[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21301-21304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07741]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-6553-N-02]
Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program,
Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program, and Other
Programs Fiscal Year 2026; Revised
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and
Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of revised fiscal year (FY) 2026 Fair Market Rents
(FMRs) and response to comments on FY 2026 FMRs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice updates the FY 2026 FMRs for seven areas based on
new survey data. Further, HUD responds to comments received on the FY
2026 FMRs.
DATES: The revised FY 2026 FMRs are effective on May 21, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Bibler, telephone 202-402-6057.
Questions related to use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be
directed to the respective local HUD program staff. 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 (toll-
free), email the Program Parameters and Research Division at
[email protected], or access the information on the HUD USER website: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html. HUD welcomes and is prepared
to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as
well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn
more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 2025, HUD published in the
Federal Register the FY 2026 FMRs, requested comments on the FY 2026
FMRs, and outlined procedures for requesting a reevaluation of an
area's FY 2026 FMRs (90 FR 41096). A corrected notice that extended the
comment period was issued on September 19, 2025 (90 FR 45240). This
notice revises the FY 2026 FMRs for seven areas based on data provided
to HUD.
I. Revised FY 2026 FMRs
The updated FY 2026 FMRs appear in the following table. The FMRs
are based on surveys conducted by the area public housing agencies
(PHAs) and reflect the estimated 40th percentile rent levels trended to
FY 2026.
The FMRs for the affected areas are revised as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 Fair Market Rent area 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area........ $2,079 $2,328 $2,903 $3,681 $4,098
Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).................. 2,286 2,526 3,315 4,222 4,942
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA MSA........................... 1,842 2,036 2,671 3,584 4,105
Asheville, NC HUD Metro FMR Area.............................. 1,436 1,674 1,835 2,231 3,078
Transylvania County, NC....................................... 1,032 1,039 1,363 1,634 2,048
Albany, OR MSA................................................ 1,169 1,396 1,695 2,294 2,662
Corvallis, OR MSA............................................. 1,350 1,451 1,824 2,537 2,862
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD has published these revised FMR values on the HUD USER website
at: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html. In addition, HUD
has updated the FY 2026 Small Area FMRs (SAFMRs) with revised FMRs,
which can be found at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html. HUD has also updated the 50th percentile rents
for all affected FMR areas, which are published at http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/50per.html.
II. Public Comments on FY 2026 FMRs
This summary of comments addresses the most significant concerns
raised by the commenters. The public comment period was extended to
October 1, 2025, by the corrected September 19, 2025, notice and closed
on that date. HUD received 21 distinct comments relating to the notice.
The comments were from PHAs, community development agencies, and
private citizens. Of the 21 comments received, 13 were reevaluation
requests for 15 FMR areas. The comments and their responses are
discussed below.
Concerns About the Accuracy of FMRs
Comment: One commenter noted the significant and persistent gaps
between proposed FMRs and actual market rents. The commenter stated
that such gaps can reduce voucher success rates and result in more
limited housing choices and geographic concentration of voucher
holders. The commenter also stated that even with the incorporation of
private data, the built-in lag associated with American Community
Survey (ACS) data cannot capture recent market shifts. The commenter
noted that areas ``experiencing rapid rent
[[Page 21302]]
appreciation . . .'' would be ``perpetually behind the curve.'' The
commenter believes that the reevaluation process is an inefficient
mechanism to correct the lag that places undue burden on individual
PHAs. The commenter said that the problem could be better addressed by
HUD monitoring rents proactively using private data sources. In
particular, the commenter believed that HUD should update FMRs in high-
volatility markets semi-annually or quarterly.
HUD response: There is no other data on gross rents paid that is
consistently collected on a nationwide basis, available to HUD, that is
more current than the data we receive through the ACS. The Federal
Government invests a substantial amount of resources in collecting
socio-economic data through the ACS, which has statutory advantages in
compelling responses to the ACS, generating significantly higher
response rates than other survey programs. Proprietary rent data cannot
be used as the sole basis for the FMR calculations because it is not
consistently available for all areas and is not collected in such a way
that it is statistically representative of the rental markets it
covers. For example, some of these sources focus on rents for major
apartment projects only. Additionally, commercial sources of rent data
do not provide an estimate of the 40th percentile rent paid by recent
movers, as required by HUD's current regulations.
HUD acknowledges the many hardships that low-income households
face, as well as the challenges faced by PHAs and other partners in
working with HUD to accomplish its mission. Having an accurate FMR is
often critical to helping address these challenges, and HUD is
committed to continuously evaluating its FMR calculation methodology,
including considering the implications for areas with rapidly rising
rents. HUD will evaluate the programmatic need for more frequent
updates of FMRs alongside the available resources for calculating and
issuing them.
Comment: One commenter questioned the increasingly small difference
between the three-bedroom and four-bedroom FMRs for Bloomington, IL
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in recent years. The commenter
wondered if there might be an error either in the methodology or the
calculations.
HUD response: The differences cited by the commenter are the
intentional results of the methodology, as applied to Bloomington, IL
MSA. HUD sets FMRs for units of different sizes using ``bedroom
ratios'', which are calculated using long-term averages of the
relationship between rents for 2-bedroom units and other sizes in the
American Community Survey. The specific data and calculation steps used
for the Bloomington, IN MSA are available here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2026_code/2026bdrm_rent.odn?year=2026&cbsasub=METRO14010M14010&br_size=3.
Comment: One commenter suggested that HUD work with the Department
of Commerce to include more American ACS funding in the next proposed
President's Budget, thereby improving the accuracy of FMR estimates.
HUD response: HUD advises the Census Bureau on its use of the ACS,
including through HUD's annual procurement of special data tabulations
and the interagency council on statistical policy. As previously
stated, HUD also assesses the accuracy of its FMR calculations and
apprises the Census Bureau of the results of these assessments where
relevant to the Bureau.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the FMR levels in
Puerto Rico, particularly the metropolitan San Juan, are too low. The
commenter thought this could possibly be due to the inclusion of
substandard housing in the data.
HUD response: HUD procures special tabulations of Puerto Rico
Community Survey data from the Census Bureau in part to enable the
exclusion of units not meeting indicators of ``standard quality''
rental housing (those with cash rent; those sited on 10 acres or less;
with full plumbing; with a complete kitchen; and meals not included in
rent). This should minimize the extent to which substandard housing is
included in the FMR data. Additionally, HUD determines a ``public
housing cutoff rent'' to eliminate the bottom end of the distribution
of rental units from the ACS before the 40th percentile rent is
calculated as a proxy to remove units with low rents that are likely in
nonmarket transactions (e.g., rented from relatives), subsidized (ACS
does not ask whether households receive rental subsidies), or are
otherwise inadequate in some manner not measured by the ACS. HUD
reminds PHAs that they may request exception payment standards or use
Small Area FMRs in circumstances where the FMR is too low.
Additionally, a PHA may request a reevaluation and conduct a survey per
HUD's guidelines. Such a survey could also investigate the prevalence
of substandard units.
Concerns Regarding the FMR Reevaluation Process
Comment: One commenter questioned the equitability of PHAs being
required to bear the full burden of independent surveys to support an
FMR reevaluation, especially when HUD already has access to the same
private rental data sources that would support these reevaluations. The
commenter noted that the cost of the surveys comes at the expense of
voucher holders and other core PHA functions. The commenter suggested
several ways that HUD could minimize the burden and assist PHAs with
the reevaluation process, including establishing a grant program to
fund PHA reevaluations, providing additional clarity to the
reevaluation process, accepting private data sources where appropriate
rather than requiring entirely new studies, providing technical
assistance to PHAs, and proactively identifying areas that may require
reevaluations.
HUD response: HUD is committed to working with PHAs who are
interested in conducting local rental market surveys. Surveys and data
collection are often inherently expensive, and their costs are beyond
HUD's control. In addition, HUD's ability to provide funds to PHAs for
local rental market surveys is dependent on the availability of funds
and their authorized uses specified in annual appropriations statutes.
HUD reminds PHAs that paying for local area rent surveys is an
eligible expense to be paid from ongoing HCV administrative fees or
their HCV administrative fee reserve account. In general, the cost of
the survey increases with the size of the FMR area and the size of the
rental market. However, as noted earlier, HUD's existing private data
sources cannot be used as the sole basis for the FMR calculations.
Among other concerns, they are not consistently available for all areas
and are not collected in such a way that the results are statistically
representative of the rental markets they cover.
Additionally, public housing agencies have latitude in setting
actual payment standards for use in the voucher program. Payment
standards may range from 90 to 110 percent of the applicable FMR as
part of normal program operations. Regulations also allow for the
designation of exception payment standard areas in which payment
standards may exceed 110 percent of the applicable FMR. They also allow
for the voluntary use of Small Area FMRs for PHAs that are not
operating in a mandatory SAFMR area. These flexibilities provide
additional ways of mitigating any uncertainty or
[[Page 21303]]
inaccuracies inherent in the FMR calculation process that are less
burdensome than a market survey.
Concerns About FMRs and Renewal Funding Inflation Factors
Comment: One commenter noted the relationship between Renewal
Funding Inflation Factors (RFIFs) and FMRs, making several suggestions
as to how they might be improved. The commenter suggested that HUD
start issuing preliminary Federal Register notices for each
calculation, thereby allowing comments from PHAs with valuable market-
specific information to be incorporated into the final calculations.
Additionally, the commenter made several RFIF-specific suggestions,
including: (1) calculating RFIFs earlier to allow PHAs adequate budget
and management time, (2) increasing the RFIF weighting in favor of FMR
changes relative to the CPI, (3) conducting regular validation of RFIF
projections relative to actual HAP expenditure growth, and (4)
establishing ``clearer guidelines and more accessible processes'' for
RFIF reevaluations.
HUD response: HUD issues RFIFs and determines the RFIF methodology
through a separate notice. The authority to issue renewal funding for
the voucher program is provided in HUD's annual appropriations acts,
the timing of which HUD does not control. As is the case for FMRs, HUD
is committed to evaluating both the accuracy of RFIFs and the extent to
which their current calculation, dissemination, and use allows HUD to
meet its mission.
Mandatory SAFMRs
Comment: One commenter suggested that mandatory SAFMRs be
eliminated and that HUD instead restore PHA discretion as to whether
SAFMRs or area-wide FMRs are used. The commenter argued that PHAs
better understand the specific markets and that SAFMRs may not
necessarily be effective, given factors such as tight competition in
tight rental markets, lack of landlord participation, and family
preferences and constraints. The commenter also suggested that HUD
provide clear guidance and technical assistance, as well as ``adequate
administrative fee funding to cover the additional costs of
implementation'' for PHAs using SAFMRs. Additionally, the commenter
suggested that HUD review the efficacy of SAFMRs beyond merely mobility
outcomes. The commenter also said that, should HUD continue to use
mandatory SAFMRs, they ought to determine mandatory areas using
criteria designed to determine their likely efficacy (such as areas
with rent variation and landlord participation across neighborhoods),
rather than the criteria used now, which is designed to identify areas
where poverty has become concentrated and SAFMRs could help address
that concentration.
HUD response: The mandatory use of SAFMRs is currently determined
pursuant to HUD regulation and is beyond the scope of the annual
calculation of the FMRs themselves. HUD will continue to evaluate
whether or not the existing Small Area FMR regulations are supporting
HUD's mission. HUD will also continue to explore Small Area FMR-
specific methodology changes in order to increase their accuracy. HUD
reminds PHAs operating under Small Area FMRs that they may group ZIP
Codes into one payment standard area as long as the payment standard
remains within 90 to 110 percent of the applicable Small Area FMR.
Additionally, the regulations regarding exception payment standards
apply to mandatory Small FMRs as well.
Calculation Transparency
Comment: One commenter suggested that HUD should publish the number
of times an area's data failed statistical reliability checks to
provide PHAs with a measure of how accurate the final estimate might be
when deciding whether to submit a reevaluation request.
Another commenter suggested that HUD be completely transparent
about the FMR and RFIF calculations, including data sources, for each
area.
HUD response: HUD does explicitly publish the information on when
an area fails a statistical validity check and the results for the FMR
calculation for each area on HUD User (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html). HUD strives to improve our transparency, for
example, making detailed FMR and SAFMR methodology documents available
to the public on HUD User for FY 2026. HUD will evaluate what if any
steps can improve the transparency of RFIF calculation, noting that the
FMR is a main component of RFIF calculation. Therefore, HUD's attempts
at FMR transparency support RFIF transparency as well.
Geographic Changes in Connecticut
Comment: One commenter recommended that HUD allow PHAs in
Connecticut to choose whether they want to use the older or the newer
geographical definition as the basis for their FMRs. The commenter
believed that this would prevent budgetary impacts where the new
geography results in a lower FMR than the older geography. A second
commenter objected to the geographical changes in Connecticut as well,
citing specific declines to higher FMR areas that resulted from the
inclusion of lower FMR areas, as well as the notable increases in the
historically lower FMR areas.
HUD response: As described in the FY 2026 FMR notice, HUD was not
able to maintain the prior area definitions in Connecticut following
the incorporation of the new planning regions into the definitions of
metropolitan statistical areas. In implementing these changes, HUD
continued the regulatory requirement that no area's FMR may decrease by
more than 10 percent in a single year in order to minimize disruption
to program operations. In cases where the new geographic definitions
cause the town-specific FMR to differ widely from local rents, PHAs may
pursue exception payment standards or use Small Area FMRs.
Additionally, HUD reminds PHAs that they are not required to reduce the
payment standard for in-place tenants in response to declining FMRs.
Finally, there should not be major implications for the calculation of
renewal funding as a result of these changes, as the RFIF calculation
is done at an FMR area-wide level.
Comment Period Extension
Comment: One commenter requested an extension of the comment period
based on decisions made by the National Archives and Records
Administration that they state prevented them from submitting their
comments by the deadline.
HUD response: HUD has no control over the National Archives and
Records Administration. HUD provided the full comment window for FY
2026 FMRs and will accept comment on future publications of FMRs as
well as any methodological changes to their calculation.
Alternative Utility Inflation Factor
Comment: One commenter indicated support for HUD's proposed
alternative utility inflation factor. The commenter appreciated the
opportunity to see how FMRs calculated using the two utility inflation
factors would compare.
HUD response: HUD thanks the commenter for their support for this
alternative approach.
Exemption Request
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption from the Secretary
for the FMR requirements. While it is not entirely clear which programs
the commenter would like an exception for,
[[Page 21304]]
their reference to ``the Quality Housing Act and the Home Investment
Partnership'' would imply that the request is for the HOME Investment
Partnership Program and perhaps for the Section 8 program as well.
HUD response: Requirements for FMR use in various programs are
determined by statute and regulation, with additional policies as
determined by the relevant program office. For information on
exemptions, stakeholders should consult directly with the relevant
program office.
Concerns About Payment Standards
Comment: One commenter said that the Orange County Housing
Authority is setting payment standards too low and believes that HUD
should require SAFMRs for the affected area.
HUD response: Metropolitan areas whose PHAs are subject to the
mandatory use of SAFMRs are determined using criteria laid out in a
Federal Register notice (81 FR 80678) that accompanied the SAFMR Final
Rule (81 FR 80567). The criteria include: (1) total vouchers >= 2,500,
(2) at least 20 percent of the standard quality rental stock within the
area is in ZIP Codes where the SAFMR is more than 110 percent of the
metropolitan FMR, (3) the percentage of voucher families living in
concentrated low-income areas relative to all renters within the area
must be at least 25 percent, (4) the percentage of voucher holders
living in concentrated low-income areas relative to all renters within
these areas over the entire metropolitan area exceeds 155 percent, and
(5) the vacancy rate for the metropolitan area is higher than 4
percent. HUD evaluates new data every five years as it becomes
available and makes additional SAFMR area designations as appropriate.
The most recent evaluation was conducted in 2023. In the meantime,
concerns about payment standards can be raised with the PHA and local
HUD office.
Requests for Reevaluations
Comment: Commenters submitted valid requests for reevaluation for
11 FMR areas. There were also 4 requests that did not meet HUD
requirements. Commenters requesting or supporting a reevaluation for
the FY 2026 FMRs stated that the proposed FMRs were not an accurate
representation of their area's rental market. Many commenters stated
that they would undertake a local rent survey as part of their request
for reevaluation.
HUD response: HUD published the list of areas requesting
reevaluation on the HUD User website on November 18, 2025, and the list
of areas without a submission of rental market data on January 14,
2026. This notice provides the revised FMRs for areas that submitted
survey data and concludes the FY 2026 FMR reevaluation process.
III. Environmental Impact
This notice involves the establishment of FMR 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).
Todd Richardson,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
[FR Doc. 2026-07741 Filed 4-20-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P