Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57481 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimates of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or the use of other forms of 

information technology; and (e) the 

annual costs burden to respondents or 

record keepers from the collection of 

information (a total capital/startup costs 

and operations and maintenance costs). 

The comments that are submitted will 

be summarized and included in the CBP 

request for Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval. All comments 

will become a matter of public record. 

In this document CBP is soliciting 

comments concerning the following 

information collection: 

Title: Customs Declaration. 

OMB Number: 1651–0009. 

Form Number: CBP Form 6059B. 

Abstract: CBP Form 6059B, Customs 

Declaration, is used as a standard report 

of the identity and residence of each 

person arriving in the United States. 

This form is also used to declare 

imported articles to CBP in accordance 

with 19 U.S.C. 66, section 498 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1498). CBP Form 6059B requires 

basic information to facilitate the 

clearance of persons and goods arriving 

in the United States and helps CBP 

officers determine if any duties or taxes 

are due. A sample of CBP Form 6059B 

can be found at: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/ 

cgov/travel/vacation/sample_

declaration_form.xml. 

Current Actions: This submission is 

being made to extend the expiration 

date with no change to the burden 

hours. 

Type of Review: Extension (without 

change). 

Affected Public: Individuals. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

105,606,000. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Number of Total Annual 

Responses: 105,606,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 4 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 7,075,602. 

Dated: September 16, 2010. 

Tracey Denning, 

Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23558 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5432–N–02] 

Statutorily Mandated Designation of 

Difficult Development Areas and 

Qualified Census Tracts for 2011 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2010 (75 FR 

54902), HUD published a notice 

designating ‘‘Difficult Development 

Areas’’ (DDAs) for 2011. HUD makes 

new DDA designations annually for 

purposes of the Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credit (LIHTC) under Section 42 of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) 

(26 U.S.C. 42). HUD’s September 9, 

2010, notice also provided that 

designations of ‘‘Qualified Census 

Tracts’’ (QCTs) under IRC Section 42 

published October 6, 2009 (74 FR 

51304), remain in effect. 

HUD’s September 9, 2010, notice 

included a summary of the LIHTC and 

an explanation of HUD’s methodology 

in designating DDAs. HUD’s September 

9, 2010, notice, however, inadvertently 

omitted the tables listing the 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

DDAs for 2011. For the convenience of 

the public, today’s Federal Register 

notice republishes HUD’s DDA notice in 

its entirety, and includes the tables 

listing metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan DDAs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on how areas are designated 

and on geographic definitions, contact 

Michael K. Hollar, Senior Economist, 

Economic Development and Public 

Finance Division, Office of Policy 

Development and Research, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8234, 

Washington, DC 20410–6000; telephone 

number 202–402–5878, or send an email to Michael.K.Hollar@hud.gov. For 

specific legal questions pertaining to 

Section 42, contact Branch 5, Office of 

the Associate Chief Counsel, 

Passthroughs and Special Industries, 

Internal Revenue Service, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224; telephone number 202–622– 

3040, fax number 202–622–4753. For 

questions about the ‘‘HUB Zones’’ 

program, contact Mariana Pardo, 

Assistant Administrator for 

Procurement Policy, Office of 

Government Contracting, Small 

Business Administration, 409 Third 

Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 

20416; telephone number 202–205– 

8885, fax number 202–205–7167, or 

send an e-mail to hubzone@sba.gov. A 

text telephone is available for persons 

with hearing or speech impairments at 

202–708–8339. (These are not toll-free 

telephone numbers.) Additional copies 

of this notice are available through HUD 

User at 800–245–2691 for a small fee to 

cover duplication and mailing costs. 

Copies Available Electronically: This 

notice and additional information about 

DDAs and QCTs are available 

electronically on the Internet at http:// 

www.huduser.org/datasets/qct.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This Document 

This notice designates DDAs for each 

of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. The designations of 

DDAs in this notice are based on final 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Fair Market Rents 

(FMRs), FY2010 income limits, and 

2000 Census population counts, as 

explained below. In accordance with the 

Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (GO 

Zone Act) (Pub. L. 109–135, approved 

December 21, 2005), as amended by the 

U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, 

Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 

Accountability Appropriations Act of 

2007, (Pub. L. 110–28, approved, May 

25, 2007), GO Zone DDAs expire on 

December 31, 2010. Thus, this notice 

does not designate GO Zone DDAs. 

2000 Census 

Data from the 2000 Census on total 

population of metropolitan areas and 

nonmetropolitan areas are used in the 

designation of DDAs. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) first 

published new metropolitan area 

definitions incorporating 2000 Census 

data in OMB Bulletin No. 03–04 on June 

6, 2003, and updated them periodically 

through OMB Bulletin No. 09–01 on 

November 20, 2008. The FY2010 FMRs 

and FY2010 income limits used to 

designate DDAs are based on these new 

metropolitan statistical area (MSA) 

definitions, with modifications to 

account for substantial differences in 

rental housing markets (and, in some 

cases, median income levels) within 

MSAs. 

Background 

The U.S. Department of the Treasury 

(Treasury) and its Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) are authorized to interpret 

and enforce the provisions of the IRC, 

including the LIHTC found at Section 

42. The Secretary of HUD is required to 

designate DDAs and QCTs by IRC 

Section 42(d)(5)(B). In order to assist in 

understanding HUD’s mandated 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57482 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

designation of DDAs and QCTs for use 

in administering IRC Section 42, a 

summary of the section is provided. The 

following summary does not purport to 

bind Treasury or the IRS in any way, 

nor does it purport to bind HUD, since 

HUD has authority to interpret or 

administer the IRC only in instances 

where it receives explicit statutory 

delegation. 

Summary of the Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credit 

The LIHTC is a tax incentive intended 

to increase the availability of lowincome housing. IRC Section 42 

provides an income tax credit to owners 

of newly constructed or substantially 

rehabilitated low-income rental housing 

projects. The dollar amount of the 

LIHTC available for allocation by each 

state (credit ceiling) is limited by 

population. Each state is allowed a 

credit ceiling based on a statutory 

formula indicated at IRC Section 

42(h)(3). States may carry forward 

unallocated credits derived from the 

credit ceiling for one year; however, to 

the extent such unallocated credits are 

not used by then, the credits go into a 

national pool to be redistributed to 

states as additional credit. State and 

local housing agencies allocate the 

state’s credit ceiling among low-income 

housing buildings whose owners have 

applied for the credit. Besides IRC 

Section 42 credits derived from the 

credit ceiling, states may also provide 

IRC Section 42 credits to owners of 

buildings based on the percentage of 

certain building costs financed by taxexempt bond proceeds. Credits provided 

under the tax-exempt bond ‘‘volume 

cap’’ do not reduce the credits available 

from the credit ceiling. 

The credits allocated to a building are 

based on the cost of units placed in 

service as low-income units under 

particular minimum occupancy and 

maximum rent criteria. In general, a 

building must meet one of two 

thresholds to be eligible for the LIHTC; 

either: (1) 20 percent of the units must 

be rent-restricted and occupied by 

tenants with incomes no higher than 50 

percent of the Area Median Gross 

Income (AMGI), or (2) 40 percent of the 

units must be rent-restricted and 

occupied by tenants with incomes no 

higher than 60 percent of AMGI. The 

term ‘‘rent-restricted’’ means that gross 

rent, including an allowance for tenantpaid utilities, cannot exceed 30 percent 

of the tenant’s imputed income 

limitation (i.e., 50 percent or 60 percent 

of AMGI). The rent and occupancy 

thresholds remain in effect for at least 

15 years, and building owners are 

required to enter into agreements to 

maintain the low-income character of 

the building for at least an additional 15 

years. 

The LIHTC reduces income tax 

liability dollar-for-dollar. It is taken 

annually for a term of 10 years and is 

intended to yield a present value of 

either: (1) 70 percent of the ‘‘qualified 

basis’’ for new construction or 

substantial rehabilitation expenditures 

that are not federally subsidized (as 

defined in Section 42(i)(2)), or (2) 30 

percent of the qualified basis for the cost 

of acquiring certain existing buildings or 

projects that are federally subsidized. 

The actual credit rates are adjusted 

monthly for projects placed in service 

after 1987 under procedures specified in 

IRC Section 42. Individuals can use the 

credits up to a deduction equivalent of 

$25,000 (the actual maximum amount of 

credit that an individual can claim 

depends on the individual’s marginal 

tax rate). For buildings placed in service 

after December 31, 2007, individuals 

can use the credits against the 

alternative minimum tax. Corporations, 

other than S or personal service 

corporations, can use the credits against 

ordinary income tax, and, for buildings 

placed in service after December 31, 

2007, against the alternative minimum 

tax. These corporations also can deduct 

losses from the project. 

The qualified basis represents the 

product of the building’s ‘‘applicable 

fraction’’ and its ‘‘eligible basis.’’ The 

applicable fraction is based on the 

number of low-income units in the 

building as a percentage of the total 

number of units, or based on the floor 

space of low-income units as a 

percentage of the total floor space of 

residential units in the building. The 

eligible basis is the adjusted basis 

attributable to acquisition, 

rehabilitation, or new construction costs 

(depending on the type of LIHTC 

involved). These costs include amounts 

chargeable to a capital account that are 

incurred prior to the end of the first 

taxable year in which the qualified lowincome building is placed in service or, 

at the election of the taxpayer, the end 

of the succeeding taxable year. In the 

case of buildings located in designated 

DDAs or designated QCTs, eligible basis 

can be increased up to 130 percent from 

what it would otherwise be. This means 

that the available credits also can be 

increased by up to 30 percent. For 

example, if a 70 percent credit is 

available, it effectively could be 

increased to as much as 91 percent. 

IRC Section 42 defines a DDA as any 

area designated by the Secretary of HUD 

as an area that has high construction, 

land, and utility costs relative to the 

AMGI. All designated DDAs in 

metropolitan areas (taken together) may 

not contain more than 20 percent of the 

aggregate population of all metropolitan 

areas, and all designated areas not in 

metropolitan areas may not contain 

more than 20 percent of the aggregate 

population of all nonmetropolitan areas. 

IRC Section 42(d)(5)(B)(v) allows 

states to award an increase in basis up 

to 30 percent to buildings located 

outside of federally designated DDAs 

and QCTs if the increase is necessary to 

make the building financially feasible. 

This state discretion applies only to 

buildings allocated credits under the 

state housing credit ceiling and is not 

permitted for buildings receiving credits 

in connection with tax-exempt bonds. 

Rules for such designations shall be set 

forth in the LIHTC-allocating agencies’ 

qualified allocation plans (QAPs). 

Explanation of HUD Designation 

Methodology 

A. Difficult Development Areas 

In developing the list of DDAs, HUD 

compared housing costs with incomes. 

HUD used 2000 Census population data 

and the MSA definitions, as published 

in OMB Bulletin No. 09–01 on 

November 20, 2008, with modifications, 

as described below. In keeping with past 

practice of basing the coming year’s 

DDA designations on data from the 

preceding year, the basis for these 

comparisons is the FY2010 HUD income 

limits for very low-income households 

(very low-income limits, or VLILs), 

which are based on 50 percent of AMGI, 

and final FY2010 FMRs used for the 

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) 

program. In formulating the FY2010 

FMRs and VLILs, HUD modified the 

current OMB definitions of MSAs to 

account for substantial differences in 

rents among areas within each new 

MSA that were in different FMR areas 

under definitions used in prior years. 

HUD formed these ‘‘HUD Metro FMR 

Areas’’ (HMFAs) in cases where one or 

more of the parts of newly defined 

MSAs that previously were in separate 

FMR areas had 2000 Census base 40thpercentile recent-mover rents that 

differed, by 5 percent or more, from the 

same statistic calculated at the MSA 

level. In addition, a few HMFAs were 

formed on the basis of very large 

differences in AMGIs among the MSA 

parts. All HMFAs are contained entirely 

within MSAs. All nonmetropolitan 

counties are outside of MSAs and are 

not broken up by HUD for purposes of 

setting FMRs and VLILs. (Complete 

details on HUD’s process for 

determining FY2010 FMR areas and 

FMRs are available at http://www.

huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57483 

docsys.html&data=fmr10. Complete 

details on HUD’s process for 

determining FY2010 income limits are 

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

portal/datasets/il/il10/index.html.) 

HUD’s unit of analysis for designating 

metropolitan DDAs, therefore, consists 

of: Entire MSAs, in cases where these 

were not broken up into HMFAs for 

purposes of computing FMRs and 

VLILs; and HMFAs within the MSAs 

that were broken up for such purposes. 

Hereafter in this notice, the unit of 

analysis for designating metropolitan 

DDAs will be called the HMFA, and the 

unit of analysis for nonmetropolitan 

DDAs will be the nonmetropolitan 

county or county equivalent area. The 

procedure used in making the DDA 

calculations follows: 

1. For each HMFA and each 

nonmetropolitan county, a ratio was 

calculated. This calculation used the 

final FY2010 two-bedroom FMR and the 

FY2010 four-person VLIL. 

a. The numerator of the ratio was the 

area’s final FY2010 FMR. In general, the 

FMR is based on the 40th-percentile 

gross rent paid by recent movers to live 

in a two-bedroom apartment. In 

metropolitan areas granted a FMR based 

on the 50th-percentile rent for purposes 

of improving the administration of 

HUD’s HCV program (see 71 FR 5068), 

the 40th-percentile rent was used to 

ensure nationwide consistency of 

comparisons. 

b. The denominator of the ratio was 

the monthly LIHTC income-based rent 

limit, which was calculated as 1/12 of 

30 percent of 120 percent of the area’s 

VLIL (where the VLIL was rounded to 

the nearest $50 and not allowed to 

exceed 80 percent of the AMGI in areas 

where the VLIL is adjusted upward from 

its 50 percent-of-AMGI base). 

2. The ratios of the FMR to the LIHTC 

income-based rent limit were arrayed in 

descending order, separately, for 

HMFAs and for nonmetropolitan 

counties. 

3. The DDAs are those with the 

highest ratios cumulative to 20 percent 

of the 2000 population of all 

metropolitan areas and of all 

nonmetropolitan areas. 

B. Application of Population Caps to 

DDA Determinations 

In identifying DDAs, HUD applied 

caps, or limitations, as noted above. The 

cumulative population of metropolitan 

DDAs cannot exceed 20 percent of the 

cumulative population of all 

metropolitan areas, and the cumulative 

population of nonmetropolitan DDAs 

cannot exceed 20 percent of the 

cumulative population of all 

nonmetropolitan areas. 

In applying these caps, HUD 

established procedures to deal with how 

to treat small overruns of the caps. The 

remainder of this section explains those 

procedures. In general, HUD stops 

selecting areas when it is impossible to 

choose another area without exceeding 

the applicable cap. The only exceptions 

to this policy are when the next eligible 

excluded area contains either a large 

absolute population or a large 

percentage of the total population, or 

the next excluded area’s ranking ratio, 

as described above, was identical (to 

four decimal places) to the last area 

selected, and its inclusion resulted in 

only a minor overrun of the cap. Thus, 

for both the designated metropolitan 

and nonmetropolitan DDAs, there may 

be minimal overruns of the cap. HUD 

believes the designation of additional 

areas in the above examples of minimal 

overruns is consistent with the intent of 

the IRC. As long as the apparent excess 

is small due to measurement errors, 

some latitude is justifiable, because it is 

impossible to determine whether the 20 

percent cap has been exceeded. Despite 

the care and effort involved in a 

Decennial Census, the Census Bureau 

and all users of the data recognize that 

the population counts for a given area 

and for the entire country are not 

precise. Therefore, the extent of the 

measurement error is unknown. There 

can be errors in both the numerator and 

denominator of the ratio of populations 

used in applying a 20 percent cap. In 

circumstances where a strict application 

of a 20 percent cap results in an 

anomalous situation, recognition of the 

unavoidable imprecision in the census 

data justifies accepting small variances 

above the 20 percent limit. 

C. Exceptions to OMB Definitions of 

MSAs and Other Geographic Matters 

As stated in OMB Bulletin 09–01, 

defining metropolitan areas: 

‘‘OMB establishes and maintains the 

definitions of Metropolitan * * * Statistical 

Areas, * * * solely for statistical purposes. 

* * * OMB does not take into account or 

attempt to anticipate any non-statistical uses 

that may be made of the definitions[.] In 

cases where * * * an agency elects to use the 

Metropolitan * * * Area definitions in 

nonstatistical programs, it is the sponsoring 

agency’s responsibility to ensure that the 

definitions are appropriate for such use. An 

agency using the statistical definitions in a 

nonstatistical program may modify the 

definitions, but only for the purposes of that 

program. In such cases, any modifications 

should be clearly identified as deviations 

from the OMB statistical area definitions in 

order to avoid confusion with OMB’s official 

definitions of Metropolitan * * * Statistical 

Areas.’’ 

Following OMB guidance, the 

estimation procedure for the FY2010 

FMRs incorporates the current OMB 

definitions of metropolitan areas based 

on the Core-Based Statistical Area 

(CBSA) standards, as implemented with 

2000 Census data, but makes 

adjustments to the definitions, in order 

to separate subparts of these areas in 

cases where FMRs (and in a few cases, 

VLILs) would otherwise change 

significantly if the new area definitions 

were used without modification. In 

CBSAs where subareas 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 approach becoming so 

as the social and economic integration 

of the CBSA component areas increases. 

The geographic baseline for the new 

estimation procedure is the CBSA 

Metropolitan Areas (referred to as 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas or MSAs) 

and CBSA Non-Metropolitan Counties 

(nonmetropolitan counties include the 

county components of Micropolitan 

CBSAs where the counties are generally 

assigned separate FMRs). The HUDmodified CBSA definitions allow for 

subarea 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 the June 30, 1999, OMB 

definitions of MSAs and Primary MSAs 

(old definition MSAs/PMSAs), 

metropolitan counties deleted from old 

definition MSAs/PMSAs by HUD for 

FMR-setting purposes, and counties and 

county parts outside of old definition 

MSAs/PMSAs referred to as 

nonmetropolitan counties). Subareas of 

MSAs are assigned their own FMRs 

when the subarea 2000 Census Base 

FMR differs significantly from the MSA 

2000 Census Base FMR (or, in some 

cases, where the 2000 Census base 

AMGI differs significantly from the 

MSA 2000 Census Base AMGI). MSA 

subareas, 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. 

In the New England states 

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont), HMFAs are defined according 

to county subdivisions or minor civil 

divisions (MCDs), rather than county 

boundaries. However, since no part of 

an HMFA is outside an OMB-defined, 

county-based MSA, all New England 

nonmetropolitan counties are kept 

intact for purposes of designating 

Nonmetropolitan DDAs. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57484 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

For the convenience of readers of this 

notice, the geographical definitions of 

designated Metropolitan DDAs are 

included in the list of DDAs. 

The Census Bureau provides no 

tabulations of 2000 Census data for 

Broomfield County, Colorado, an area 

that was created from parts of four 

Colorado counties when the city of 

Broomfield became a county in 

November 2001. Broomfield County is 

made up of former parts of Adams, 

Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld counties. 

The boundaries of Broomfield County 

are similar, but not identical to, the 

boundaries of the city of Broomfield at 

the time of the 2000 Census. In OMB 

metropolitan area definitions and, 

therefore, for purposes of this notice, 

Broomfield County is included as part 

of the Denver-Aurora, CO MSA. Census 

tracts in Broomfield County include the 

parts of the Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, 

and Weld County census tracts that 

were within the boundaries of the city 

of Broomfield according to the 2000 

Census, plus parts of three Adams 

County tracts (85.15, 85.16, and 85.28), 

and one Jefferson County tract (98.25) 

that were not within any municipality 

during the 2000 Census but which, 

according to Census Bureau maps, are 

within the boundaries of Broomfield 

County. Data for Adams, Boulder, 

Jefferson, and Weld counties and their 

census tracts were adjusted to exclude 

the data assigned to Broomfield County 

and its census tracts. 

Future Designations 

DDAs are designated annually as 

updated income and FMR data are made 

public. QCTs are designated 

periodically as new data become 

available, or as metropolitan area 

definitions change. 

Effective Date 

The 2011 lists of DDAs are effective: 

(1) for allocations of credit after 

December 31, 2010; or 

(2) for purposes of IRC Section 

42(h)(4), if the bonds are issued and the 

building is placed in service after 

December 31, 2010. 

If an area is not on a subsequent list 

of DDAs, the 2011 lists are effective for 

the area if: 

(1) The allocation of credit to an 

applicant is made no later than the end 

of the 365-day period after the applicant 

submits a complete application to the 

LIHTC-allocating agency, and the 

submission is made before the effective 

date of the subsequent lists; or 

(2) for purposes of IRC Section 

42(h)(4), if: 

(a) the bonds are issued or the 

building is placed in service no later 

than the end of the 365-day period after 

the applicant submits a complete 

application to the bond-issuing agency, 

and 

(b) the submission is made before the 

effective date of the subsequent lists, 

provided that both the issuance of the 

bonds and the placement in service of 

the building occur after the application 

is submitted. 

An application is deemed to be 

submitted on the date it is filed if the 

application is determined to be 

complete by the credit-allocating or 

bond-issuing agency. A ‘‘complete 

application’’ means that no more than de 

minimis clarification of the application 

is required for the agency to make a 

decision about the allocation of tax 

credits or issuance of bonds requested 

in the application. 

In the case of a ‘‘multiphase project,’’ 

the DDA or QCT status of the site of the 

project that applies for all phases of the 

project is that which applied when the 

project received its first allocation of 

LIHTC. For purposes of IRC Section 

42(h)(4), the DDA or QCT status of the 

site of the project that applies for all 

phases of the project is that which 

applied when the first of the following 

occurred: (a) The building(s) in the first 

phase were placed in service, or (b) the 

bonds were issued. 

For purposes of this notice, a 

‘‘multiphase project’’ is defined as a set 

of buildings to be constructed or 

rehabilitated under the rules of the 

LIHTC and meeting the following 

criteria: 

(1) The multiphase composition of the 

project (i.e., total number of buildings 

and phases in project, with a 

description of how many buildings are 

to be built in each phase and when each 

phase is to be completed, and any other 

information required by the agency) is 

made known by the applicant in the 

first application of credit for any 

building in the project, and that 

applicant identifies the buildings in the 

project for which credit is (or will be) 

sought; 

(2) The aggregate amount of LIHTC 

applied for on behalf of, or that would 

eventually be allocated to, the buildings 

on the site exceeds the one-year 

limitation on credits per applicant, as 

defined in the Qualified Allocation Plan 

(QAP) of the LIHTC-allocating agency, 

or the annual per-capita credit authority 

of the LIHTC allocating agency, and is 

the reason the applicant must request 

multiple allocations over 2 or more 

years; and 

(3) All applications for LIHTC for 

buildings on the site are made in 

immediately consecutive years. 

Members of the public are hereby 

reminded that the Secretary of Housing 

and Urban Development, or the 

Secretary’s designee, has sole legal 

authority to designate DDAs and QCTs, 

by publishing lists of geographic entities 

as defined by, in the case of DDAs, the 

several states and the governments of 

the insular areas of the United States 

and, in the case of QCTs, by the Census 

Bureau; and to establish the effective 

dates of such lists. The Secretary of the 

Treasury, through the IRS thereof, has 

sole legal authority to interpret, and to 

determine and enforce compliance with 

the IRC and associated regulations, 

including Federal Register notices 

published by HUD for purposes of 

designating DDAs and QCTs. 

Representations made by any other 

entity as to the content of HUD notices 

designating DDAs and QCTs that do not 

precisely match the language published 

by HUD should not be relied upon by 

taxpayers in determining what actions 

are necessary to comply with HUD 

notices. 

The designations of ‘‘Qualified Census 

Tracts’’ under IRC Section 42, published 

October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51304), remain 

in effect. The above language regarding 

2011 and subsequent designations of 

DDAs also applies to the designations of 

QCTs published October 6, 2009 (74 FR 

51304) and to subsequent designations 

of QCTs. 

Interpretive Examples of Effective Date 

For the convenience of readers of this 

notice, interpretive examples are 

provided below to illustrate the 

consequences of the effective date in 

areas that gain or lose DDA status. The 

examples covering DDAs are equally 

applicable to QCT designations. 

(Case A) Project A is located in a 2011 

DDA that is NOT a designated DDA in 

2012. A complete application for tax 

credits for Project A is filed with the 

allocating agency on November 15, 

2011. Credits are allocated to Project A 

on October 30, 2012. Project A is 

eligible for the increase in basis 

accorded a project in a 2011 DDA 

because the application was filed 

BEFORE January 1, 2012 (the assumed 

effective date for the 2012 DDA lists), 

and because tax credits were allocated 

no later than the end of the 365-day 

period after the filing of the complete 

application for an allocation of tax 

credits. 

(Case B) Project B is located in a 2011 

DDA that is NOT a designated DDA in 

2012 or 2013. A complete application 

for tax credits for Project B is filed with 

the allocating agency on December 1, 

2011. Credits are allocated to Project B 

on March 30, 2013. Project B is NOT 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57485 

eligible for the increase in basis 

accorded a project in a 2011 DDA 

because, although the application for an 

allocation of tax credits was filed 

BEFORE January 1, 2012 (the assumed 

effective date of the 2012 DDA lists), the 

tax credits were allocated later than the 

end of the 365-day period after the filing 

of the complete application. 

(Case C) Project C is located in a 2011 

DDA that was not a DDA in 2010. 

Project C was placed in service on 

November 15, 2010. A complete 

application for tax-exempt bond 

financing for Project C is filed with the 

bond-issuing agency on January 15, 

2011. The bonds that will support the 

permanent financing of Project C are 

issued on September 30, 2011. Project C 

is NOT eligible for the increase in basis 

otherwise accorded a project in a 2011 

DDA, because the project was placed in 

service BEFORE January 1, 2011. 

(Case D) Project D is located in an 

area that is a DDA in 2011, but is NOT 

a DDA in 2012. A complete application 

for tax-exempt bond financing for 

Project D is filed with the bond-issuing 

agency on October 30, 2011. Bonds are 

issued for Project D on April 30, 2012, 

but Project D is not placed in service 

until January 30, 2013. Project D is 

eligible for the increase in basis 

available to projects located in 2011 

DDAs because: (1) One of the two events 

necessary for triggering the effective 

date for buildings described in Section 

42(h)(4)(B) of the IRC (the two events 

being bonds issued and buildings 

placed in service) took place on April 

30, 2012, within the 365-day period 

after a complete application for taxexempt bond financing was filed, (2) the 

application was filed during a time 

when the location of Project D was in a 

DDA, and (3) both the issuance of the 

bonds and placement in service of 

Project D occurred after the application 

was submitted. 

(Case E) Project E is a multiphase 

project located in a 2011 DDA that is 

NOT a designated DDA in 2012. The 

first phase of Project E received an 

allocation of credits in 2011, pursuant to 

an application filed March 15, 2011, 

which describes the multiphase 

composition of the project. An 

application for tax credits for the second 

phase Project E is filed with the 

allocating agency by the same entity on 

March 15, 2012. The second phase of 

Project E is located on a contiguous site. 

Credits are allocated to the second 

phase of Project E on October 30, 2012. 

The aggregate amount of credits 

allocated to the two phases of Project E 

exceeds the amount of credits that may 

be allocated to an applicant in one year 

under the allocating agency’s QAP and 

is the reason that applications were 

made in multiple phases. The second 

phase of Project E is, therefore, eligible 

for the increase in basis accorded a 

project in a 2011 DDA, because it meets 

all of the conditions to be a part of a 

multiphase project. 

(Case F) Project F is a multiphase 

project located in a 2011 DDA that is 

NOT a designated DDA in 2012. The 

first phase of Project F received an 

allocation of credits in 2011, pursuant to 

an application filed March 15, 2011, 

which does not describe the multiphase 

composition of the project. An 

application for tax credits for the second 

phase of Project F is filed with the 

allocating agency by the same entity on 

March 15, 2013. Credits are allocated to 

the second phase of Project F on 

October 30, 2013. The aggregate amount 

of credits allocated to the two phases of 

Project F exceeds the amount of credits 

that may be allocated to an applicant in 

one year under the allocating agency’s 

QAP. The second phase of Project F is, 

therefore, NOT eligible for the increase 

in basis accorded a project in a 2011 

DDA, since it does not meet all of the 

conditions for a multiphase project, as 

defined in this notice. The original 

application for credits for the first phase 

did not describe the multiphase 

composition of the project. Also, the 

application for credits for the second 

phase of Project F was not made in the 

year immediately following the first 

phase application year. 

Findings and Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of 

the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 

50.19(c)(6) of HUD’s regulations, the 

policies and procedures contained in 

this notice provide for the establishment 

of fiscal requirements or procedures that 

do not constitute a development 

decision affecting the physical 

condition of specific project areas or 

building sites and, therefore, are 

categorically excluded from the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, except for 

extraordinary circumstances, and no 

Finding of No Significant Impact is 

required. 

Federalism Impact 

Executive Order 13132 (entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from 

publishing any policy document that 

has federalism implications if the 

document either imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments and is not required 

by statute, or the document preempts 

state law, unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the executive order. This 

notice merely designates DDAs as 

required under Section 42 of the IRC, as 

amended, for the use by political 

subdivisions of the states in allocating 

the LIHTC. This notice also details the 

technical methodology used in making 

such designations. As a result, this 

notice is not subject to review under the 

order. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Raphael W. Bostic, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Development 

and Research. 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57486 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21SE10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57487 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21SE10.001</GPH>
57488 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21SE10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57489 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN21SE10.003</GPH>
57490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 2010–23577 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5376–N–91] 

Notice of Submission of Proposed 

Information Collection to OMB 

Multifamily Project Monthly 

Accounting Reports 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection requirement described below 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The Department is 

soliciting public comments on the 

subject proposal. This information is 

necessary for HUD to monitor 

compliance with contractual agreements 

and analyze cash flow trends as well as 

occupancy and rent collection levels. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: October 21, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Comments should refer to 

the proposal by name and/or OMB 

approval Number (2502–0108) and 

should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy McKinney Jr., Reports 

Management Officer, QDAM, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Leroy 

McKinney Jr. at 

Leroy.McKinneyJr@hud.gov or telephone 

(202) 402–5564. This is not a toll-free 

number. Copies of available documents 

submitted to OMB may be obtained 

from Mr. McKinney. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice informs the public that the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development has submitted to OMB a 

request for approval of the Information 

collection described below. This notice 

is soliciting comments from members of 

the public and affecting agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information to: (1) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (3) Enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) Minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond; including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

This notice also lists the following 

information: 

Title of Proposal: Multifamily Project 

Monthly Accounting Reports. 

OMB Approval Number: 2502–0108. 

Form Numbers: HUD–93479, HUD– 

93480 and HUD–96003. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and its Proposed Use: This 

information is necessary for HUD to 

monitor compliance with contractual 

agreements and analyze cash flow 

trends as well as occupancy and rent 

collection levels. 

Frequency of Submission: Annually. 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

responses × Hours per response = Burden hours 

Reporting Burden: ............................................................................. 10,269 123,228 12 .... 143,766 

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 

143,766. 

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: September 14, 2010. 

Leroy McKinney, Jr., 

Departmental Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23567 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5376–N–89] 

Notice of Submission of Proposed 

Information Collection to OMB Section 

202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly 

Application Submission Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection requirement described below 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The Department is 

soliciting public comments on the 

subject proposal. 

Grant application for Section 202 

Supportive Housing for the Elderly and 

addition of predevelopment grant 

funding for architectural and 

engineering work, site control, and other 

planning related expenses for Section 

202 grantees. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: October 21, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Comments should refer to 

the proposal by name and/or OMB 

approval Number (2502–0267) and 

should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy McKinney Jr., Reports 

Management Officer, QDAM, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.l, 

Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Leroy 

McKinney Jr. at 

Leroy.McKinneyJr@hud.gov or telephone 

(202) 402–5564. This is not a toll-free 

number. Copies of available documents 

submitted to OMB may be obtained 

from Mr. McKinney. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice informs the public that the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development has submitted to OMB a 

request for approval of the Information 

collection described below. This notice 

is soliciting comments from members of 

the public and affecting agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information to: (1) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (3) Enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) Minimize the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES