56638 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5223–N–02] 

Final Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 

2009 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. 

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 FY2009 FMRs for all 

areas that reflect the estimated 40th and 

50th percentile rent levels trended to 

April 1, 2009. The FY2009 FMRs are 

based on 2000 Census data updated 

with more current survey data. For 

FY2009, FY2008 FMRs are updated 

using 2006 American Community 

Survey (ACS) data, and more recent 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) rent and 

utility indexes. HUD continues to use 

ACS data in different ways according to 

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

are available in the FMR area or its 

Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). 

Revised 2006 FMRs based on Census 

and ACS data have been updated with 

CPI data through the end of 2007 and 

then trended to April 2009, the midpoint of FY2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: The FMRs 

published in this notice are effective on 

October 1, 2008. 

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. 

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 number 202–708– 

0590. 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 (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. 

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. 

Complete documentation of the 

methodology and data used to compute 

each area’s Final FY2009 FMRs is 

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

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr09. 

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 

FY2009, no new areas became eligible 

for 50th percentile rents. Current areas 

are evaluated for progress in 

deconcentration every three years after 

becoming 50th percentile areas. 

Continued eligibility is determined 

based on HUD administrative data that 

show levels of poverty concentration. 

The levels of poverty concentration 

must be above 25 percent and show a 

decrease in concentration since the last 

evaluation. At least 85 percent of the 

voucher units in the area must be used 

to make this determination. Twenty-four 

of the current 28 50th percentile FMR 

areas had been in the program for a 

three-year period and were reviewed to 

determine if deconcentration had 

occurred. A list of these 24 areas is 

shown below. 

FY2008 50th Percentile FMR Areas 

Reviewed for Eligibility as FY2009 50th 

Percentile FMR Areas 

Albuquerque, NM MSA 

Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA 

Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56639 

1The change from Sarasota-Brandenton-Venice, 

FL MSA to Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA 

includes a change in the primary city name and a 

change in the metropolitan code from 42260 to 

14600. 

Tacoma, WA HMFA 

Tucson, AZ MSA 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA-NC MSA 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DCVA-MD HMFA 

Fourteen of the 24 current 50th 

percentile areas eligible for review 

failed to qualify for the 50th percentile 

FMR program for FY2009. Two of these 

areas, as shown below, no longer qualify 

for the 50th-percentile FMR program 

because they no longer meet the poverty 

concentration standards set out in the 

50th percentile FMR program, at 24 CFR 

888.113. Based on current tenant data, 

less than 25 percent of the tenant-based 

rental program participants reside in the 

5 percent of census tracts in the 

metropolitan areas with the largest 

number of program participants. These 

areas will be reviewed annually to see 

if this concentration changes to above 

25 percent so they can be reinstated as 

50th percentile areas. These two areas 

could re-qualify as 50th percentile FMR 

areas as early as the FY2010 FMRs. 

FY2008 50th Percentile FMR Areas Not 

Eligible for FY2009 50th Percentile 

FMRs Because Voucher Tenant 

Concentrations Have Fallen Below the 

Eligibility Threshold 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA 

Providence-Fall River, RI-MA HMFA 

Three additional areas initially did 

not meet the minimum reporting criteria 

of 85 percent of resident records. Based 

on comments, additional data submitted 

by these areas was found in a separate 

database, and subsequent examination 

of all data found reporting levels above 

85 percent. However all three areas also 

showed a failure to deconcentrate over 

the three-year period when they were 

using 50th percentile FMRs. These areas 

will lose their 50th percentile FMRs for 

FY2009 but will be eligible for reevaluation and possible re-instatement 

of 50th percentile FMRs in FY2010. 

These areas are not being removed from 

consideration for the 50th percentile 

FMR program for a period of three years, 

for failing the test of deconcentration, 

because they were not notified of this 

failure in time for them to provide 

comments, and it was an error by HUD 

that led to this failure. These areas are 

listed below: 

FY2008 50th Percentile FMR Areas Not 

Eligible for FY2009 50th Percentile 

FMRs Because Proposed FY2009 FMR 

Publication Found Low Reporting Rates 

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC– 

VA–MD HMFA 

New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA 

As notified in the publication of 

proposed FY2009 FMRs, the table below 

shows nine areas that failed to 

deconcentrate over the 3-year period. 

Deconcentration of tenants is the 

primary objective of the 50th percentile 

program and failure to make any 

progress to deconcentrate tenants over a 

3-year period disqualifies an otherwise 

eligible area for 3 years. These areas are 

not eligible for participation in the 50th 

percentile FMR program until FY2012. 

They will be reviewed in time for the 

proposed FY2012 FMRs to determine if 

they can meet 50th percentile FMR 

criteria. 

FY2008 50th Percentile FMR Areas Not 

Eligible for FY2009 50th Percentile 

FMRs for Failure To Deconcentrate 

Voucher Tenants 

Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 

Honolulu, HI MSA 

Orange County, CA HMFA 

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 

MSA 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA–NC MSA 

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA 

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA 

Tucson, AZ MSA 

Ten of the 24 areas reviewed will 

continue to use 50th percentile FMRs 

for another three-year period. These ten 

areas will not be re-evaluated until 

FY2012. 

FY2008 50th Percentile FMR Areas 

Evaluated and Continuing with 50th 

Percentile FMRs in FY2009 

Albuquerque, NM MSA 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT HMFA 

Kansas City, MO–KS HMFA 

Richmond, VA HMFA 

Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL MSA 

Denver-Aurora, CO MSA 

Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 

HMFA 

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 

MSA 

Tacoma, WA HMFA 

In addition to these 10 areas, 4 current 

50th percentile FMR areas were not 

evaluated this year because they have 

not completed 3 years of program 

participation, so there are 14 areas that 

will have 50th percentile FMRs in 

FY2009. These four areas, listed below, 

will complete their 3-year program 

period and be evaluated to determine if 

they remain 50th percentile FMR areas 

in the proposed FY2010 FMR 

publication. 

FY2008 50th Percentile FMR Areas Not 

Slated for Eligibility Evaluation and 

Continuing with 50th Percentile FMRs 

in FY2009 

Dallas, TX HMFA 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 

MSA 

Fort Lauderdale, FL HMFA 

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL HMFA 

III. Proposed FY2009 FMRs 

On June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33530), HUD 

published proposed FY2009 FMRs. As 

noted in the preamble to the proposed 

FMRs, the FMRs for FY2009 reflect the 

use of the 2006 ACS data to update 2005 

rent estimates for metropolitan areas. In 

addition, the FY2009 FMRs include all 

changes made to metropolitan area 

definitions made by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), as of 

November 2007. 

During the comment period, which 

ended August 1, 2008, HUD received 26 

public comments on the proposed 

FY2009 FMRs. None of the comments 

received included the data needed to 

support FMR changes. Several of the 

comments expressed concern over 

recent utility increases and the failure of 

the FY2009 FMRs to take into account 

these increases. There were also 

comments received on the loss of 50th 

percentile FMRs resulting from low 

reporting rates. The comments received 

are discussed in more detail later in this 

notice. 

IV. FMR Methodology 

The FY2009 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 

November 2007 are incorporated. This 

means that there are six Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) name changes 

that reorder, add, or delete a primary 

city name.1 The area definitions based 

on 2000 Census data have the 

advantages of providing more relevant 

commuting interchange standards and 

more current measures of housing 

market relationships than those based 

on 1990 Census data and used prior to 

the FY2006 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:// 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2
56640 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/ 

CensusRentData/. 

A. Data Sources—2000 Census and 

American Community Survey 

FY2009 FMRs are based on changes in 

rents measured by differences in ACS 

data collected in 2005 and 2006 and 

updated with CPI data. For FY2008 

FMRs, HUD developed 2005 rent 

estimates based on updating 2000 

Census gross rent data with more 

current survey data from the Census 

Bureau’s 2005 ACS, the first full year of 

implementation for the ACS. FY2009 

FMRs use data from the 2006 ACS to 

update these 2005 rent estimates. While 

the Census Bureau intends for the ACS 

to replace the Decennial Census sample 

‘‘long form’’ for collecting detailed 

socioeconomic data, the ACS has 

several important distinctions from the 

decennial long form. These include: 

• The ACS is conducted on a 

continuous ‘‘rolling’’ basis throughout 

the year, so survey responses do not 

correspond to a particular date, whereas 

the long form responses were as of the 

Census date of April 1. This has 

implications for the ‘‘as-of’’ date 

assumed for ACS-based rents. The ‘‘asof’’ date for ACS-based rents is set at 

June 30 of the ACS year. 

• The ACS has an initial sample size 

(before non-response attrition) of about 

one-fifth that 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-formequivalent estimates. 

As detailed in the notices announcing 

the proposed and final FY2008 FMRs, 

HUD replaced the accumulated 2001 

through 2005 FMR update factors from 

various sources with 2005 ACS data. 

The preamble for the final FY2008 FMR 

Notice (72 FR 55940) provides a 

description of how the 2005 ACS data, 

and in some cases Random Digit Dialing 

surveys (RDDs) conducted in 2001 

through 2005, were used in the FY2008 

FMRs. Further details regarding the 

calculation of FY2008 FMRs are 

available using HUD’s online Final 

FY2008 Documentation System, 

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

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr08. 

B. Updates From 2005 to 2006 

State or local 2006 ACS data are used 

to update a June 2005-calculated gross 

rent from the FY2008 FMRs to June 

2006. The same categories of use, 

depending upon the sizes of the 

available rental unit samples in the FMR 

areas, were applied to the 2006 ACS 

data as had been applied to the 2005 

data. There are two exceptions to the 

similarity of processing 2005 ACS data 

and 2006 ACS data. First, the update 

factor reflecting changes in rents for the 

parts of the state not included in FMR 

areas covered by local ACS data was 

discontinued for two reasons: (1) The 

variance in rent change between 2005 

and 2006 for these areas was much 

larger than that for full states and it was 

not clear whether these changes 

reflected differences in markets or area 

composition, or if they reflected survey 

anomalies; and (2) basing an underlying 

geography on factors that change 

annually (such as the identity of FMR 

areas covered by local ACS data) and 

which cannot be determined until the 

survey data have been processed 

presents a complexity that could not be 

resolved in a manner that allowed for 

timely delivery of data. Consequently, 

for FY2009, all state-based update 

factors are calculated for the entire state. 

Second, HUD-defined ‘‘HMFAs’’ in 

metropolitan areas (CBSAs) where no 

subarea uses the CBSA gross rent as the 

basis of its FMR, are no longer tested to 

determine which update factor, the state 

or the CBSA, brings the subarea closer 

to the CBSA. The state update factor is 

now used for these cases. This change 

was made because review of the data 

and discussions with field economists 

indicated that forcing these subareas 

toward CBSA-area values moved the 

rent in the wrong direction. 

C. Updates From 2006 to 2007 

The 2006 ACS data brought the 2005 

data used in the FY2008 FMRs forward 

by 12 months to June 2006. The CPI is 

used to update the June 2006 FMRs to 

the end of 2007. Local CPI data are used 

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 are used 

for FMR areas in Class B and C size 

metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan 

areas without local CPI update factors. 

D. Updates From 2007 to 2009 

The national 1990 to 2000 average 

annual rent increase trend of 3 percent 

(1.03) is applied to end-of-2007 rents for 

1.25 years, to derive the final FY2009 

FMRs. 

E. Additional Rent Surveys and Other 

Data 

In early 2008, surveys were conducted 

in several areas of Wyoming, Colorado, 

Utah, and Texas where, as a result of 

increased oil and gas drilling activity, 

housing agencies have experienced 

significant rental housing market 

pressure. Most of these areas have 

experienced several years of problems 

managing the voucher program. These 

surveys show that rents in these areas 

are higher than previously estimated. 

All of these surveys met HUD standards 

for statistical significance (i.e., the 

survey result trended to April 2008 was 

statistically different from the April 

2008 FY2008 FMRs at a 95 percent level 

of confidence). These RDD survey 

results became effective in FY2008 with 

the publication of the proposed FY2009 

FMRs. 

Three additional RDD surveys are 

underway. HUD is currently conducting 

surveys in New Orleans, Hattiesburg, 

MS and Pearl River County, MS in its 

ongoing effort to monitor rental housing 

markets in Katrina and Rita affected 

areas because of HUD’s concern about 

FMR accuracy in these fluid housing 

markets and at the request of local 

PHAs. Results from these surveys will 

be published as soon as they are 

available. 

The area-specific data and 

computations used to calculate 

proposed FY2009 FMRs and FMR area 

definitions can be found at http:// 

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

index.asp?data=fmr09. 

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 two-bedroom 

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. Rent ratio derivations are 

also shown in the FMR documentation 

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

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr09. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56641 

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 

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 recentmover rent samples, 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 

estimation method had less than the 

HUD standard of 200 two-bedroom 

census-tabulated observations. 

V. Public Comments 

A total of 26 public comments were 

received on the proposed FY2009 FMRs. 

Over one-half of these comments were 

from housing agencies in Vermont and 

Maine and they expressed concern with 

managing the recent sharp increase in 

the cost of fuel oil, which is the primary 

heating fuel in these states. Although 

the FY2009 FMRs for most areas in 

Vermont represent an increase of more 

than 9 percent, the comments stated that 

this increase was not sufficient. In 

Maine, there was no effective increase 

in the FY2009 FMRs and they were also 

seeking relief from the heating fuel 

increases. HUD reviewed data on 

heating fuel increases from the 

Department of Energy’s Energy 

Information Administration and from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer 

Price Index. Both data sources show an 

increase of approximately 70 percent in 

residential fuel oil costs compared with 

last winter. Approximately 30 percent of 

this increase is included in the 2007 CPI 

that is used in calculating the FY2009 

FMRs. The remaining 40 percent 

increase in fuel oil costs could be 

incorporated by using the CPI through 

June of 2008, replacing 6 months of 

trend. Using the updated rent and utility 

CPI through June 2008, however, results 

in less than a 2 percent increase in the 

FMR for these areas. This is because 

utility costs are not a significant share 

of the gross rent; a change in one 

component of utility costs does not 

result in a significant change in rent. 

Comments concerning Greensboro, 

NC and New York City included data; 

however, these data are not acceptable. 

None of the data were sufficient to 

determine new FMRs. The Greensboro, 

NC data included average rents by 

housing type and bedroom size based on 

a small amount of survey data. There 

were three major problems with this 

submission. First, actual data was not 

submitted, only average rents. FMRs are 

based on 40th percentile rents not on 

average rents. Without actual data, it is 

not possible to determine the 40th 

percentile rent for this area. Using a 

percentile point within a distribution 

reduces survey problems with 

unusually high or low rents and allows 

smaller samples to be used. Second, the 

sample size was not sufficient to 

determine the reliability of the estimate. 

There must be sufficient information to 

justify any proposed changes to HUD’s 

estimation of FMRs. Third, there was no 

documentation on how the survey was 

conducted so there was no way to 

determine if the sample was random. 

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. 

New York City submitted its rent 

stabilization report that was the basis of 

a 4.5 percent increase for rent stabilized 

units in FY2009. The 4.5 percent 

increase is based on ensuring increases 

in landlords’ operating costs are met. 

The FY2009 FMR for New York City 

shows no increase from FY2008 to 

FY2009. However, as submitted in their 

comment, rent stabilization increases in 

New York City have been 3.5 percent, 

2.75 percent, 4.25 percent, 3 percent 

and 4.5 percent from 2003 to 2008, for 

a total of 19.3 percent. Two-bedroom 

FMRs in New York City have 

experienced a 22.9 percent increase 

during the same period. New York’s 

justification for an increase in FMRs is 

that new voucher holders will have a 

difficult time finding units at the same 

amount as last year, when rent 

stabilization landlords are getting a 4.5 

percent increase in rents. However, they 

do not comment on the level of the 

FMR, nor do they provide data to 

support the contention that the final 

FMR for New York City should be 

higher than the proposed FMR. 

A comment filed by the National 

Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

made three specific requests: (1) Limit 

all FMR decreases to 5 percent or, 

conduct RDD surveys in all areas with 

increases of more than 5 percent; (2) 

improve the description of the 

methodology used by HUD to control for 

the presence of inadequate and 

subsidized units; and (3) clarify HUD’s 

intentions for 50th percentile reevaluation and notify areas about 

success rate payment standards. The 

NAHB also commended HUD on its 

continuing FMR bonus for Katrina and 

Rita impacted areas. 

FY2009 proposed FMRs include two 

areas that experience more than a 5 

percent decline in FMRs. One is 

Providence, RI, whose decline is a result 

of the loss of the 50th percentile FMR, 

and the other is Santa Barbara-Santa 

Maria, CA. HUD is required by law to 

use the most recent, reliable data 

available in estimating FMRs. Limiting 

either increases or decreases would be 

counter to the law as HUD interprets 

and implements it. There is no reason 

to assume that such declines do not 

occur as rents and utilities change over 

time. Proposed FMRs for both 

Providence and Santa Barbara are based 

on local ACS surveys with significantly 

larger samples than would be achievable 

with an RDD. Conducting an RDD 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2
56642 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

would use scarce resources to produce 

less reliable data than that available 

from the ACS. In addition, no comments 

were filed by any party within either of 

the two areas. 

In response to the NAHB request for 

a full description of HUD’s methodology 

in establishing its cutoff rent at the 75th 

percentile of the regional public housing 

rent, HUD has added the methodology 

of the cutoff rent as a link in our FY2009 

FMR documentation system. 

In response to the NAHB request that 

HUD use firmer language to describe its 

intentions with respect to 50th 

percentile areas, firmer language has 

been added to this preamble. HUD 

commends the NAHB for being mindful 

of small PHAs who might not be aware 

of the success rate payment standard 

policy and reiterates here that all of the 

rules and conditions for becoming 

eligible for and for maintaining 

eligibility of 50th percentile status are 

given in 24 CFR 888.113 and 24 CFR 

982.503, including the rules applying to 

the success rate payment standard. 

The Council of Large Public Housing 

Authorities (CLAPHA), the Housing 

Authority of Baltimore and the Fairfax 

County Redevelopment and Housing 

Authority all commented on the loss of 

the 50th percentile FMR. CLAPHA and 

Baltimore are primarily concerned that 

the methodology used to evaluate the 

reporting rates for Moving-to-Work 

(MTW) agencies is faulty and should be 

reviewed. HUD has reviewed its 

methodology and found that this is the 

case. There is MTW data available that 

was not used in the initial FY2009 50th 

percentile evaluation. The three areas 

designated as failing to meet an 85 

percent reporting rate, do meet this 

reporting rate with inclusion of MTW 

data; however, the data also show that 

all three areas (Baltimore, New Haven, 

and Washington, DC) failed to 

deconcentrate over the three-year period 

from 2005 to 2008. Failure to 

deconcentrate eliminates an area from 

eligibility for three years, while failure 

to report eliminates an area only until 

they have 85 percent reporting, at which 

point, the three year deconcentration 

clock starts over again. This error was 

found too late to provide an opportunity 

for the parties to be notified and to 

comment on, so these three areas will 

lose their 50th percentile FMR status for 

the FY2009 FMRs, but will be reviewed 

for a new three-year 50th percentile 

FMR program beginning with the 

FY2010 FMRs. Public housing 

authorities impacted by the loss of 50th 

percentile status are referred to 24 CFR 

982.503(f), which provides payment 

standard protection for PHAs that meet 

deconcentration objectives. 

The Mansfield Housing Authority, 

representing three towns in southern 

Connecticut that are part of the 

Hartford-West Hartford-East-Hartford, 

CT MSA, requested higher FMRs and 

referred us to its comments filed in the 

FY2008 FMRs. Last year we suggested 

that they look into exception rents for 

these towns and determine if they 

would qualify. This year we evaluated 

the towns and determined that Storrs 

would qualify for an exception at 111 

percent and Coventry would qualify for 

an exception at 116 percent. Mansfield 

does not qualify for an exception rent. 

The Housing authority could request 

that PIH grant exceptions for the other 

towns, if it can show there is a program 

need. 

The City of San Jose Housing 

Department and Menola Land, LLC from 

Billings, Montana both submitted 

comments that their FMRs were too low 

but neither comment contained 

sufficient data that could be used to reevaluate proposed FMRs and adjust 

them. 

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 FY2008 were 

updated to FY2009 using the same data 

used to estimate the Housing Choice 

Voucher program FMRs if 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, 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 

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, in Microsoft Word format, 

are available from HUD USER at HUD’s 

Web site 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. 

Survey samples should preferably 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56643 

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 22, 2008. 

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 FY2009 

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—Following OMB guidance, 

the estimation procedure for the 

FY2009. 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 these 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. 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2
56644 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56645 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.002</GPH>
56646 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56647 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.004</GPH>
56648 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56649 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.006</GPH>
56650 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56651 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.008</GPH>
56652 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56653 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.010</GPH>
56654 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56655 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.012</GPH>
56656 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56657 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.014</GPH>
56658 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56659 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.016</GPH>
56660 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56661 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.018</GPH>
56662 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56663 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.020</GPH>
56664 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56665 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.022</GPH>
56666 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56667 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.024</GPH>
56668 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56669 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.026</GPH>
56670 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56671 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.028</GPH>
56672 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56673 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.030</GPH>
56674 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56675 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.032</GPH>
56676 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56677 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.034</GPH>
56678 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56679 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.036</GPH>
56680 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56681 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.038</GPH>
56682 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56683 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.040</GPH>
56684 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56685 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.042</GPH>
56686 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56687 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.044</GPH>
56688 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.045</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56689 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.046</GPH>
56690 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56691 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.048</GPH>
56692 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56693 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.050</GPH>
56694 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.051</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56695 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.052</GPH>
56696 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.053</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 56697 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.054</GPH>
56698 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 189 / Monday, September 29, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–22793 Filed 9–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES2EN29SE08.055</GPH>