27808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

responses × House per response = Burden hours 

Reporting Burden .............................................................................. 10,576 1 3.1 32,953 

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 

32,953. 

Status: Extension of a currently 

approved collection. 

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as 

amended. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Leroy McKinney, Jr., 

Departmental Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11737 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5374–N–11] 

Buy American Exceptions Under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–05, approved 

February 17, 2009) (Recovery Act), and 

implementing guidance of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), this 

notice advises that certain exceptions to 

the Buy American requirement of the 

Recovery Act have been determined 

applicable for work using Capital Fund 

Recovery Formula and Competition 

(CFRFC) grant funds. Specifically, an 

exception was granted to the Housing 

Authority of Owensboro for the 

purchase and installation of tank-less 

water heaters at Adams Village. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dominique G. Blom, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Public Housing 

Investments, Office of Public Housing 

Investments, Office of Public and Indian 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 

SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC, 

20410–4000, telephone number 202– 

402–8500 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Persons with hearing- or 

speech-impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

1605(a) of the Recovery Act provides 

that none of the funds appropriated or 

made available by the Recovery Act may 

be used for a project for the 

construction, alteration, maintenance, or 

repair of a public building or public 

work unless all of the iron, steel, and 

manufactured goods used in the project 

are produced in the United States. 

Section 1605(b) provides that the Buy 

American requirement shall not apply 

in any case or category in which the 

head of a Federal department or agency 

finds that: (1) Applying the Buy 

American requirement would be 

inconsistent with the public interest; (2) 

iron, steel, and the relevant 

manufactured goods are not produced in 

the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably 

available quantities or of satisfactory 

quality, or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, 

and manufactured goods will increase 

the cost of the overall project by more 

than 25 percent. Section 1605(c) 

provides that if the head of a Federal 

department or agency makes a 

determination pursuant to section 

1605(b), the head of the department or 

agency shall publish a detailed written 

justification in the Federal Register. 

In accordance with section 1605(c) of 

the Recovery Act and OMB’s 

implementing guidance published on 

April 23, 2009 (74 FR 18449), this notice 

advises the public that, on April 23, 

2010, upon request of the Housing 

Authority of Owensboro, HUD granted 

an exception to the applicability of the 

Buy American requirements with 

respect to work, using CFRFC grant 

funds, based on the fact that the relevant 

manufactured goods (tank-less water 

heaters) are not produced in the U.S. in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities or of satisfactory quality. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Deborah Hernandez, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public 

and Indian Housing. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11732 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5413–N–01] 

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 

Program—Demonstration Project of 

Small Area Fair Market Rents in 

Certain Metropolitan Areas for Fiscal 

Year 2011 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Demonstration Project 

of Small Area Fair Market Rents (FMRs) 

in Selected Metropolitan Areas for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. 

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 (HCV) 

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 

announces a demonstration project that 

will set small area FMRs for the HCV 

program within certain metropolitan 

areas, and requests comments on several 

topics related to small area FMRs, 

including how these small areas should 

be defined. Small area FMRs calculated 

for the Demonstration projects will be 

used only in the Section 8 HCV program 

and will not affect rents in any other 

HUD or other federal program. HUD 

expects that small area FMRs will 

provide Section 8 tenants with greater 

ability to move into opportunity areas 

where jobs, transportation, and 

educational opportunities exist, and 

prevent undue subsidy in lower-rent 

areas. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: July 19, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

HUD’s small area FMR demonstration, 

as announced in this notice, to the 

Office of General Counsel, Rules Docket 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 27809 

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’’ 

of this notice. 

Submission of Hard Copy Comments. 

To ensure that the information is fully 

considered by all of the reviewers, each 

commenter submitting hard copy 

comments, by mail or hand delivery, 

should submit comments or requests to 

the address above, addressed to the 

attention of the Rules Docket Clerk. Due 

to security measures at all Federal 

agencies, submission of comments or 

requests by mail often result in delayed 

delivery. To ensure timely receipt of 

comments, HUD recommends that any 

comments submitted by mail be 

submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of 

the public comment deadline. 

Electronic Submission of Comments. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly 

encourages commenters to submit 

comments electronically. Electronic 

submission of comments allows the 

commenter maximum time to prepare 

and submit a comment, ensures timely 

receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to 

make them immediately available to the 

public. Comments submitted 

electronically through the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site can be 

viewed by interested members of the 

public. Commenters should follow 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Comments. All 

comments submitted to HUD regarding 

this notice will be available, without 

charge, for public inspection and 

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

weekdays at the above address. Due to 

security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the documents 

must be scheduled by calling the 

Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 

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

of all documents submitted are available 

for inspection and downloading at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information on the 

methodology used to develop small area 

FMRs, please contact Peter B. Kahn or 

Marie L. Lihn, Economic and Market 

Analysis Division, Office of Economic 

Affairs, Office of Policy Development 

and Research, telephone number 202– 

708–0590 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 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.) 

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 HCV program, the FMR is 

the basis for determining the ‘‘payment 

standard amount’’ used to calculate the 

maximum monthly subsidy for an 

assisted family (see 24 CFR 982.503). In 

general, the FMR for an area is the 

amount that would be needed to pay the 

gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of 

privately owned, decent, and safe rental 

housing of a modest (nonluxury) nature 

with suitable amenities. In addition, all 

rents subsidized under the HCV 

program must meet reasonable rent 

standards. 

Currently FMRs are calculated for all 

nonmetropolitan counties and 

metropolitan areas. The same FMR is 

available throughout a nonmetropolitan 

county or a metropolitan area, which is 

generally comprised of several 

metropolitan counties. FMRs in a 

metropolitan area represent the 40thpercentile (or in special circumstances 

the 50th-percentile) gross rent of the 

entire HUD-defined metropolitan area. 

Public housing agencies (PHAs) may set 

a payment standard within 90 percent to 

110 percent of the FMR. PHAs may 

determine that payment standards that 

are higher than 110 percent, or lower 

than 90 percent, are needed to make the 

voucher program work in subareas of 

their market; in this instance, a PHA 

would request HUD approval for 

payment standards below 90 percent or 

exception payment standards above 110 

percent. These requests cannot 

represent more than 50 percent of the 

population of the area (see 24 CFR 

982.503). 

In the past, HUD has not had the 

means to maintain and update a small 

area FMR system. In late 2010, the 

Census Bureau will make publicly 

available the data it collected over the 

first 5 years of the American 

Community Survey (ACS) in 5-year 

aggregations for the areas with 

population of less than 20,000. With 

these data, HUD will be able to update 

FMR estimates in smaller geographic 

areas than is currently possible using 

ACS data at one-year or 3-year 

aggregations. HUD intends to use this 

data to establish a program of smaller 

area FMRs for metropolitan areas. To 

determine how best to implement a 

comprehensive small area FMR 

program, HUD will operate small area 

FMR demonstration projects for the 

HCV program using 2000 Census data to 

determine FMRs for smaller areas. HUD 

expects that small area FMRs will 

provide Section 8 tenants with greater 

ability to move into opportunity areas, 

where jobs, transportation and 

educational opportunities exist, and 

prevent undue subsidy in lower-rent 

areas. Small area FMRs will alter some 

administrative responsibilities of PHAs 

that administer housing voucher 

programs, but it is unclear what the net 

effect will be. For example, small area 

FMRs are likely to reduce the time 

needed to determine whether rents are 

reasonable. (Rent reasonableness tests 

reflect the conditions and characteristics 

of units relative to others in the area, as 

well as market rents in the immediate 

area of the units). While the requirement 

to determine rent reasonableness based 

on the condition and characteristics of 

individual units will remain, less 

comparative data may be needed, since 

local area baseline rents will largely be 

embedded in the small area FMR. Small 

area FMRs will also increase the number 

of payment standards used in a 

metropolitan area. The small area FMR 

demonstration projects will provide 

HUD with insight into the 

administration of small area FMRs 

before implementing such a program 

nationwide. 

The first demonstration projects will 

begin October 1, 2010 (the beginning of 

FY2011), with others being added prior 

to the beginning of Calendar Year 2011. 

Small area FMRs would be rolled out to 

all metropolitan areas at a later date, 

provided that the small area FMR 

demonstration project shows that 

voucher program operation using small 

area FMRs is feasible. 

For illustrative purposes, the 

following Web site provides 

hypothetical Small Area FMRs that are 

based on the current FY2010 FMRs: 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/

datasets/fmr.html. Comments may be 

provided on these FMRs. 

Electronic Data Availability: This 

Federal Register notice is available 

electronically from the HUD Web site at 

http://www.hudclips.org. Federal 

Register notices also are available 

electronically from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office Web site, http://www.

gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

27810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 

1 In some sparsely populated counties where 

statistically reliable information was not available 

from the 2000 Decennial Census, county groups are 

used instead. 

2OMB published a Federal Register notice (65 FR 

82228), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/fedreg/metroareas122700.pdf, that outlined its 

decisions for how to create CBSAs and responses 

to public comments concerning the formation of 

CBSAs. 

3Note that some ZIP codes span metropolitan 

area boundaries so that a ZIP code may contain 

parts of a metropolitan area and one (or more) 

nonmetropolitan county (counties), or part of 

another metropolitan CBSA. As in current FMR 

policy, nonmetropolitan counties would not be 

broken along ZIP code or any other lines under the 

small area FMR policy. ZIP codes that span more 

than one metropolitan CBSA would have different 

FMRs in each CBSA as they do under current 

metropolitan FMR policy. 

4For ZIP codes with fewer than 1000 cash rental 

units that cross county boundaries, the median 

gross rent in the numerator is calculated as the 

rental unit weighted average of the median gross 

rents for each county containing the ZIP code. 

5The current decennial data is not robust enough 

to lead HUD to believe that updating bedroom ratios 

on a more frequent basis would provide many 

changes. The current bedroom ratios are 

constrained by ranges that reflect the average 

relationship of a given bedroom size to the 2- 

bedroom rent, and, for the 3-bedroom and 4- 

bedroom rents, bonuses have been added to assist 

with the operation of the Section 8 program. 

II. Methodology for Small Area FMRs 

Currently, FMRs are determined 

based on Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Core Based Statistical 

Areas (CBSAs), with some modifications 

based on pre-FY2006 FMR area 

definitions for metropolitan areas. For 

nonmetropolitan areas, the basic unit of 

geography is at the county level.1 The 

standards for definition of CBSAs are 

based on a review of journey-to-work 

data, or commuting patterns, as the 

basis for grouping counties together to 

form CBSAs.2

Use of metropolitan area-wide FMRs 

allows HUD’s Section 8 Voucher tenants 

access to different parts of a 

metropolitan area; however, because 

FMRs generally are set at the 40th 

percentile of the metropolitan rent 

distribution, certain neighborhoods may 

not have many units available in the 

FMR range. That is why HUD has an 

exception payment standard policy that 

allows payments standards to be set 

much higher than the FMR, but the 

policy is dependent on a showing of 

program need in terms of whether or not 

suitable housing is available. To make a 

broader range of neighborhoods 

accessible to its clients, HUD is 

researching ways to set FMRs at a more 

localized level. Currently, HUD is 

focusing on a methodology that would 

use small areas, defined by U.S. Postal 

Service ZIP codes, as the basis for FMRs 

in metropolitan areas. For 

nonmetropolitan areas, counties would 

continue to be used as the basis for 

FMRs. 

The most recent data regarding rents, 

incomes, and other socio-economic 

information collected by the U.S. 

Census Bureau comes from the ACS. At 

this time, only 1-year and 3-year ACS 

tables are available. ACS 5-year data are 

expected to have sufficient data at the 

small area level available to permit the 

calculation of statistically reliable FMRs 

for many ZIP codes in metropolitan 

areas. However, the first publication of 

5-year ACS data does not begin until 

after October 1, 2010, so for the FY2011 

small area FMR demonstration projects, 

HUD will have to use a different data 

source; HUD will use data from the 2000 

Decennial Census to estimate the rent 

relationship (rental rate ratio) between 

the OMB-defined CBSA and each ZIP 

code within the given metropolitan 

area.3 The individual ZIP code-level 2- 

bedroom FMR for each part of the FMR 

area is the product of the rental rate 

ratio and the 2-bedroom FMR for that 

area’s CBSA as calculated using 

methods employed for past 

metropolitan area FMR estimates. 

Before a rent relationship can be 

determined, HUD first eliminates any 

records where there were no units with 

occupants paying cash rent. HUD then 

aggregates these rental distribution data 

for each CBSA and calculates a median 

(50th-percentile) gross rent across all 

bedroom sizes. These CBSA median 

gross rents serve as the denominator in 

the rent relationship calculation. HUD 

then aggregates the rental distributions 

for each ZIP code within a given CBSA 

(ZIP codes can cross county boundaries; 

therefore, there may be multiple records 

for each ZIP code within a single CBSA, 

and HUD aggregates these multiple 

records). A median gross rent is 

calculated for each ZIP code (or ZIP 

code part for ZIP codes spanning CBSA 

boundaries). HUD restricts the use of 

ZIP code level median gross rents to 

those areas that have at least 1,000 cash 

rental unit observations. HUD 

anticipates that the set of ZIP codes with 

at least 1,000 cash renter-occupied units 

in the 2000 Decennial Census will be 

representative of the set of ZIP codes 

with statistically valid 5-year ACS data 

that can be used to set small area FMRs. 

The rent relationship is calculated in 

the following manner for those ZIP 

codes within the metropolitan area that 

have 1,000 or more cash rental units: 

Rental Rate Ratio = Median Gross Rent 

for ZIP Code Area/Median Gross 

Rent for CBSA 

The rent relationship is capped at 150 

percent for areas that would otherwise 

be greater. If the ZIP code within the 

CBSA does not have 1,000 cash rental 

units, then the rent relationship is 

calculated as: 

Rental Rate Ratio = Median Gross Rent 

STCO/Median Gross Rent of the 

CBSA 

where STCO is the county within the state 

containing the ZIP code.4 For metropolitan 

areas, FMRs will be calculated and published 

for each small area. ZIP codes were chosen 

because they localize rental rates and a unit’s 

ZIP code is easily identified both by PHAs 

and by tenants. 

As previously stated, the individual 

ZIP code level 2-bedroom FMR for each 

part of the FMR area is the product of 

the rental rate ratio and the 2-bedroom 

FMR for that area’s CBSA, as calculated 

using methods employed for past 

metropolitan area FMR estimates. To set 

the floor for small area FMRs in a 

metropolitan area, this product is then 

compared to the state nonmetropolitan 

minimum 2-bedroom rent for the state 

the area is located in and, if the ZIP 

code rent determined using the rental 

rate ratio is less than the minimum, the 

ZIP code rent is set at the 

nonmetropolitan minimum for that 

state. The relationship between 2- 

bedroom units and other bedroom sizes 

has been estimated from Decennial 

Census data and then held constant 

until superseded by more recent data. 

Small area FMRs for other bedroom 

sizes will be calculated based on the 

bedroom-size relationships estimated 

for the large area of geography. HUD 

anticipates updating the bedroom rental 

rate ratios with the release of 5-year 

ACS data (covering 2005 though 2009), 

and then once every 5 years when the 

5-year ACS sample is completely 

replaced.5 The final calculated rents are 

then rounded to the nearest $25. 

Small area FMRs for all metropolitan 

areas are available for viewing and 

download on the Internet at http://www.

huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr.html. 

These will be updated using FY2011 

FMRs and posted on the Web site when 

the proposed FY2011 FMR notice is 

published. Small area FMRs calculated 

for the demonstration projects will be 

used only in the Section 8 HCV program 

and will not affect rents in any other 

HUD or other federal program. PHAs in 

small area FMR demonstration sites will 

be empowered to renew pre-existing 

HAP contracts based on payment 

standards outside the new basic range 

(90 to 110 percent of the small area 

FMR) for tenants who wish to remain in 

their existing units and whose existing 

payment standards would otherwise fall 

outside the new basic range due to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 27811 

implementation of the small area FMR 

demonstration project. 

III. Requirements for Participation in 

the Small Area FMR Demonstration 

Project 

The small area FMR demonstration 

project is intended to cover a limited set 

of FMR areas so that HUD can provide 

adequate technical assistance to the 

participating PHAs and monitor the 

effects and effectiveness of the policy. 

At the same time, HUD seeks to have all 

PHAs in small area FMR demonstration 

project areas firmly committed to 

implementing the program to achieve its 

stated goals. HUD will apply three 

principles for selecting participating 

FMR areas if participation needs to be 

limited because too many areas 

volunteer: (1) The participant area is 

large enough that small area FMRs will 

result in substantial variation in rents, 

(2) the greatest possible proportion of 

voucher tenants are served by PHAs that 

are willing participants in the 

demonstration, and (3) the PHAs in the 

area have demonstrated previous 

commitment, within the flexibilities 

available in the voucher program, to set 

voucher payment standards at varying 

and appropriate levels. 

Larger FMR areas provide the greatest 

potential benefit from the small area 

FMR proposal in that they are likelier to 

have a wider array of market rents that 

can be captured by the proposed 

methodology. HUD may therefore limit 

participation in the small area FMR 

demonstration project to FMR areas 

meeting the size (100 or more census 

tracts) and affordable housing 

concentration (in less than 70 percent of 

their census tracts containing 10 or 

more rental units, at least 30 percent of 

rental units rent for the 40th-percentile 

two-bedroom FMR or less) criteria for 

eligibility for the 50th-percentile FMR at 

24 CFR 888.113. 

The small area FMR demonstration 

project will not be effective unless the 

PHAs that operate voucher programs 

covering the vast majority of voucher 

tenants in a metropolitan area agree to 

participate and abide by the small area 

rents. Therefore, HUD is requiring that 

PHAs requesting participation in the 

small area FMR demonstration project 

must account for at least 80 percent of 

the voucher tenants in that metropolitan 

area. If the PHAs represent a smaller 

percentage of the voucher tenant 

population, they will not be able to 

participate. HUD will consider as 

evidence a joint letter requesting 

participation in the small area FMR 

demonstration project, signed by the 

Executive Director and/or Board Chair 

of each PHA in the metropolitan area 

jointly making the request. HUD will 

verify, using data for Calendar Year 

2009, that the signatories represent at 

least 80 percent of the voucher tenants 

residing in each nominated 

metropolitan area. HUD will notify the 

PHAs if they are found to represent 

fewer than 80 percent of voucher 

tenants in the metropolitan area, so that 

they may enlist participation by 

additional PHAs in the metropolitan 

area. 

Applicants who provide evidence that 

they are using multiple payment 

standards or that use exception payment 

standards may be given priority for 

participating in the demonstration 

project. Through their current operating 

procedures, these applicants are already 

showing the ability and willingness to 

administer the project using multiple 

rent structures and are likely able to 

provide HUD with valuable feedback on 

the small area FMRs HUD calculates 

and provides. 

IV. Request for Public Comment on 

Small Area FMRs and Demonstration 

Eligibility Criteria 

Before HUD institutes the small area 

FMR demonstration project, HUD would 

like to solicit comments on the 

implementation of small area FMRs. 

The following is a list of issues that 

maybe addressed in comments: 

• Should HUD institute caps and 

floors on small area FMRs? As 

proposed, the current cap is 150 percent 

of the metropolitan FMR, and the 

current floor is the state 

nonmetropolitan minimum FMR. Are 

these appropriate, or should they be 

changed or eliminated? What is an 

appropriate amount or percentage for 

caps and floors? 

• The use of small area FMRs in 

metropolitan areas will result in no 

areas being big enough to qualify for 

50th-percentile FMRs. (The goal of the 

50th-percentile FMR policy should be 

more efficiently addressed through the 

use of small area FMRs.) Should HUD 

revise the 50th-percentile FMR policy or 

eliminate it, and why? 

• The exception payment standard 

policy, which is based on a relationship 

like that used to set the small area 

FMRs, will generally be redundant and 

could therefore be eliminated if the 

small area FMR policy is adopted. Are 

there any instances where an exception 

payment standard policy might still be 

useful? Such instances could include, 

for example, areas where rents have 

changed so rapidly due to extraordinary 

circumstances (such as natural disasters, 

or rapid economic change) that existing 

statistical methods cannot determine 

accurate rents, but PHAs can show that 

their voucher program operations have 

been impacted. If the exception 

payment standard policy remains in 

effect, should the exceptions be 

continued for nonmetropolitan counties 

only, or for larger areas within a 

metropolitan area? 

• Do small area FMRs increase the 

administrative burden of PHAs, and if 

so, how can this be reduced? 

• Is the proposed rounding protocol 

of $25 appropriate, or should small area 

FMRs be rounded to a larger or smaller 

amount? 

• Should state minimums be rounded 

both up and down? Should they be 

rounded before comparison with a ZIP 

code rent? 

In addition, comments may discuss 

the proposed HUD methodology for the 

small area FMRs that would be used for 

the demonstration project, including the 

use of 2000 Census data for the 

demonstration projects and the 

anomalies created by that data; using 5- 

year ACS data and implementing small 

area FMRs in metropolitan areas only; 

addressing the need, if it exists, for 

small area FMRs in nonmetropolitan 

counties; and addressing the general 

need for and implementation of a small 

area FMR demonstration project. 

HUD also seeks comments on the 

eligibility criteria for the small area 

FMR demonstration project. Should the 

demonstration be open to smaller 

metropolitan areas than those meeting 

the size criterion for 50th-percentile 

FMR eligibility? Should, or should not, 

the affordable housing concentration 

criterion be a consideration in selecting 

participating areas? Is the 80 percent-ofvoucher-tenants standard appropriate? 

Is there a better way for PHAs to 

demonstrate commitment to the 

demonstration project than a joint letter 

to HUD? Is demonstrated past use of 

multiple payment standards an 

appropriate criterion for participation? 

V. Implementation of the Small Area 

FMR Demonstration Program 

The first small area FMR 

demonstration projects for the HCV 

program are expected to be put in place 

on October 1, 2010, after a review of all 

comments, when FY2011 FMRs become 

effective. Other demonstration areas 

may be added between this date and the 

beginning of Calendar Year 2011. For 

illustrative purposes, hypothetical small 

area FMRs that are based on the current 

FY2010 FMRs are available for review 

on the HUD USER Web site at http://

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

html. The Federal Register notice on 

proposed FY2011 FMRs will include an 

update of these potential small area 

FMRs and the selection criteria for areas 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

27812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 

interested in being a part of the 

demonstration project. The 

demonstration project will operate for 

approximately one year before a 

complete national implementation of 

small area FMRs will be proposed. The 

timing of full implementation will be 

determined based on the outcomes of 

the demonstrations. 

Dated: May 12, 2010. 

Raphael W. Bostic, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 

and Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11731 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan; 

Monocacy National Battlefield 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan for 

Monocacy National Battlefield. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service (NPS) announces the 

availability of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the General 

Management Plan for Monocacy 

National Battlefield. The plan will 

provide guidance to park management 

for administration, development, and 

interpretation of park resources over the 

next 20 years. Impact topics addressed 

were cultural resources (cultural 

landscapes and historic structures); 

visitor use and interpretation, 

socioeconomic environment; 

transportation, access and circulation; 

and national battlefield operations. 

The document describes a No Action 

Alternative (continuation of existing 

management) and three Action 

Alternatives, one of which was 

identified as the selected alternative. 

Alternative 2 would move the 

administrative and maintenance staff 

into local leased space. An alternative 

transportation system would be 

implemented. New trails would be 

constructed to outlying features of the 

battlefield. Safety improvements would 

be implemented at the New Jersey 

Monument and a commemorative area 

developed at the Pennsylvania and 

Vermont Memorials. A deck crossing 

Interstate 270 (I–270) would be 

constructed. 

Alternative 3 would move NPS 

administration facilities into the 

Thomas House and expand the existing 

maintenance facility. There would be no 

alternative transportation system for 

visitors. New trails would be 

constructed to outlying features of the 

battlefield and safety improvements 

would be implemented at the New 

Jersey Monument. A commemorative 

area would be developed at the 

Pennsylvania and Vermont Memorials 

but no new monuments would be 

allowed. 

Alternative 4, the selected preferred 

alternative, would move NPS 

administrative facilities into the Thomas 

House and an expanded maintenance 

facility would be developed at the 

existing site. Visitors would transit the 

battlefield in their automobiles. All 

historic structures would be preserved 

with exhibits in the Worthington House 

and Thomas outbuilding. New trails 

would be constructed to outlying 

features of the battlefield and 

commemorative memorial locations 

would be upgraded. A pedestrian-only 

deck would be constructed over I–270 

between the Worthington Farm and 

Thomas Farm. 

The Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the General Management 

Plan was made available for public 

review from September 2008 to July 1, 

2009. The official review period 

following the Federal Register Notice of 

Availability was from May 2 to July 1, 

2009. Approximately 350 copies of the 

plan were mailed to agencies, 

organizations, and the national 

battlefield mailing list. In addition, the 

availability of the document and 

information about public meetings were 

announced in the local newspaper. 

Following initial distribution of the 

draft plan, three public meetings were 

held in 2009—June 9 during the review 

period, and two on September 24. The 

NPS received 34 comments during the 

review period. Because comments 

received did not meet the criteria for 

‘‘substantive comment,’’ a request was 

granted by the Department of the 

Interior Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance to undertake this 

abbreviated format Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the General 

Management Plan. 

DATES: The NPS will execute a Record 

of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 

days following publication by the 

Environmental Protection Agency of the 

Notice of Availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

General Management Plan. 

ADDRESSES: Information will be 

available for public review online at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov, or 

available on C–D. Hard copies may be 

obtained by contacting Superintendent 

Susan Trail, Monocacy National 

Battlefield, 4801 Urbana Pike, Frederick, 

Maryland, or by telephone at (301) 694– 

3147. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Hayes, Regional Planner and 

Transportation Liaison, National Capital 

Region, National Park Service, 1100 

Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 

20242, by telephone at (202) 619–7277, 

or by e-mail at David_Hayes@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS 

evaluated a No Action Alternative and 

three Action Alternatives for 

management, development, and 

interpretation in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

General Management Plan. All Action 

Alternatives provide for the 

preservation of all park cultural and 

natural resources. However, the selected 

preferred alternative (Alternative 4) 

provides the best variety of visitor 

experiences, the widest access to all 

areas of Monocacy National Battlefield, 

and the most appropriate use of historic 

resources for interpretive and other park 

operational purposes. Overall, it best 

meets NPS purposes and goals for 

Monocacy National Battlefield while 

meeting National Environmental Policy 

Act goals. The selected preferred 

alternative will not result in the 

impairment of park resources and will 

allow the NPS to conserve park 

resources while providing for their 

enjoyment by visitors. 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Margaret O’Dell, 

Regional Director, National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11819 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan; 

Harpers Ferry National Historical Park 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan for 

Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332 (2)(C), the National Park 

Service (NPS) announces the 

availability of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the General 

Management Plan for Harpers Ferry 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES