure for 

the FY2008 FMRs incorporates the 

current OMB definitions of metropolitan 

areas based on the CBSA standards, as 

implemented with 2000 Census data, 

but makes adjustments to the definitions 

to separate subparts of these areas where 

FMRs or median incomes would 

otherwise change significantly if the 

new area definitions were used without 

modification. In CBSAs where sub-areas 

are established, it is HUD’s view that the 

geographic extent of the housing 

markets are not yet the same as the 

geographic extent of the CBSAs, but 

may become so in the future as the 

social and economic integration of the 

CBSA component areas increases. 

Modifications to metropolitan CBSA 

definitions are made according to a 

formula, as described below. 

Metropolitan area CBSAs (referred to 

as Metropolitan Statistical Areas or 

MSAs) may be modified to allow for 

sub-area FMRs within MSAs, based on 

the boundaries of old FMR areas (OFAs) 

within the boundaries of new MSAs. 

(OFAs are the FMR areas defined for the 

FY2005 FMRs. Collectively, they 

include 1999-definition MSAs/PMSAs, 

metropolitan counties deleted from 

1999-definition MSAs/PMSAs by HUD 

for FMR purposes, and counties and 

county parts outside of 1999-definition 

MSAs/PMSAs referred to as 

nonmetropolitan counties.) Sub-areas of 

MSAs are assigned their own FMRs 

when the sub-area 2000 Census Base 

Rent differs by at least 5 percent from 

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

at most 95 percent or at least 105 

percent), or when the 2000 Census 

Median Family Income for the sub-area 

differs by at least 5 percent from the 

MSA 2000 Census Median Family 

Income. MSA sub-areas, and the 

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

to as HUD Metro FMR Areas (HMFAs), 

to distinguish such areas from OMB’s 

official definition of MSAs. 

The specific counties and New 

England towns and cities within each 

state in MSAs and HMFAs are listed in 

Schedule B. 

2. Bedroom Size Adjustments 

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

The FMRs for unit sizes larger than four 

bedrooms are calculated by adding 15 

percent to the four-bedroom FMR for 

each extra bedroom. For example, the 

FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 

times the four-bedroom FMR, and the 

FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 

times the four-bedroom FMR. FMRs for 

single-room-occupancy (SRO) units are 

0.75 times the zero-bedroom FMR. 

3. Arrangement of FMR Areas and 

Identification of Constituent Parts 

a. The FMR areas in Schedule B are 

listed alphabetically by metropolitan 

FMR area and by nonmetropolitan 

county within each state. The exception 

rents for manufactured home spaces 

FMRs are listed alphabetically in 

Schedule D. 

b. The constituent counties (and New 

England towns and cities) included in 

each metropolitan FMR area are listed 

immediately following the listings of the 

FMR dollar amounts. All constituent 

parts of a metropolitan FMR area that 

are in more than one state can be 

identified by consulting the listings for 

each applicable state. 

c. Two nonmetropolitan counties are 

listed alphabetically on each line of the 

nonmetropolitan county listings. 

d. The New England towns and cities 

included in a nonmetropolitan part of a 

county are listed immediately following 

the county name. 

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
55946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55947 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.001</GPH>
55948 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55949 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.003</GPH>
55950 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55951 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.005</GPH>
55952 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55953 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.007</GPH>
55954 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55955 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.009</GPH>
55956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55957 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.011</GPH>
55958 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55959 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.013</GPH>
55960 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55961 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.015</GPH>
55962 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55963 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.017</GPH>
55964 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55965 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.019</GPH>
55966 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55967 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.021</GPH>
55968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55969 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.023</GPH>
55970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55971 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.025</GPH>
55972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55973 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.027</GPH>
55974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55975 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.029</GPH>
55976 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55977 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.031</GPH>
55978 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55979 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.033</GPH>
55980 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55981 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.035</GPH>
55982 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55983 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.037</GPH>
55984 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55985 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.039</GPH>
55986 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55987 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.041</GPH>
55988 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55989 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.043</GPH>
55990 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55991 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.045</GPH>
55992 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.046</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55993 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.047</GPH>
55994 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.048</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55995 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.049</GPH>
55996 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.050</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55997 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.051</GPH>
55998 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55999 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.053</GPH>
56000 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 07–4801 Filed 9–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2EN01OC07.054</GPH>