61254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5430–N–02] 

Final Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 

2011 for the Housing Choice Voucher 

Program and Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy Program 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Fair Market 

Rents (FMRs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. 

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

States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA) 

requires the Secretary to publish FMRs 

periodically, but not less than annually, 

adjusted to be effective on October 1 of 

each year. The primary uses of FMRs are 

to determine payment standards 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 rent ceilings in 

the HOME program. Today’s notice 

provides final FY 2011 FMRs for all 

areas that reflect the estimated 40th and 

50th percentile rent levels trended to 

April 1, 2011. The FY 2011 FMRs are 

based on 2000 Census data updated 

with more current survey data. For FY 

2011, FY 2010 FMRs are updated using 

2008 American Community Survey 

(ACS) data, and Consumer Price Index 

(CPI) rent and utility indexes through 

the year end of 2009. HUD continues to 

use ACS data in different ways 

according to how many two-bedroom 

standard-quality and recent-mover 

sample cases are available in the FMR 

area or its Core-Based Statistical Area 

(CBSA). As proposed in the August 4, 

2010, notice (75 FR 46958), this notice 

establishes FY 2011 Small Area FMRs 

for the Housing Choice Voucher 

program in the Dallas, TX HUD 

Metropolitan FMR Area (HMFA). All 

Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) 

operating in the 8-county HMFA must 

use the Small Area FMRs from Schedule 

B Addendum (listed by county and ZIP 

code) for the voucher program. All other 

programs that use FMRs will continue 

to use area-wide FMRs shown in 

Schedule B for Dallas, TX HMFA. 

DATES: Effective Date: The FMRs 

published in this notice are effective on 

October 1, 2010. 

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 Mark 

Stanton, 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 FY 2011 FMRs is 

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

datasets/fmr/fmrs/ 

index.asp?data=fmr11. 

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. Areas that 

currently have 50th percentile FMRs are 

evaluated for progress in voucher tenant 

deconcentration after three years in the 

program. Continued eligibility is 

determined using HUD administrative 

data that show levels of voucher tenant 

concentration. The levels of voucher 

holder 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. For FY 2011, there were 

17 areas that were designated as 50th 

percentile areas. None of the current 

50th percentile FMR areas were 

evaluated this year because they have 

not completed three years of program 

participation. As listed below, 10 areas 

complete their three-year program 

period and will be evaluated to 

determine if they remain 50th percentile 

FMR areas in the proposed FY 2012 

FMR publication. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61255 

1The change is considered statistically significant 

if Z > 1.645 where (see equation above) and EST1

= ACS 2008 Estimate, EST2 = ACS 2007 Estimate 

(or ACS 2006 Estimate when the change from 2006– 

2007 = 1), SE1 = Standard Error of Estimate 1 and 

SE2 = Standard Error of Estimate 2. 

FY 2010 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR AREAS NOT SLATED FOR ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION UNTIL FY 2012 FMRS

Albuquerque, NM MSA North Point-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL MSA 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA Denver-Aurora, CO MSA 

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT HMFA Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA 

Kansas City, MO-KS, HMFA Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA 

Richmond, VA HMFA Tacoma, WA HMFA 

An additional seven current 50th 

percentile FMR areas complete their 

three-year program period and will be 

evaluated to determine if they remain 

50th percentile FMR areas in the 

proposed FY 2013 FMR, as shown 

below. 

FY 2010 50TH-PERCENTILE FMR AREAS NOT SLATED FOR ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION UNTIL FY 2013 FMRS

Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA Fort Lauderdale, FL HMFA 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA 

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD HMFA 

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL HMFA 

As noted in the publication of 

proposed FY 2011 FMRs, an additional 

area qualified for 50th percentile FMRs 

and will be eligible for review with the 

proposed FY 2014 FMRs. This area is 

Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA. 

III. Proposed FY 2011 FMRs 

On August 4, 2010 (75 FR 46958), 

HUD published proposed FY 2011 

FMRs. As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed FMRs, the FMRs for FY 2011 

reflect the use of both one-year and 

three-year 2008 ACS data to update June 

2007 rent estimates for each area. In 

addition, the FY 2011 FMRs include all 

changes made to metropolitan area 

definitions made by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) as of 

December 2009. 

During the comment period, which 

ended September 3, 2010, HUD received 

16 public comments on the proposed FY 

2011 FMRs. None of the comments HUD 

received included the data needed to 

support FMR changes. Several of these 

comments expressed that proposed FY 

2011 FMRs are incorrect for their 

respective market areas. One commenter 

noted an inconsistency in the 

methodology that is corrected and 

discussed in the following methodology 

section. The rest of the comments 

received are discussed in more detail 

later in this notice. 

IV. FMR Methodology 

The FY 2011 FMRs are based on 

current OMB metropolitan area 

definitions that were first used in the FY 

2006 FMRs. The changes OMB made to 

the Metropolitan Area Definitions in 

December 2009 are incorporated. As of 

December 2009, there was a change in 

the principal cities of three metropolitan 

areas that resulted in a code change. 

These three metropolitan areas are: 

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL 

MSA, Crestview-Fort Walton BeachDestin, FL MSA, and SteubenvilleWeirton, OH–WV MSA. In Alaska, there 

was a name change for a 

nonmetropolitan borough, from Prince 

of Wales-Ketchikan Census Area, AK to 

Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area, AK; 

and two other Alaskan boroughs were 

divided, from Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon 

to Skagway and Hoonah-Angoon 

boroughs; and from Wrangell-Petersburg 

to Wrangell and Petersburg boroughs. 

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 FY 

2006 FMRs. 

At HUD’s request, the Census Bureau 

prepared a special publicly releasable 

census file that permits almost exact 

replication of HUD’s 2000 Census Base 

Rent calculations, except for areas with 

few rental units. This data set is located 

on HUD’s HUD USER Web site at 

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

CensusRentData/. 

A. Data Sources—2000 Census and 

American Community Survey 

As in all post-FY 2006 FMR 

publications, FY 2011 FMRs start with 

base rents generated using Census 2000 

long form survey data. They are updated 

with American Community Survey 

(ACS) data and Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) 

data. FY 2011 FMRs are FY 2010 FMRs 

updated by replacing the CPI data used 

for FY 2010 FMRs with ACS 2008 

survey data and updated with CPI data 

through the end of 2009. Specifically, 

the FY 2010 rent (as of date: April, 

2010) is deflated to June 2007 by 

dividing it by 18 months of CPI data 

representing June 2007 through 

December 2008 inflation, and the usual 

15 month trend factor. This June 2007 

rent is the best and most recent rent 

estimate available using only ACS 

survey and eliminating all other update 

data. It is this rent that is updated with 

additional ACS data and new CPI data. 

In order to preserve additional 

information gathered by HUD through 

random digit dialing (RDD) surveys, 

areas surveyed after June 2008 are 

updated separately, the details of which 

can be found at the Web site listed 

above. 

B. Updates From 2007 to 2008–2008 

ACS 

ACS survey data continues to be 

applied to areas based on the type of 

area (CBSA, metropolitan subarea, or 

non-metropolitan county), the amount 

of survey data available, and the 

reliability of the survey estimates. Both 

one- and three-year ACS 2008 data are 

used to update June 2007 rents. HUD 

considered using the change in the 

three-year 2005–2007 ACS to three-year 

2006–2008 ACS in place of the change 

from 2007 one-year ACS to 2008 oneyear ACS, but the nature of the 3 year 

data mutes the effects of the more recent 

data, which HUD finds more important 

for achieving the objectives of the HCV 

program. Consequently, HUD calculates 

update factors using the change in ACS 

one-year data from 2007 to 2008. 

Beginning with the FY 2010 FMRs, HUD 

tests these rent changes for statistical 

significance 1

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

61256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

2The recent mover estimate from the three year 

data includes all those who moved in the most 

recent 24 month period. That means that no 2006 

survey data are included in this three-year recent 

mover classification and the likelihood of having a 

valid (with 200 or more cases) three-year recent 

mover rent is lower for these estimates. 

Z EST EST

SE SE

= −

( ) +

1 2

1

2

1

2

before applying them to the appropriate 

base rent. Any state- or metropolitanlevel change that is not statistically 

significant is not applied. That is, the 

updated 2008 rent is the same as the 

2007 rent if the applicable update factor 

does not represent a statistically 

significant change. HUD applied this 

test as a measure to minimize 

fluctuations in rents due to survey error. 

Metropolitan level rent changes are used 

for CBSA areas and subareas that have 

more than 200 standard quality cases in 

2007 and 2008. All other areas are 

updated with state level rent changes. 

For subareas, State and CBSA change 

factors continue to be selected based on 

which factor brings the subarea rent 

closer to the CBSA-wide rent. Subareas 

which have 200 or more local standard 

quality survey observations are updated 

with their local area update factor. 

The error measurement test and ACSbased update factor is revised from the 

proposed FY 2011 FMRs, in response to 

a comment. The commenter noted that 

using a z-test that compared the 2008 

rent to the 2007 rent was not logical for 

areas where the 2007 ACS rent was 

never used in the update, or where the 

z-test last year (evaluating the change 

from 2006 to the 2007 ACS rent) was not 

statistically significant and HUD 

applied an ACS update factor of one. To 

correct this oversight, HUD revised the 

FMR estimation process for areas where 

there was no statistically significant 

difference between the 2006 and the 

2007 ACS rent result, where the ACS 

update equaled one. The z-test for these 

areas would be applied to the difference 

in the rent and error measurement for 

2006 compared with 2008 ACS, rather 

than a comparison of 2007 to 2008 ACS. 

After all areas have been updated 

with a standard quality median rent 

change, local areas with estimates that 

reflect more than 200 one-year recent 

mover cases are evaluated further. If the 

updated rent is outside the confidence 

interval of the ACS recent mover 

estimate, the updated rent is replaced 

with the ACS recent mover rent 

estimate. In areas without 200 or more 

one-year ACS recent mover 

observations, but with 200 or more 

three-year ACS recent mover 

observations, the three year estimate 2 is 

used if it is statistically different from 

the updated 2008 rent based on the 

standard quality median rent change. 

This process creates a June 2008 rent. 

C. Updates From 2008 to 2009 

ACS 2008 data updates the June 2007 

rents used in the FY 2010 FMRs forward 

by 12 months to June 2008. HUD uses 

six months of 2008 and 12 months of 

2009 CPI rent and utilities price index 

data to update the June 2008 rents to the 

end of 2009. HUD uses local CPI data for 

FMR areas with at least 75 percent of 

their population within Class A 

metropolitan areas covered by local CPI 

data. HUD uses CPI data aggregated to 

Census regions for FMR areas in Class 

B and C size metropolitan areas and 

nonmetropolitan areas without local CPI 

update factors. 

D. Updates From 2009 to 2011 

HUD applies the national 1990 to 

2000 average annual rent increase trend 

of 1.03 to end-of-2009 rents for 15 

months, to derive the proposed FY 2011 

FMRs. HUD will publish an additional 

Federal Register notice this fall 

requesting alternatives to the use of this 

long-term historical trend factor. HUD is 

considering alternatives for trend factors 

that include historical average annual 

trend factors based on shorter time 

periods and trends based on projections 

linked to other government forecasts. 

The area-specific data and 

computations used to calculate 

proposed FY 2011 FMRs and FMR area 

definitions can be found at http:// 

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

index.asp?data=fmr11. 

E. Large Bedroom Rents 

HUD’s principal FMR estimate is for 

two-bedroom units. This generally is the 

most common size of rental units, and 

therefore the most reliable to survey and 

analyze. After each decennial census, 

HUD calculates rent relationships 

between two-bedroom units and other 

unit sizes and uses these relationships 

to set FMRs for other units. This is done 

because it is much easier to update twobedroom estimates and to use preestablished 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=fmr11. 

The rents for three-bedroom and 

larger units continue to reflect HUD’s 

policy to set higher rents for these units 

than would result from using normal 

market rents. This adjustment is 

intended to increase the likelihood that 

the largest families, who have the most 

difficulty in leasing units, will be 

successful in finding eligible program 

units. The adjustment adds bonuses of 

8.7 percent to the unadjusted threebedroom FMR estimates and adds 7.7 

percent to the unadjusted four-bedroom 

FMR estimates. The FMRs for unit sizes 

larger than four bedrooms are calculated 

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

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

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

A further adjustment was made using 

2000 Census data in establishing rent 

ratios for areas with local bedroom-size 

intervals above or below what are 

considered to be reasonable ranges or 

where sample sizes are inadequate to 

accurately measure bedroom rent 

differentials. HUD’s experience has 

shown that highly unusual bedroom 

ratios typically reflect inadequate 

sample sizes or peculiar local 

circumstances that HUD would not 

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

large numbers of 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. These ranges are: 

efficiency FMRs are constrained to fall 

between 0.65 and 0.83 of the twobedroom FMR; one-bedroom FMRs must 

be between 0.76 and 0.90 of the twobedroom FMR; three-bedroom FMRs 

must be between 1.10 and 1.34 of the 

two-bedroom FMR; and four-bedroom 

FMRs must be between 1.14 and 1.63 of 

the two-bedroom FMR. Bedroom rents 

for a given FMR area were then adjusted 

if the differentials between bedroomsize FMRs were inconsistent with 

normally observed patterns (i.e., 

efficiency rents were not allowed to be 

higher than one-bedroom rents and fourbedroom rents were not allowed to be 

lower than three-bedroom rents). 

For low-population, nonmetropolitan 

counties with small census recentmover rent samples, HUD uses censusdefined county group data in 

determining rents for each bedroom 

size. This adjustment was made to 

protect against unrealistically high or 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.062</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61257 

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 16 public comments were 

received on the proposed FY 2011 

FMRs. Seven of the comments filed 

concerned the 4.1 percent decline in 

FMRs for the Pittsburgh, PA HUD Metro 

FMR Area. According to the 

commenters, within the city there are 

high vacancy rates, high abandonment 

and condemnation rates and high 

percentages of substandard housing in 

the older, denser communities. A 2004 

study of the city determined that 70 

percent to 90 percent of the housing 

stock is considered below average in 

certain districts of the city, which is a 

major factor in the affordability of the 

City’s housing market. The market for 

voucher holders is further constrained 

by refusal by landlords to accept 

vouchers and the changing nature of 

neighborhoods of choice. As a solution 

to this problem, it was suggested HUD 

institute a hold-harmless policy for 

FMRs; that is the FY 2011 FMRs should 

not be allowed to decline, but should be 

left at the higher level from FY 2010, at 

a minimum. It was also suggested that 

the FMR area be split into smaller areas 

to produce more accurate results. HUD 

will not institute a hold-harmless for 

Pittsburgh or any other FMR area. The 

FY 2011 FMR for the Pittsburgh, PA 

HUD Metro FMR Area is calculated 

using the most recent data available, 

based on local surveys from both the 

ACS and CPI. If smaller areas will help 

Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) 

operating the Housing Choice Voucher 

program within the city manage the 

program, these PHAs should consider 

applying for participation in HUD’s 

small area FMR demonstration project. 

Information on the structure of the 

demonstration project and instructions 

for application will be announced in 

early 2011 by publication of a Federal 

Register notice. 

A commenter in the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC–VA–MD HUD 

Metro FMR Area also requested a hold 

harmless policy be instituted to prevent 

declines in FMRs. Even under the small 

area FMR demonstration project, FMRs 

will be allowed to decline from year to 

year. Small area FMRs used in the 

demonstration project will continue to 

include a rent floor (based on the state 

minimum as is currently in place); 

however, the methodology for 

calculating the current year 

metropolitan area rent has not been 

proposed to be changed from the current 

methodology. 

There were several comments filed 

addressing the small area FMR 

demonstration project and much 

confusion about HUD’s failure to 

respond to the comments filed with 

respect to the May 18, 2010 Federal 

Register notice (75 FR 27808). 

Comments on small area FMRs were 

received from the Montgomery County 

Housing Authority of Norristown, PA; 

the Public Housing Authorities 

Directors Association, and, in part, the 

National Association of Home Builders. 

Internally, all of the comments to the 

small area FMR demonstration project 

notice have been discussed and a notice 

with this discussion and decisions and 

further details on the program will be 

published in early 2011. Including a 

general discussion of the comments 

filed in response to the May 18, 2010 

notice in this notice finalizing FY 2011 

FMRs is likely to exacerbate the 

confusion. For this reason, the small 

area FMR methodology section is not 

included in this Notice, though it is 

unchanged from the proposed FY 2011 

FMR publication for the Dallas, TX HUD 

Metro FMR Area, and may be accessed 

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

datasets/fmr/fmr2011p/ 

Preamble_FY2011P_FMRs.pdf. One 

commenter noticed that the Small Area 

FMRs for Dallas did not incorporate the 

10 dollar rounding protocol identified 

in the methodology and posted in the 

Web site. This has been corrected in this 

publication, so that the published Small 

Area FMRs that will be used for the 

voucher program in Dallas, TX HMFA 

beginning on October 1, 2010 show a 10 

dollar rounding protocol instead of an 

earlier proposed 25 dollar protocol. 

These Small Area FMRs are provided in 

the Schedule B Addendum, which lists 

the FMRs by county and ZIP code. All 

PHAs operating in the Dallas must use 

these Small Area FMRs for the Housing 

Choice Voucher program. The area-wide 

FMRs for the Dallas, TX HMFA, listed 

in Schedule B, continue to be used for 

all other programs. 

Another commenter questioned how 

the demonstration project could be 

considered voluntary, when it is not so 

for Dallas. While all other participation 

in the demonstration project will be 

voluntary and will not begin until early 

2011 after discussion of all comments 

and further description of the program, 

the Dallas demonstration project and its 

timing reflects a court settlement 

between HUD and the Inclusive 

Communities Project, Inc. and the 

timing cannot be changed, nor can other 

aspects of the program. Therefore, the 

demonstration project being conducted 

in the Dallas, TX HUD Metropolitan 

FMR Area may differ in other ways 

(other than the start date) from what is 

decided for voluntary participants of the 

demonstration project. 

The National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) 

discusses eight issues in its comments 

to the FY 2011 FMRs, although most are 

reiterations of positions that NARO has 

expressed consistently since the 

publication of the FY 2006 FMRs. 

Foremost among those concerns is the 

use by HUD of metropolitan area 

definitions based on 2000 Census data 

as opposed to the area definitions from 

FY 2005 FMRs based on 1990 data. HUD 

modified the metropolitan area 

definitions based on rent and income 

relationships comparing old (FY 2005) 

FMR areas to new FMR areas, but 

NAHRO specifically opposes the 

inclusion of formerly nonmetropolitan 

counties into metropolitan areas. Under 

HUD’s current methodology for 

calculating FMRs and median family 

income estimates, these nonmetropolitan subareas would be given 

their own FMR and designated a HUD 

Metro FMR Area (HMFA) if either their 

rent or income was more than five 

percent different from the rent or 

income of the new area and there is 

sufficient Census data available to 

provide statistically reliable rent and 

income estimates. For the former 

nonmetropolitan counties that did not 

have enough data to make this 

comparison, HUD determined it could 

not dilute the FMR for the metropolitan 

area. Overall, HUD does not agree with 

the premise of the argument, that 

metropolitan FMR areas have been 

diluted by the change in the area 

definitions. Furthermore, NAHRO’s 

argument does not allow for the growth 

and change of metropolitan areas over 

time. Moreover, unlike in past years 

where FMR base-year data was updated 

every 10 years with the decennial 

census, FMRs are updated with ACS 

data annually, and can be 

rebenchmarked using ACS data if 

enough recent mover observations exist 

for the area. ACS data is aggregated 

using the new area definitions. The 

fewer changes HUD has to these 

definitions, the more transparent the 

FMR calculation process, since it is not 

dependent on special tabulation of data. 

The request by NAHRO to re-institute 

the 10 regional surveys of metropolitan 

and nonmetropolitan areas used for the 

Annual Adjustment Factors (AAFs) and 

the FMRs is also being denied. These 20 

factors were based on longitudinal 

surveys from around FY 1996 to FY 

2005. HUD determined, through 

analysis of 2000 Census data, that these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

61258 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

20 surveys did not improve estimates of 

rent changes, so HUD reverted to using 

CPI rent and utility surveys for the 4 

Census regions. The CPI data provided 

better results while saving the 

Department the cost of the 20 surveys. 

Based on the analysis of the 2000 

Census data, HUD concluded there was 

a valid statistical reason for the 

elimination of the 20 regional surveys. 

The regional AAFs are also based on the 

same data (CPI for rent and utilities— 

aggregated to the 4 Census Regions) that 

is used for the local AAFs. 

NAHRO request that HUD publish the 

utility component of FMRs. HUD cannot 

do this because, as discussed in the 

methodology and emphasized here, 

HUD establishes FMRs based on gross 

rent data from the census. HUD does not 

collect utility data to update the FMRs. 

The base FMR and the ACS updates are 

generated using data collected on a 

gross rent basis. Only the CPI update is 

split between rent and utilities and this 

split, as discussed in the methodology, 

uses the percentage of those who pay for 

heat (again not utility data) to determine 

the percentage of utilities in the gross 

rent to apply the CPI utility index. HUD 

does not collect utility data and 

therefore cannot provide it. 

Several of NAHRO’s issues concern 

the adjustment for housing quality 

standards and suggestions for 

improvement of this determination for 

the FMRs. HUD is also concerned with 

adjustments for housing quality 

standards and will continue to evaluate 

this issue. At this time, however, no 

changes will be made. 

NAHRO requests changes to the requalification process for 50th percentile 

FMRs including an automatic extension 

for areas that lose 50th percentile status 

and an unspecified change in the 

criteria used to evaluate the program. 

The automatic extension goes against 

the intent of the program, which is only 

available to a select number of areas, 

and any changes would require a 

rulemaking process. At this point HUD 

is focusing its efforts to expand 

opportunities to voucher holders 

through small area FMRs rather than 

changes to the 50th percentile FMR 

program. 

The request for data to determine the 

median rent method (which HUD would 

not have to provide if the 2000 Census 

metropolitan area definitions were not 

modified since this data would be 

available through the Census Bureau’s 

American Factfinder) has been available 

internally for some time. This is now 

posted on our Web site at http:// 

www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ 

fmr.html. 

NAHRO also comments on random 

digit dialing surveys (RDDs), in terms of 

the limited time to conduct them and 

the current methodology. HUD will 

accept RDDs conducted by areas and 

make revisions at any time during the 

fiscal year. Currently, HUD is 

conducting several RDDs and plans a 

revised Final FY2011 FMR notice 

following the completion of the surveys 

and processing of the data. 

Additionally, HUD is investigating ways 

of revising its survey methodology to 

include other less expensive ways to 

collect rent data, under a contract that 

will begin early next year. HUD’s 

current survey methodology collects 

recent mover rents to determine if 

adjustments to FMRs are needed. The 

recent mover period has ranged from as 

little as 6 months to 24 months 

depending on the economic climate of 

the survey area. The fifteen-month 

designation for recent mover rents is the 

definition used in the decennial census. 

Under the ACS, however, the recent 

mover rent is a 24-month period and 

this is what is used most often in 

current RDD surveys. The current 

random digit dialing methodology 

collects enough recent-mover rents in an 

area to provide a statistically significant 

rent, which is generally 200 cases, 

though the results of the survey are 

compared to the current FMR to 

determine if a statistically significant 

difference exists. If so, the RDD survey 

result replaces the current FMR. Rents 

for stayers are also collected for 

purposes of comparison and further 

validity tests of the survey data. 

A comment from Minot, ND states 

that this area continues to struggle with 

a very tight rental market, despite the 

increased FMRs provided from a RDD 

survey conducted by HUD last year. 

Rents continue to increase at a rapid 

rate. Another informal comment from 

Williams County, ND also shows 

significant rental increases. The causes 

of these increases are somewhat the 

same, and are attributed to increased 

jobs in oil and gas exploration, although 

in Minot, the Air Force base is also 

expanding, with estimated growth in 

personnel of 900 to 1,000. Small and 

rapidly changing markets, such as these, 

for which the ACS provides less timely 

data do require rent surveys, but it may 

be worthwhile for Minot to partner with 

Williams and other counties in the area 

to conduct a joint survey. Local agencies 

can conduct surveys at substantially less 

cost than HUD. Under HUD’s current 

procedures, the timing of Minot’s survey 

is crucial. Surveys are too expensive, 

even if conducted by small agencies, to 

be administered annually. The full 

extent of the expansion of the Air Force 

base cannot be measured until at least 

6 months after it has occurred, and then 

the survey must limit the definition of 

recent movers as those moved in the 

past 6 months. HUD will contact Minot 

and Williams County to determine how 

and when to proceed with collecting 

updated rent information. 

The Oklahoma City Housing 

Authority commented that the proposed 

increase in FMRs for the Oklahoma City, 

OK MSA is appropriate. 

A comment filed by the National 

Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 

requested that HUD institute a floor to 

prevent any FY 2011 FMRs from 

declining by more than five percent, or 

else conduct RDD surveys of these areas. 

HUD considers it an inappropriate use 

of scarce resources to survey all areas 

that have FMR declines of more than 5 

percent. In order to be effective, FMRs 

must follow the market, both up and 

down, in accordance with the most 

recent data available. HUD has 

attempted to mitigate the impact of 

annual changes, with the 

implementation of statistical 

significance testing for changes 

measured in annual ACS data, but HUD 

is committed to allowing changing 

market conditions to be reflected in the 

FMRs. 

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. For FY 

2011, HUD received no comments or 

data concerning manufactured home 

space rents. 

All approved exceptions to these rents 

that were in effect in FY 2010 were 

updated to FY 2011 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61259 

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 

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. 

VIII. Environmental Impact 

This Notice involves the 

establishment of fair market rent 

schedules, which do not constitute a 

development decision affecting the 

physical condition of specific project 

areas or building sites. Accordingly, 

under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent 

Schedules, which will not be codified in 

24 CFR part 888, are amended as 

follows: 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Raphael W. Bostic, 

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 FY 2011 

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 FY 2011 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

61260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61261 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.000</GPH>
61262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61263 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.002</GPH>
61264 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61265 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.004</GPH>
61266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61267 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.006</GPH>
61268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61269 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.008</GPH>
61270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61271 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.010</GPH>
61272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61273 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.012</GPH>
61274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61275 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.014</GPH>
61276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61277 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.016</GPH>
61278 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61279 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.018</GPH>
61280 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61281 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.020</GPH>
61282 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61283 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.022</GPH>
61284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61285 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.024</GPH>
61286 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61287 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.026</GPH>
61288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61289 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.028</GPH>
61290 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61291 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.030</GPH>
61292 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61293 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.032</GPH>
61294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61295 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.034</GPH>
61296 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61297 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.036</GPH>
61298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61299 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.038</GPH>
61300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61301 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.040</GPH>
61302 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61303 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.042</GPH>
61304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61305 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.044</GPH>
61306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.045</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61307 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.046</GPH>
61308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61309 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.048</GPH>
61310 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61311 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.050</GPH>
61312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.051</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61313 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.052</GPH>
61314 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.053</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61315 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.054</GPH>
61316 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.055</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61317 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.056</GPH>
61318 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.057</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61319 

[FR Doc. 2010–24465 Filed 9–28–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–C 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN04OC10.058</GPH>