[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50138-50148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16865]



[[Page 50137]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part VI





Department of Housing and Urban Development





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Proposed Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 2006 for Housing Choice 
Voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy and Certain 
Other HUD Programs; Supplemental Notice on 50th Percentile Designation; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / 
Notices  

[[Page 50138]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4995-N-02; HUD-2005-0017]


Proposed Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 2006 for Housing 
Choice Voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy and 
Certain Other HUD Programs; Supplemental Notice on 50th Percentile 
Designation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
(USHA) requires the Secretary to publish FMRs periodically, but not 
less than annually, to be effective on October 1 of each year. On June 
2, 2005, HUD published a notice on proposed fair market rents (FMRs) 
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. In the June 2, 2005, notice, HUD advised 
that it would also publish a separate notice to identify any areas that 
may be newly eligible for 50th percentile FMRs as well as any areas 
that remain eligible or that are no longer eligible for 50th percentile 
FMRs, as provided in HUD's regulations. This notice provides this 
information. It identifies 24 areas eligible for 50th percentile FMRs, 
which consists of areas that remain eligible for 50th percentile FMRs 
plus areas that are newly eligible.

DATES: Comments Due Date: September 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
HUD's estimates of the FMRs, as published in this notice, to the Office 
of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 
20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above docket number and 
title and should contain the information specified in the ``Request for 
Comments'' section. To ensure that the information is fully considered 
by all of the reviewers, each commenter is requested to submit two 
copies of its comments, one to the Rules Docket Clerk and the other to 
the Economic and Market Analysis Staff in the appropriate HUD field 
office. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for 
public inspection and copying during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 
5 p.m. Eastern Time) at the above address.

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 
on the HUD Web site at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html. FMRs 
are listed at the 40th or 50th percentile in Schedule B of this notice. 
For informational purposes, a table of 40th percentile recent mover 
rents for the areas with 50th percentile FMRs will be provided on the 
same Web site noted above. Any questions related to use of FMRs or 
voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local 
HUD program staff. Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys or further 
methodological explanations may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Lynn 
A. Rodgers, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic 
Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone (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.) Electronic Data 
Availability: This Federal Register notice is available electronically 
from the HUD news page: http://www.hudclips.org. Federal Register 
notices also are available electronically from the U.S. Government 
Printing Office Web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

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.
    Section 8(c) of the USHA requires the Secretary of HUD to publish 
FMRs periodically, but not less frequently than annually. HUD's 
regulations implementing section 8(c), codified 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.) HUD 
published its notice on proposed FY2006 FMRs on June 2, 2005 (70 FR 
32402), and provided a 60-day public comment period. In the June 2, 
2005, notice, HUD advised that it would publish a separate notice to 
identify any areas that may be newly eligible for 50th percentile FMRs 
as well as any areas that remain eligible or no longer remain eligible 
for 50th percentile FMRs, as provided in HUD's regulations.
    Fiftieth percentile FMRs were establish by a rule published on 
October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58870), that also established the eligibility 
criteria used to select areas that would be assigned 50th rather than 
the normal 40th percentile FMRs. The objective was to give PHAs a tool 
to assist them in de-concentrating voucher program use patterns. The 
preamble to the October 2, 2000, rule noted that a PHA for which 50th 
percentile FMRs were provided could advise HUD that its jurisdiction 
does not require the higher payment standards based on the 50th 
percentile and obtain HUD approval to continue or establish payment 
standards below 90 percent of the 50th percentile. (See 65 FR 58871). 
The three criteria for 50th percentile FMRs are:
    The three FMR area eligibility criteria were:
    1. FMR Area Size: the FMR area had to have at least 100 census 
tracts.
    2. Concentration of Affordable Units: 70 percent or fewer of the 
tracts with at least 10 two-bedroom units had at least 30 percent of 
these units with gross rents at or below the 40th percentile two-
bedroom FMR; and,
    3. Concentration of Participants: 25 percent or more of the tenant-
based rental program participants in the FMR area resided in the 5 
percent of census tracts with the largest number of program 
participants.

The rule also specified that areas assigned 50th percentile FMRs were 
to be re-evaluated after three years, and that the 50th percentile 
rents would be rescinded unless an area has made at least a fraction of 
a percent progress in reducing concentration and otherwise remains 
eligible. (See 24 CFR 888.113.) As noted in the June 2, 2005, notice, 
the three-year period for the first areas determined eligible to 
receive the 50th percentile FMRs, following promulgation of the 
regulation in Sec.  888.113, has come to a close.

[[Page 50139]]

II. 50th Percentile FMR Areas for FY2006

    Based on its assessment, HUD has determined that only 14 of the 48 
areas assigned 50th percentile FMRs in the June 2, 2005, notice shall 
continue to be assigned 50th percentile FMRs. Only these 14 areas met 
the regulatory requirements for continued eligibility. In addition to 
these 14 areas that continue to remain eligible for 50th percentile 
FMRs, HUD identified 10 areas currently assigned 40th percentile FMRs 
that are eligible for 50th percentile FMRs. These 24 areas are as 
follows (note that the acronym MSA refers to metropolitan statistical 
area, and HMFA refers to HUD Metro FMR area as defined in the June 2, 
2005, notice):

Albuquerque, NM MSA.
Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA.
Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA.
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA.
Denver-Aurora, CO MSA.
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA.
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA.
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT HMFA.
Honolulu, HI MSA.
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA.
Kansas City, MO-KS HMFA.
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA.
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA.
New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA.
Orange County, CA HMFA.
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA.
Providence-Fall River, RI-MA HMFA.
Richmond, VA HMFA.
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA.
Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA.
Tacoma, WA HMFA.
Tucson, AZ MSA.
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA.
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD HMFA.
    The following section provides the analysis undertaken by HUD to 
determine 50th percentile eligibility and 50th percentile continued 
eligibility.

III. Procedures for Determining 50th Percentile FMRs

    This section describes the procedure HUD followed in evaluating 
which new and currently designated areas are eligible for 50th 
percentile FMRs under HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 888. 
Additionally, in accordance with HUD's Information Quality Guidelines 
(published at 67 FR 69642), certain FMR areas were deemed ineligible 
for 50th percentile FMRs because the information on concentration of 
voucher program participants needed to make the eligibility 
determination was of inadequate quality as described in this section. 
Table 1 lists the 48 FMR areas that were assigned proposed FY2006 FMRs 
set at the 50th percentile based on new FMR area definitions. Table 1 
includes the 39 areas originally determined eligible for 50th 
percentile FMRs (following the October 2000 final rule that allowed 
50th percentile FMRs) plus subparts of these areas that were separated 
from the original areas in accordance with the new Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) metropolitan area definitions. Those areas marked by 
an asterisk (*) in Table 1 failed to meet one or more eligibility 
criteria as described below, including measurable deconcentration. 
Those areas marked by a plus sign (+) in Table 1 had insufficient 
information, as described below, upon which to determine concentration 
of voucher program participants and are deemed ineligible for 50th 
percentile FMRs. Only 14 of these areas met all of the eligibility 
criteria including information quality requirements and had measurable 
deconcentration.

  Table 1.--Proposed FY2006 50th Percentile FMR Areas Listed in June 2,
                              2005, Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque, NM MSA
*Allegan County, MI
*Ashtabula County, OH
*Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA HMFA
Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA
*Baton Rouge, LA HMFA
*Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA
*Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA
*Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA
+Dallas, TX HMFA
Denver-Aurora, CO MSA
*Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI HMFA
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA
*Holland-Grand Haven, MI MSA
*Hood County, TX
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA
Kansas City, MO-KS HMFA
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA
+Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL MSA
*Minneapolis-St. Paul-
Bloomington, MN-WI MSA
*Mohave County, AZ
*Monroe, MI MSA
*Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI MSA
*+Newark, NJ HMFA
*Nye County, NV
*Oakland-Fremont, CA HMFA
*Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA
*Oklahoma City, OK HMFA
Orange County, CA HMFA
*Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA
*+Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA
*Pottawatomie County, OK
Richmond, VA HMFA
*+Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA
*Salt Lake City, UT HMFA
*San Antonio, TX HMFA
*San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA
*San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HMFA
*St. Louis, MO-IL HMFA
*Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA
*Tulsa, OK HMFA
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA
*Warren County, NJ HMFA
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD HMFA
*Wichita, KS HMFA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following subsections describe HUD's application of the 
eligibility criteria for 50th percentile FMRs, set forth in 24 CFR 
888.113, to the proposed FY2006 50th percentile FMR areas, and explain 
which areas lost eligibility for the 50th percentile FMR based on each 
criterion. The application of HUD's Information Quality Guidelines and 
findings of ineligibility of FMR areas on the basis of inadequate 
information on concentration of participants are described in the 
subsection on the ``concentration of participants'' (Concentration of 
Participants) criterion. The final section identifies 10 additional 
proposed FY2006 FMR areas originally assigned 40th percentile FMRs that 
are eligible, under the regulatory criteria and information quality 
guidelines, for 50th percentile FMRs.

Continued Eligibility: FMR Area Size Criterion

    Application of the modified new OMB metropolitan area definitions 
results in several peripheral counties of FY2005 50th percentile FMR 
areas being separated from their core areas. The separated areas become 
either non-metropolitan counties, parts of different metropolitan 
areas, or form entirely new metropolitan areas. Table 2 shows proposed 
FY2006 FMR areas that are ineligible to receive 50th percentile FMRs 
because, as a result of the new metropolitan area definitions, they 
each have fewer than 100 census tracts and therefore fail to meet the 
FMR area size criterion.

[[Page 50140]]



 Table 2.--Proposed FY2006 50th Percentile FMR Areas With Fewer Than 100
                              Census Tracts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Tracts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegan County, MI...........................................         21
Ashtabula County, OH.........................................         22
Holland-Grand Haven, MI MSA..................................         36
Hood County, TX..............................................          5
Mohave County, AZ............................................         30
Monroe, MI MSA...............................................         39
Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI MSA...............................         45
Nye County, NV...............................................         10
Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA.....................................         93
Pottawatomie County, OK......................................         15
Warren County, NJ HMFA.......................................         23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continued Eligibility: Concentration of Affordable Units

    The original 50th percentile FMR determination in 2000 measured the 
Concentration of Affordable Units criterion with data from the 1990 
Census because 2000 Census data were not available. According to 2000 
Census data, the FMR areas, shown in Table 3, and assigned proposed 
FY2006 50th percentile FMRs have more than 70 percent of their tracts 
containing 10 or more rental units where at least 30 percent of rental 
units rent for the 40th percentile two-bedroom FMR or less. These areas 
therefore fail to meet the Concentration of Affordable Units criterion 
and are not eligible for 50th percentile FMRs (FMR areas that are 
listed above as too small and also fail to meet this criterion are not 
listed here). In Table 3, the percentages following each FMR area name 
are, respectively, the 1990 Census and 2000 Census percent of tracts 
containing 10 or more rental units where at least 30 percent of rental 
units rent for the 40th percentile two-bedroom FMR or less. This number 
must be no greater than 70 percent for an FMR Area to qualify for 50th 
percentile FMRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1990 percent of tracts containing 10 or more rental 
units where at least 30 percent of rental units rent for the 40th 
percentile 2-bedroom FMR or less is the figure computed for the 
original old-definition FMR area that was assigned the 50th 
percentile FMR in 2000. The 2000 figure may differ both because of 
change between the two decennial censuses as well as change in the 
geographic definition of the FMR areas.

  Table 3.--Proposed FY2006 50th Percentile FMR Areas Where Affordable
                       Units Are Not Concentrated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        FMR Area                         1990\1\   2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA HMFA................     69.5    72.8
Baton Rouge, LA HMFA...................................     69.2    80.3
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA..........................     67.7    75.4
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA........................     62.3    70.3
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI HMFA........................     65.7    72.7
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA........................     65.0    73.1
Oakland-Fremont, CA HMFA...............................     67.8    74.4
Oklahoma City, OK HMFA.................................     63.1    71.5
Oxnard-Ventura, CA MSA.................................     68.1    71.8
St. Louis, MO-IL HMFA..................................     69.9    71.1
Salt Lake City, UT HMFA................................     66.3    70.6
San Antonio, TX HMFA...................................     66.0    70.7
San Jose-Santa Clara, CA HMFA..........................     67.5    74.8
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL MSA...........................     63.9    74.1
Tulsa, OK HMFA.........................................     67.5    70.4
Wichita, KS HMFA.......................................     68.4    70.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continued Eligibility: Concentration of Participants

    The Concentration of Participants criterion requires that 25 
percent or more of voucher program participants be located in the five 
percent of census tracts with the highest number of voucher 
participants. Otherwise, an area is not eligible for 50th percentile 
FMRs. The data for evaluating the Concentration of Participants 
criterion comes from HUD's Public Housing Information Center (PIC). All 
public housing authorities (PHAs) that administer Housing Choice 
Voucher (HCV) programs must submit, on a timely basis, family records 
to HUD's PIC as set forth by 24 CFR part 908 and the consolidated 
annual contributions contract (CACC). PIC is the Department's official 
system to track and account for HCV family characteristics, income, 
rent, and other occupancy factors. PHAs must submit their form HUD-
50058 records electronically to HUD for all current HCV families. Under 
HUD Notice PIH 2000-13 (HA), PHAs were required to successfully submit 
a minimum of 85 percent of their resident records to PIC during the 
measurement period covered by this notice (this requirement was raised 
to 95 percent by HUD Notice PIH 2005-17 (HA), but this higher reporting 
rate requirement is not used for purposes of this notice because it 
does not become effective until December 31, 2005, data submissions by 
PHAs).
    Under HUD's Information Quality Guidelines,\2\ the data used to 
determine eligibility for 50th percentile FMRs qualifies as 
``influential'' and is therefore subject to a higher ``level of 
scrutiny and pre-dissemination review'' including ``robustness checks'' 
because ``public access to data and methods will not occur'' due to 
HUD's statutory duty to protect private information.\3\ HUD cannot 
reasonably base the eligibility decision on inadequate data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for FY2001 (Pub.L. 106-554) directed the OMB to 
issue governmentwide guidelines that ``provide policy and procedural 
guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the 
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information 
(including statistical information) disseminated by federal 
agencies.'' Within one year after OMB issued its guidelines, 
agencies were directed to issue their own guidelines that described 
internal mechanisms by which agencies ensure that their information 
meets the standards of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity. 
The mechanism also must allow affected persons to seek and obtain 
correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency 
that does not comply with the guidelines. OMB issued its final 
guidelines on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49718), but requested 
additional comment on one component of the OMB guidelines. The OMB 
guidelines addressing additional public comment were published on 
January 3, 2002 (67 FR 369), and republished on February 22, 2002 
(67 FR 6452). HUD issued its Final Information Quality Guidelines on 
November 18, 2002 (67 FR 69642), which follow public comment on 
proposed guidelines published on May 30, 2002 (67 FR 37851).
    \3\ Note that 13 U.S.C. 9 governs the confidentiality of census 
data. The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552) governs confidentiality of the 
data used to evaluate the Concentration of Participants criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information used to determine which FMR areas are assigned 50th 
percentile FMRs is ``influential'' because it has ``a clear and 
substantial impact,'' namely because it can potentially affect how 
voucher subsidy levels will be set in up to 108 large FMR areas 
containing about 59 percent of voucher tenants, thereby affecting ``a 
broad range of parties.'' PHA voucher payment standards are set 
according to a percentage of the FMR, so the setting of 50th percentile 
FMRs ``has a high probability'' of affecting subsidy levels for tenants 
in the affected FMR areas. An ``important'' public policy is affected 
by the decisions rendered from the information, namely the goal of 
deconcentrating voucher tenants and improving their access to jobs and 
improved quality of life.
    Under HUD's Final Information Quality Guidelines, influential 
information that is developed using data that cannot be released to the 
public under Title XIII or for ``other compelling interests'' is 
subject to ``robustness checks'' to address, among other things, 
``sources of bias or other error'' and ``programmatic and policy

[[Page 50141]]

implications.'' The typical reason for a low overall reporting rate in 
an FMR area is very low reporting rates by the largest PHAs in the FMR 
area (or non-reporting in the case of Moving-to-Work program PHAs that 
are not required to report). Unless it could be shown that 
underreporting is essentially random (which would be difficult and 
impose a major administrative burden on HUD), low reporting rates 
render any results derived from the data inaccurate, unreliable, and 
biased.
    The setting of a reporting rate threshold for consideration of 
eligibility for 50th percentile FMRs is, therefore, justified because 
it constitutes a ``robustness check'' on ``influential information'' as 
defined in HUD's Final Information Quality Guidelines. HUD sets the 
overall FMR area minimum reporting rate standard at 85 percent based on 
the minimum requirements established for PHA reporting rates.
    Of the 21 areas passing the FMR Area Size and Concentration of 
Affordable Units criteria, the five listed below in Table 4 have data 
quality issues in measuring Concentration of Participants in 2005 
because of low reporting by PHAs in the FMR area.

  Table 4.--Proposed FY2006 50th Percentile FMR Areas Meeting FMR Area
     Size and Concentration of Affordable Units Criteria, but Having
   Reporting Rates Below 85 Percent as Derived From the May 31, 2005,
                         Delinquency Report \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas, TX HMFA.................................................    83.2
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL MSA.......................    83.5
Newark, NJ HMFA.................................................    79.9
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA.................    54.0
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA HMFA......................    62.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only area with a proposed FY2006 50th percentile FMR that met 
the first two eligibility criteria, had adequate data to measure 
Concentration of Participants, but failed to meet 25 percent 
concentration criterion, is the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 
MSA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For most PHAs the reporting rate comes directly from the 
Delinquency Report and is the ratio of form 50058 received to 
required units. In some cases, the number of 50058 required units 
was inconsistent with other figures on the number of HCV 
participants served by the PHA and was replaced with either the 
December 2004 leased units (if available) or Annual Contribution 
Contracts (ACC) units. The two significant instances where this 
procedure was used and negatively affected FMR area reporting rates 
in this table because the resulting PHA rates were below 85 percent 
are as follows: Dallas, TX HA (15,975 ACC units, PHA Report Rate 
78.3%) and Philadelphia, PA HA (15,641 leased units, PHA Report Rate 
0.0%).
    \5\ The Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA HUD FMR, in a 
measure based on inadequate data, also had a concentration ratio of 
less than 25 percent but is deemed ineligible based on data quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continued Eligibility: Deconcentration of Participants

    HUD's regulations in 24 CFR 888.113 specify that areas assigned 
50th percentile rents are to be reviewed at the end of three years, and 
that the 50th percentile rents will be rescinded if no progress has 
been made in deconcentrating voucher tenants. FMR Areas that failed 
this test are ineligible for 50th percentile FMRs for the subsequent 
three years. Three FMR areas with proposed FY2006 50th percentile FMRs 
that passed the other 50th percentile eligibility tests failed to 
deconcentrate voucher tenants between 2000 and 2005. They are the 
Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA, the Newark, NJ HMFA, and the Philadelphia-
Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA.
    With the exception of the Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA, however, this 
conclusion is based on poor quality data. The other two areas do not 
have sufficient reporting rates as derived from the May 31, 2005, 
Delinquency Report to measure deconcentration progress. Therefore, the 
Newark, NJ HMFA and the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 
are ineligible for 50th percentile FMRs because neither concentration 
nor deconcentration progress can be measured accurately based on data 
provided by PHA reporting. If reporting in these FMR areas has 
increased sufficiently when future evaluations of deconcentration are 
made, and eligibility can be established with increased reporting 
rates, the 50th percentile FMRs could be reinstated before the end of a 
three-year hiatus.
    Since the Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA has not demonstrated progress in 
deconcentrating voucher participants, and this measurement is made with 
data of adequate quality (85.7 percent reporting rate), the Bergen-
Passaic, NJ HMFA is ineligible for FY2006 50th percentile FMRs. The 
40th percentile Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA FMR is almost identical to the 
revised proposed New York-Bergen-Passaic-Monmouth-Ocean NY-NJ HMFA of 
which the originally proposed Bergen-Passaic, NJ HMFA is a part. So, as 
a result of losing its 50th percentile status, the Bergen-Passaic, NJ 
HMFA is combined into the revised proposed New York-Bergen-Passaic-
Monmouth-Ocean, NY-NJ HMFA and shares the same revised proposed FY2006 
FMRs with the component counties of this area as indicated in Schedule 
B of this notice.
    Table 5 lists the areas, originally assigned 50th percentile FMRs, 
and also assigned proposed FY2006 50th percentile FMRs that meet all 
eligibility criteria, that have shown evidence of participant 
deconcentration, and have sufficient Reporting Rates as derived from 
the May 31, 2005, Delinquency Report to make an accurate assessment of 
participant concentration.

Table 5.--Proposed FY2006 50th Percentile FMR Areas That Should Continue
                        as 50th Percentile Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque, NM MSA
Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL HMFA
Denver-Aurora, CO MSA
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX HMFA
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI HMFA
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX HMFA
Kansas City, MO-KS HMFA
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA
Orange County, CA HMFA
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA
Richmond, VA HMFA
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD HMFA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newly Eligible Areas

    Table 6 lists the FY2006 FMR areas not originally assigned proposed 
50th percentile FMRs that meet the eligibility requirements for 50th 
percentile FMRs and have sufficient Reporting Rates as derived from the 
May 31, 2005, Delinquency Report (more than 85 percent overall for the 
FMR area) to evaluate the Concentration of Participants. There were no 
FY2006 FMR areas originally assigned proposed 40th percentile FMRs that 
otherwise met the eligibility requirements for 50th percentile FMRs, 
but were deemed ineligible by having insufficient Reporting Rates as 
derived from the May 31, 2005, Delinquency Report.

   Table 6.--Proposed FY2006 40th Percentile FMR Areas That Should Be
                      Assigned 50th Percentile FMRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT HMFA
Honolulu, HI MSA
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA
New Haven-Meriden, CT HMFA
Providence-Fall River, RI-MA HMFA
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA
Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL MSA

[[Page 50142]]

 
Tacoma, WA HMFA
Tucson, AZ MSA
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised proposed FY2006 FMRs for the areas affected by this notice 
are listed in Schedule B of the June 2, 2005, notice. Consistent with 
current regulations, PHAs must obtain the approval of their governing 
board to implement use of 50th percentile FMRs or payment standards 
based on those FMRs. Other information pertaining to the proposed 
FY2006 FMRs is unchanged from the June 2, 2005, notice.

    Dated: August 12, 2005.
Roy A. Bernardi,
Deputy Secretary.
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P

[[Page 50143]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU05.060


[[Page 50144]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU05.061


[[Page 50145]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU05.062


[[Page 50146]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU05.063


[[Page 50147]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU05.064


[[Page 50148]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25AU05.065

[FR Doc. 05-16865 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-C