[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63996-64000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26778]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

[No. 2015-N-10]


Notice of Establishment of Housing Price Index

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: On May 27, 2015, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) 
published a Notice and Request for Input (Notice) describing a method 
for assessing the national average single-family house price for use in 
adjusting the maximum conforming loan limits of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac (the ``Enterprises''). The Notice responded to section 1322 of the 
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 
(12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) (``Safety and Soundness Act'') which required 
FHFA to ``establish and maintain a method of assessing the national 
average 1-family house price for use in adjusting the conforming loan 
limitations.'' The Notice indicated that FHFA intends to use its 
existing ``expanded-data'' house price index (HPI) for such purpose and 
invited public feedback.
    In line with the proposal in the original Notice, after reviewing 
the public feedback, FHFA has decided to use the expanded-data HPI for 
annual loan-limit adjustment. Specifically, FHFA will use the 
seasonally adjusted, expanded-data HPI for the United States.

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the expanded-data HPI 
and the implementation of the conforming loan limit rules can be 
addressed to Andrew Leventis, Principal Economist, 202-649-3199, 
[email protected], or Jamie Schwing, Associate General Counsel, 
202-649-3085, [email protected], (not toll-free numbers), Federal 
Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The ``Notice of the Establishment of Housing Price Index'' that 
FHFA issued in May \1\ announced that the agency intended to use its 
expanded-data HPI for the purpose of satisfying section 1322 (12 U.S.C. 
4542) of the Safety and Soundness Act.\2\ Section 1322 requires FHFA to 
``establish and maintain'' a house price index that tracks the average 
U.S. home price. May's Notice detailed FHFA's rationale for the choice 
of the expanded-data index over other measures. The Notice discussed 
the advantages and disadvantages of several metrics and outlined the 
various considerations FHFA found most compelling in choosing the 
index. Identifying the seasonally adjusted, expanded-data HPI for the 
U.S. as the selected index, the Notice invited public input and 
provided for an input period that extended through July 27, 2015. This 
Final Notice summarizes the input submissions received and responds to 
questions and concerns that were raised in the submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 80 FR 30237 (May 27, 2015).
    \2\ Section 1124(d) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 
2008 (HERA), 122 Stat. 2693, amended the Safety and Soundness Act to 
include this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overview of Input Submissions Received

    FHFA received a total of 20 submissions in response to the Notice. 
Submissions were received from private citizens, trade associations, a 
think tank, and one private company. Twelve of the submissions did not 
address the issue on which input had been requested: the 
appropriateness of the chosen home price measure. In most cases, these 
submissions opined on the desirability of having higher conforming loan 
limits, rather than FHFA's choice of index.
    In general, the eight responsive submissions were favorable to 
FHFA's proposed use of its expanded-data index for loan limit 
adjustment. Most submissions supported the basic underlying methodology 
used in the index construction and appreciated the breadth of the data 
sample used in forming the index. More generally, submitters agreed 
that reliance on an agency-produced measure (as opposed to a privately 
produced index) would be beneficial in that it would ensure continued 
publication of the reference index. They also concurred with FHFA's 
belief that its control over the reference index would ensure that 
undesirable modifications to methodology would not be made (as might 
happen if the agency relied on an external measure of home prices).
    Five of the eight responsive submissions were generally supportive 
of the use of the expanded-data index as-is. The remaining three did 
not object to the use of the expanded-data index, but suggested 
modifications to the process or augmentations. In particular, the 
proposed adjustments recommended the use of multiple price indexes and, 
in one case, the consideration of other mortgage market factors.
    For the purpose of summarizing and addressing the responsive 
submissions received, this Final Notice divides them into two groups: 
``Supportive'' and ``Other.'' This classification is for convenience; 
as will be clear in the discussion, responses in both categories were 
not uniform. For instance, in some cases, the ``Supportive'' 
submissions included questions or expressed modest concerns. Meanwhile, 
the ``Other''

[[Page 63997]]

submissions often included strong praise for certain characteristics of 
FHFA's proposal.

C. Discussion of the Five Responsive ``Supportive'' Submissions

1. Summary

    Three of the five ``supportive'' submissions were wholly in 
agreement with the proposed use of the expanded-data index for tracking 
the average U.S. home price. None of the three, which were all 
submitted by trade associations, provided any material criticism. They 
expressed strong support for FHFA's choice and, to varying degrees, the 
principles FHFA used in evaluating measures.
    The remaining two ``supportive'' submissions--one from a trade 
association and one from a private company--provided supplementary 
recommendations. The submissions addressed the following issues.
a. Data Inputs
    Submissions urged FHFA to incorporate as much transaction data as 
possible in the formation of the expanded-data index.
b. Distressed Sales and Gaps between House Price Indexes
    Submissions asked that FHFA track the impact of distressed sales 
\3\ on index estimates over time, while also monitoring divergences 
between the FHFA index and other home price measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Distressed sales'' include short sales and sales of 
properties that have gone through foreclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Transparency and Data Releases
    The submitter recommendation was that FHFA publish additional 
details about the underlying data used for index construction.
d. Constraints on Historical Index Values
    One submission asked FHFA to consider constraining the historical 
index series. That is--the request was that FHFA consider not 
permitting revisions in prior index estimates. Like all of FHFA 
indexes, the expanded-data HPI has historical values that are regularly 
updated to account for new data.
e. Geometric vs. Arithmetic Index
    Without veering from its support of the expanded-data index, one 
submission also noted a theoretical bias in the expanded-data index's 
measurement of trends in average home prices. In particular, the 
submitter stated that the underlying methodology used in forming the 
expanded-data index will create indexes that track the geometric 
average home price as opposed to the arithmetic average home price.\4\ 
In doing so, as a theoretical matter, the index reportedly would grow 
somewhat more slowly over time than would an arithmetic index. The 
letter conceded that the differences will be small over the short term 
(e.g., on an annual bias), but worried about long-term compounding 
effects. The letter noted that the CoreLogic-produced indexes track 
arithmetic average home prices and thus are not susceptible to this 
bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The geometric average of a set of numbers is computed by 
multiplying the numbers together and then raising the product to the 
power of one divided by the number of observations. Although not 
necessarily the case, the geometric average can be close to the 
median value. The arithmetic average is formed by adding numbers 
together and dividing by the number of observations.
     Although the ``arithmetic'' average is probably the most common 
interpretation of the term ``average,'' it is not the only 
recognized meaning of the term, and the statutory text does not make 
explicit which type of ``average'' the index is supposed to track. 
Which type of average to use is thus left to the judgment of FHFA, 
as the agency charged with administering and interpreting the 
statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FHFA Response

a. Data Inputs
    With respect to the submitter interest in having FHFA increase the 
amount of data used in calibrating the expanded-data index: FHFA agrees 
that this is a desirable goal. In the context of tracking overall home 
values across the country, more data will tend to provide more precise 
estimates of price changes. While the database currently used is 
extensive and incorporates a wide array of transaction data, FHFA will 
continue exploring opportunities for increasing the sample size.\5\ As 
stated in the Notice, to the extent that new data become available and 
are incorporated, FHFA will communicate the effects of those changes to 
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For instance, opportunities may exist for supplementing the 
existing data sample with sales data from Multiple Listing Services 
and electronic appraisal data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Distressed Sales and Gaps between House Price Indexes
    With respect to monitoring of distressed sales and divergences 
between the FHFA index and other metrics: FHFA concurs that these are 
reasonable activities. FHFA, in fact, has been doing this type of 
monitoring for many years and has published a number of papers showing 
the results of its work.\6\ Also, FHFA publishes ``distress-free'' 
house price indexes for twelve large cities so that it and the general 
public can review the localized impact of distressed sales on price 
measurement. FHFA plans to continue such releases and, more generally, 
will continue evaluating price movements across multiple measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for instance, Andrew Leventis, ``Revisiting the 
Differences between the OFHEO and S&P/Case-Shiller Housing Price 
Indexes: New Explanations'' OFHEO Research Paper, January 2008, 
available at http://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProgramsResearch/Research/PaperDocuments/20080115_RP_RevisitingDifferencesOFHEOSPCaseShillerHPI_N508.pdf; 
Andrew Leventis, ``The Impact of Distressed Sales on Repeat-
Transactions House Price Indexes,'' FHFA Research Paper, May 27, 
2009, available at http://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProgramsResearch/Research/PaperDocuments/20090527_RP_ImpactDistressedSalesHPI_RP_508.pdf; and Will Doerner 
and Andrew Leventis, ``Working Paper 13-1: Distressed Sales and the 
FHFA House Price Index,'' FHFA Working Paper, August 2013, available 
at http://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProgramsResearch/Research/PaperDocuments/2013-08_WorkingPaper_13-1_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Transparency and Data Releases
    A longstanding tradition in HPI production has been to communicate 
relevant summary data about the data sample to the public. Accordingly, 
FHFA appreciates the submitter interest in maximizing the transparency 
of the data used in index calibration. FHFA regularly publishes 
information about the share of the overall data sample comprising 
refinance loans and, for the expanded-data index, identifies index 
estimates that have been calibrated with limited county recorder 
data.\7\ For the purchase-only indexes, flags identify states having 
small sample sizes. Highlights articles and Technical Notes in the past 
have provided information about the data samples as well. Aside from 
the FHFA-provided data, relevant information is also available from the 
Enterprises. Because few data filters are applied to the data sample 
before the indexes are estimated, index users seeking information about 
the Enterprise portion of the expanded-data transactions can benefit 
from reviewing loan-level summary statistics regularly published by the 
Enterprises.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the downloadable expanded-data HPI estimates and the 
``loan type'' table at http://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-Index-Datasets.aspx.
    \8\ See, for instance, Fannie Mae's quarterly ``Credit 
Supplement'' and Freddie Mac's quarterly ``Financial Results 
Supplement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a great deal of information is already available, FHFA 
will continue evaluating opportunities for enhancing its release of 
summary data. In reviewing those opportunities, FHFA will weigh the 
likely value of the additional detail against the required resource 
demands. It must also consider whether the release of more data would 
violate the terms of any applicable data

[[Page 63998]]

licenses or would inappropriately release confidential data.
d. Constraints on Historical Index Values
    The suggestion that FHFA should contemplate constraining historical 
values of the expanded-data HPI is motivated by a concern that 
historical index revisions might cause confusion among some index 
users. The submitter recognizes that the entire historical index series 
is revised with each new index release, but it expresses concern that 
such revisions will make it difficult for the public to evaluate price 
changes.
    Although FHFA understands the argument, it does not believe that 
artificial constraints on historical values are warranted. The 
suggestion, which was not a matter of particular stress in the 
submitter's letter, would entail a significant departure from the basic 
repeat-transactions indexing model and would require a significant re-
tooling of the programming code. Furthermore, historical index 
revisions tend to be relatively small, particularly over short periods 
of time. The index constraints would also necessarily reduce the 
accuracy of the index estimates. Finally, many--if not most--users of 
FHFA's suite of public indexes are already accustomed to the fact that 
historical index values are always subject to revision.
e. Geometric vs. Arithmetic Index
    Regarding the theoretical biases associated with FHFA's use of an 
index that tracks the geometric average home value: FHFA appreciates 
the feedback and understands the issue. As a geometric index, FHFA's 
expanded-data measure will tend to correlate somewhat more closely with 
changes in median home values as opposed to arithmetic-average home 
values and, in theory, will grow slightly more slowly than an 
arithmetic-based price index would. Recognizing the theoretical issue, 
FHFA notes that growth rate differences will likely be small and 
increases in a geometric index in practice can actually exceed 
increases for an arithmetic measure.\9\ A conversion to an arithmetic-
average index would also inconvenience those index users who find the 
existing FHFA methodology superior for their applications. Coupled with 
the fact that a conversion to an arithmetic-average index would require 
a significant expenditure of internal resources (to change programming 
code and perform model validation), these considerations lead FHFA to 
believe that continuing with the existing methodology is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See page 118 of Robert Shiller, ``Arithmetic Repeat Sales 
Price Estimators'' Journal of Housing Economics 1, 1991, pages 110-
126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Discussion of the Three Responsive ``Other'' Submissions

1. Summary

    As mentioned above, the three ``other'' responsive submissions 
suggested various modifications to the proposal described in the 
initial Notice. None of them expressed outright disapproval of the use 
of the expanded-data HPI and, indeed, incorporated it into their 
proposals. Submitters felt that adjustments were necessary to address 
perceived shortfalls, however.
    The first of the ``other'' submissions expressed support for the 
use of the expanded-data index, but worried that the index does not 
adequately reflect price trends for new homes. It noted that the 
underlying repeat-transactions approach used in forming the index is 
calibrated using homes that have had two or more historical sales. The 
upshot of reliance on homes with multiple transactions is that price 
trends for brand new homes will not be incorporated into the index.
    To mitigate the perceived problem, the submitter suggested that 
FHFA form a weighted index that incorporates the expanded-data measure 
as well as the price index for new homes published by the Census 
Bureau--the Constant Quality House Price Index (CQHPI). The change in 
the new combined index would be calculated as the weighted average of 
the changes in the FHFA expanded-data HPI and the change in the CQHPI, 
where the weights would be the relative shares of existing-vs-new home 
sales. So, for instance, if 15 percent of all property sales in a year 
were sales of new homes, then the growth in the combined index would be 
85 percent times the change in the expanded-data index plus 15 percent 
times the change in the CQHPI.
    The second of the ``other'' submissions expressed no concerns about 
the absence of new homes in the data sample, but rather was troubled by 
the potential effects of distressed sales on index estimates. The 
submitter was concerned that variations in the volumes of distressed 
sales across geographic areas could inappropriately bias index 
estimates. To mitigate this problem, the letter recommended that FHFA 
use both the expanded-data index and its traditional ``purchase-only'' 
index, which is calibrated using only Enterprise data. Specifically, it 
suggests that FHFA use the higher of the two appreciation rates--the 
rates reflected in expanded-data and purchase-only indexes--when 
adjusting the conforming loan limit. No indication is provided as to 
why a ``higher-of'' rule is better than some other type of rule (e.g., 
a simple averaging of the two numbers).
    The same submitter asked that FHFA ``explain and justify'' its use 
of indexes that reflect changes in the geometric average home price. 
While endorsing the use of the expanded-data and purchase-only indexes, 
both of which rely on the geometric approach, the letter broadly 
worries about the same bias as was addressed earlier.
    The third of the ``other'' submissions did not address the issue of 
the geometric index bias, but was otherwise similar in that it 
suggested the same ``higher-of'' rule for estimating price changes. It 
contends that a ``superior alternative'' to the use of the expanded-
data index would be for FHFA to adjust the loan limits by the higher of 
the annual appreciation rates observed in the expanded-data and 
purchase-only index. FHFA has had difficulty following the 
justification set forth in the letter, but the rationale appears to 
rest on the assumption that, because of tightened credit availability, 
homes outside of the conforming market (e.g., expensive homes) will 
evidence relatively anemic price growth in the early stages of economic 
recoveries. By including homes financed with non-Enterprise loans, the 
expanded-data HPI reportedly will tend to exhibit lackluster price 
growth during recoveries.\10\ The ``higher-of'' rule would ensure that 
the conforming loan limit grows by a reasonable rate during recoveries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The submitter showed that the expanded-data HPI grew more 
slowly than the purchase-only series in the latest recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same submitter presented the idea that a ``more sophisticated'' 
approach to loan limit adjustment might be taken. The alternative 
approach would take into account market factors beyond home prices when 
adjusting loan limits. Measures of loan ``access,'' for instance, might 
be incorporated. The letter also suggests that in lieu of this ``more 
sophisticated'' measure, FHFA might simply use its purchase-only 
index--either in its existing form or in a value-weighted form.\11\ As 
justification for the use of the purchase-only index, the letter simply 
indicates that ``it grows faster during market's expansion through the 
housing cycle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The value-weighted index would track the arithmetic average 
home price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FHFA Response

    None of the three ``other'' submissions expressed particularly 
strong sentiment against the use expanded-data HPI and, in evaluating 
the rationale for the

[[Page 63999]]

proposed modifications, FHFA does not find the arguments to be 
particularly persuasive. In general, the suggested adjustments have 
limited support from both a statutory and statistical perspective.
a. Price Trends for New Homes
    In assessing the criticism that FHFA's index--like other repeat-
transactions indexes--does not specifically incorporate information 
about price trends for brand new homes, FHFA agrees that this may be a 
theoretical shortfall. However, FHFA does not believe that this will be 
a particularly significant problem in practice. First, while not 
capturing price trends for brand new home sales, the repeat-transaction 
model will reflect price changes for relatively new homes. This is 
because the underlying calibration dataset includes cases in which new 
homes were sold and then sold again within a relatively short period of 
time. The price change for these ``young'' homes will presumably be 
quite similar to price trends for brand new homes.
    In weighting by the share of sales for new homes, the submitter's 
proposal assumes that the index of interest should reflect price trends 
for homes that have recently sold. FHFA does not agree that this is 
appropriate in this context. FHFA's expanded-data index, like its other 
indexes, aims to track average home prices for all U.S. properties--the 
overall housing stock--and not just values for homes that were sold. To 
implement the right weighting, FHFA forms the national index by taking 
a housing-stock-weighted average of outcomes in the respective states.
    To be sure, price changes in the individual states necessarily must 
be calculated using recent transaction prices. However, as evidenced by 
the fact that FHFA uses housing stock estimates when forming the 
national index, FHFA's goal is to reflect price trends for the overall 
housing stock.
    Given this goal, the relevant statistic for evaluating the 
importance of new homes is the share of the housing stock that such 
homes comprise. New homes represent a very small proportion of the 
overall housing stock and thus the submitter's concern about the 
exclusion of new homes is not particularly problematic. Although new 
home sales constitute a reasonable share of transactions in a given 
year (according to the submitted letter, they have averaged about 17 
percent of sales over the past 15 years), new homes are a very small 
proportion of the housing stock. In 2014, for instance, about 620,000 
one-unit new homes were built.\12\ For comparison purposes, estimates 
from the Census Bureau indicate that there were more than 89 million 
one-unit properties in the country in the preceding year.\13\ New homes 
thus were substantially less than one percent of the housing stock in 
2014. A stock-weighted combined index thus would place more than 99 
percent of its weight on the price change reported by the expanded-data 
index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See new private new home ``completions'' in Table 5 of the 
New Residential Construction report (available at http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf).
    \13\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_13_1YR_B25024&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Distressed Sales and Housing Cycles
    With respect to the argument that distressed sales can distort home 
price measurements: As detailed in the Notice and noted by another 
submitter, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with the 
inclusion of such sales in the data sample. Such transactions can 
provide valuable information about price trends in cases where non-
distressed sales volumes are modest, for instance. Also, even if 
removing distressed sales was deemed to be desirable after balancing 
the various considerations, given current available data sources, it is 
difficult to clearly identify such sales and remove them from the data 
sample.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FHFA currently publishes distress-free measures for 12 
metropolitan areas, but such measures make use of a special, third-
party-sourced dataset to identify distressed transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission that raises concerns about the expanded-data index 
showing relatively limited price growth during market recoveries 
provides no evidence that the (anticipated) slow growth would 
misrepresent actual appreciation in the market. Tracking of home prices 
is the key statutory requirement and, accordingly, the relevant issue 
for FHFA is not whether certain market factors may influence lending 
and home prices during market cycles; rather, the key issue for FHFA is 
the reliability and accuracy of price measurement. The plain language 
of the statute does not ask FHFA to evaluate market conditions (as the 
submitter would have done using a ``more sophisticated measure'') or to 
somehow account for likely market factors when selecting the 
appropriate index. It also does not ask FHFA to select an index that 
maximizes measured price appreciation during certain parts of the 
housing cycle.
    Given the basic goal of tracking the average home value over time, 
the ``higher-of '' rule suggested by submitters is not well aligned 
with the statutory language. By construction, the higher-of rule will 
clearly inflate estimates of home price appreciation (and minimize 
measured price declines) and thus would tend to lead to artificial 
growth in conforming loan limits.
    One of the two submitters that advances the ``higher-of '' rule 
does so to mitigate the effect of distressed sales on index estimates. 
Even assuming that the inclusion of distressed sales is problematic--an 
issue addressed above--it is not clear why the maximum of the two price 
change estimates would be superior over the long term to use of the 
midpoint (or some other function of the two). Also, although there may 
be some differences, the two indexes generally will be affected 
similarly by changes in the volumes of distressed sales.

E. Conclusion

    While not unanimous, the submissions received in response to the 
Notice were, on balance, quite positive. All submitters seemed to agree 
that an FHFA-produced measure was appropriate. The only matter of some 
(limited) debate seemed to be whether small adjustments were necessary. 
In some cases, the contemplated adjustments would have a limited 
influence on index estimates. In other cases, FHFA believes that the 
adjustments are not supported by the statutory language.
    FHFA will begin using the seasonally adjusted, expanded-data HPI 
for the U.S. for the purpose of adjusting the baseline conforming loan 
limit.\15\ Consistent with the usual timing of loan-limit releases, the 
first use of the index will be in late November of this year when FHFA 
announces the 2016 Enterprise loan limits. As in prior years, FHFA will 
publish actual loan limits as well as detailed information about the 
relevant calculations. Given that the expanded-data index is now the 
reference index, the relevant discussion will include an evaluation of 
changes in the expanded-data index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As discussed in the prior Notice, because index values will 
be compared for the same quarter over time, only the most trivial 
difference will exist between the selected seasonally adjusted index 
and an unadjusted index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed at length in the Notice, certain loan-limit provisions 
in the Enterprise Charters require that, after a period of home price 
declines, the baseline loan limit cannot rise again until home prices 
exceed their pre-decline levels.\16\ In accordance with this

[[Page 64000]]

requirement and as discussed in the prior Notice, when determining the 
2016 baseline conforming loan limit this November, the third quarter 
2015 price level will be compared to the price level in the third-
quarter of 2007--the base period for the recent price decline. As the 
expanded-data HPI has now been selected as the reference index, market 
participants can expect that the net price change (positive or 
negative) will be computed over that interval using the expanded-data 
HPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section 302(b)(2) (12 U.S.C. 17179b)(2)) of the Fannie 
Mae Charter and Section 305(a)(2) (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)) of the 
Freddie Charter. These sections were amended by HERA sections 
1124(a) and (b), 122 Stat. 2691-2692.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Melvin L. Watt,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-26778 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P