United States

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form N-CSR

Certified Shareholder Report of Registered Management Investment Companies

811-21235

(Investment Company Act File Number)

Federated Premier Municipal Income Fund

_______________________________________________________________

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

Federated Investors Funds

4000 Ericsson Drive

Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15086-7561

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Peter J. Germain, Esquire

Federated Investors Tower

1001 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-3779

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

(412) 288-1900

(Registrant's Telephone Number)

Date of Fiscal Year End: 11/30/2017

Date of Reporting Period: 11/30/2017

Annual Shareholder Report

November 30, 2017

---

Federated Premier Municipal Income Fund

Fund Established 2002

---

---

Not FDIC Insured ■ May Lose Value ■ No Bank Guarantee

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

TO THE BOARD OF Trustees AND SHAREHOLDERS OF Federated premier municipal income fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of Federated Premier Municipal Income Fund (the “Fund”), including the portfolio of investments, as of November 30, 2017, and the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund's internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30, 2017, by correspondence with the custodian and others or by other appropriate auditing procedures where replies from others were not received. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Federated Premier Municipal Income Fund, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Boston, Massachusetts
January 24, 2018

Annual Shareholder Report

35

Closed-end funds are not bank deposits or obligations, are not guaranteed by any bank and are not insured or guaranteed by the U.S. government, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board or any other government agency. Investment in closed-end funds involves investment risk, including the possible loss of principal.

This Overview and Report is for shareholder information. This is not a Prospectus intended for use in the sale of Fund Shares. Statements and other information contained in this Overview and Report are as dated and subject to change.

    

Federated Premier Municipal Income Fund

Federated Investors Funds
4000 Ericsson Drive
Warrendale, PA 15086-7561

Contact us at FederatedInvestors.com
or call 1-800-341-7400.

CUSIP 31423P108
CUSIP 31423P207
CUSIP 31423P405

29861 (1/18)

Federated is a registered trademark of Federated Investors, Inc.
2018 ©Federated Investors, Inc.

(a) As of the end of the period covered by this report, the registrant has adopted a code of ethics (the "Section 406 Standards for Investment Companies - Ethical Standards for Principal Executive and Financial Officers") that applies to the registrant's Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer; the registrant's Principal Financial Officer also serves as the Principal Accounting Officer.

(c),(d) There were no amendments to or waivers from the Section 406 Standards for Investment Companies – Ethical Standards for Principal Executive and Financial Officers during the period covered by this report.

(f)(3) The registrant hereby undertakes to provide any person, without charge, upon request, a copy of the code of ethics. To request a copy of the code of ethics, contact the registrant at 1-800-341-7400, and ask for a copy of the Section 406 Standards for Investment Companies - Ethical Standards for Principal Executive and Financial Officers.

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert

The registrant's Board has determined that each of the following members of the Board's Audit Committee is an “audit committee financial expert,” and is "independent," for purposes of this Item:  John T. Collins, G. Thomas Hough and Thomas M. O’Neill.

(a)       Audit Fees billed to the registrant for the two most recent fiscal years:

Fiscal year ended 2017 - $39,230

Fiscal year ended 2016 - $37,900

(b)       Audit-Related Fees billed to the registrant for the two most recent fiscal years:

Fiscal year ended 2017 - $0

Fiscal year ended 2016 - $0

Amount requiring approval of the registrant’s audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, $2,235 and $0 respectively. Fiscal year ended 2017- Audit consent fees for N-14 merger documents.

(c)        Tax Fees billed to the registrant for the two most recent fiscal years:

Fiscal year ended 2017 - $0

Fiscal year ended 2016 - $0

Amount requiring approval of the registrant’s audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, $0 and $0 respectively.

(d)       All Other Fees billed to the registrant for the two most recent fiscal years:

Fiscal year ended 2017 - $0

Fiscal year ended 2016 - $0

Amount requiring approval of the registrant’s audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, $0 and $0 respectively.

(e)(1) Audit Committee Policies regarding Pre-approval of Services.

The Audit Committee is required to pre-approve audit and non-audit services performed by the independent auditor in order to assure that the provision of such services do not impair the auditor’s independence. Unless a type of service to be provided by the independent auditor has received general pre-approval, it will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee. Any proposed services exceeding pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee.

Certain services have the general pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The term of the general pre-approval is 12 months from the date of pre-approval, unless the Audit Committee specifically provides for a different period. The Audit Committee will annually review the services that may be provided by the independent auditor without obtaining specific pre-approval from the Audit Committee and may grant general pre-approval for such services. The Audit Committee will revise the list of general pre-approved services from time to time, based on subsequent determinations. The Audit Committee will not delegate its responsibilities to pre-approve services performed by the independent auditor to management.

The Audit Committee has delegated pre-approval authority to its Chairman. The Chairman will report any pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting. The Committee will designate another member with such pre-approval authority when the Chairman is unavailable.

AUDIT SERVICES

The annual Audit services engagement terms and fees will be subject to the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee must approve any changes in terms, conditions and fees resulting from changes in audit scope, registered investment company (RIC) structure or other matters.

In addition to the annual Audit services engagement specifically approved by the Audit Committee, the Audit Committee may grant general pre-approval for other Audit Services, which are those services that only the independent auditor reasonably can provide. The Audit Committee has pre-approved certain Audit services, all other Audit services must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee.

AUDIT-RELATED SERVICES

Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Company’s financial statements or that are traditionally performed by the independent auditor. The Audit Committee believes that the provision of Audit-related services does not impair the independence of the auditor, and has pre-approved certain Audit-related services, all other Audit-related services must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee.

TAX SERVICES

The Audit Committee believes that the independent auditor can provide Tax services to the Company such as tax compliance, tax planning and tax advice without impairing the auditor’s independence. However, the Audit Committee will not permit the retention of the independent auditor in connection with a transaction initially recommended by the independent auditor, the purpose of which may be tax avoidance and the tax treatment of which may not be supported in the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The Audit Committee has pre-approved certain Tax services, all Tax services involving large and complex transactions must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee.

ALL OTHER SERVICES

With respect to the provision of services other than audit, review or attest services the pre-approval requirement is waived if:

The Audit Committee may grant general pre-approval to those permissible non-audit services classified as All Other services that it believes are routine and recurring services, and would not impair the independence of the auditor.

The SEC’s rules and relevant guidance should be consulted to determine the precise definitions of prohibited non-audit services and the applicability of exceptions to certain of the prohibitions.

PRE-APPROVAL FEE LEVELS

Pre-approval fee levels for all services to be provided by the independent auditor will be established annually by the Audit Committee. Any proposed services exceeding these levels will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee.

PROCEDURES

Requests or applications to provide services that require specific approval by the Audit Committee will be submitted to the Audit Committee by both the independent auditor and the Principal Accounting Officer and/or Internal Auditor, and must include a joint statement as to whether, in their view, the request or application is consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.

(e)(2) Percentage of services identified in items 4(b) through 4(d) that were approved by the registrants audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X:

4(b)

Fiscal year ended 2017 – 0%

Fiscal year ended 2016 - 0%

Percentage of services provided to the registrants investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were approved by the registrants audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, 0% and 0% respectively.

4(c)

Fiscal year ended 2017 – 0%

Fiscal year ended 2016 – 0%

Percentage of services provided to the registrants investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were approved by the registrants audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, 0% and 0% respectively.

4(d)

Fiscal year ended 2017 – 0%

Fiscal year ended 2016 – 0%

Percentage of services provided to the registrants investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were approved by the registrants audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, 0% and 0% respectively.

Fiscal year ended 2017 - $132,914

Fiscal year ended 2016 - $198,979

In its required communications to the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board, Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”), the registrant’s independent public accountant, informed the Audit Committee that EY and/ or covered person professionals within EY maintain lending relationships with certain owners of greater than 10% of the shares of certain investment companies within the “investment company complex” as defined under Rule 2-01(f)(14) of Regulation S-X, which are affiliates of the registrant. EY has advised the Audit Committee that these lending relationships implicate Rule 2-01(c)(1)(ii)(A) of Regulation S-X (referred to as the “Loan Rule”). The Loan Rule prohibits an independent public accountant, or covered person professionals at such firm, from having a financial relationship (such as a loan) with a lender that is a record or beneficial owner of more than 10% of an audit client’s equity securities. For purposes of the Loan Rule, audit clients include the registrant, as well as all registered investment companies advised by advisory subsidiaries of Federated Investors, Inc., the Adviser (for which EY serves as independent public accountant), and their respective affiliates (collectively, the “Federated Fund Complex”).

EY informed the Audit Committee that EY believes that these lending relationships described above do not and will not impair EY’s ability to exercise objective and impartial judgment in connection with the audits of the financial statements for the registrant and a reasonable investor with knowledge of all relevant facts and circumstances would conclude that EY has been and is capable of objective and impartial judgment on all issues encompassed within EY’s audits.

On June 20, 2016, the Division of Investment Management of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a no-action letter to another mutual fund complex (see Fidelity Management & Research Company et al., No-Action Letter) related to similar Loan Rule matters as those described above (the “Letter”). In the Letter, the SEC Staff confirmed that it would not recommend enforcement action against an investment company that relied on the audit services performed by an independent public accountant where the Loan Rule was implicated in certain specified circumstances provided that: (1) the auditor has complied with PCAOB Rule 3526(b)(1) and 3526(b)(2); (2) the Loan Rule is implicated because of lending relationships; and (3) notwithstanding such lending relationships that implicate the Loan Rule, the auditor has concluded that it is objective and impartial with respect to the issues encompassed within its engagement as auditor of the funds. The circumstances described in the Letter are substantially similar to the circumstances that implicated the Loan Rule with respect to EY and the registrant. On September 22, 2017, the SEC issued another no-action letter to Fidelity Management & Research Company et al extending the expiration of the Letter until the effectiveness of any amendments to the Loan Rule designed to address the concerns in the Letter (the “Letters”).

If it were to be determined that the relief available under the Letters was improperly relied upon, or that the independence requirements under the federal securities laws were not otherwise complied with regarding the registrant, for certain periods, any of the registrant’s filings with the SEC which contain financial statements of the registrant for such periods may not comply with applicable federal securities laws, the registrant’s ability to offer shares under its current registration statement may be impacted, and certain financial reporting and/or other covenants with, and representations and warranties to, the registrant’s lender under its committed line of credit may be impacted. Such events could have a material adverse effect on the registrant and the Federated Fund Complex.

The registrant has established an Audit Committee of the Board as described in Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Audit Committee consists of the following Board members: John T. Collins, G. Thomas Hough, Maureen Lally-Green and Thomas M. O’Neill.

(a) The registrant’s Schedule of Investments is included as part of the Report to Stockholders filed under Item 1 of this form.

(b) Not Applicable; Fund had no divestments during the reporting period covered since the previous Form N-CSR filing.

Voting Proxies On Fund Portfolio Securities

The Board has delegated to the Adviser authority to vote proxies on the securities held in the Fund's portfolio. The Board has also approved the Adviser's policies and procedures for voting the proxies, which are described below.

Proxy Voting Policies

The Adviser's general policy is to cast proxy votes in favor of management proposals and shareholder proposals that the Adviser anticipates will enhance the long-term value of the securities being voted. Generally, this will mean voting for proposals that the Adviser believes will: (a) improve the management of a company; (b) increase the rights or preferences of the voted securities; and/or (c) increase the chance that a premium offer would be made for the company or for the voted securities. This approach to voting proxy proposals will be referred to hereafter as the General Policy.

The following examples illustrate how the General Policy may apply to management proposals and shareholder proposals submitted for approval or ratification by holders of the company's voting securities. However, whether the Adviser supports or opposes a proposal will always depend on the specific circumstances described in the proxy statement and other available information.

On matters of corporate governance, generally the Adviser will vote in favor of: (1) a proposal to require a company's audit committee to be comprised entirely of independent directors; (2) shareholder proposals to declassify the board of directors; (3) shareholder proposals to require a majority voting standard in the election of directors; (4) proposals to grant shareholders the right to call a special meeting if owners of at least 25% of the outstanding stock agree; (5) a proposal to require independent tabulation of proxies and/or confidential voting of shareholders; (6) a proposal to ratify the board's selection of auditors, unless: (a) compensation for non-audit services exceeded 50% of the total compensation received from the company; or (b) the previous auditor was dismissed because of a disagreement with the company; (7) a proposal to repeal a shareholder rights plan (also known as a “poison pill”) and against the adoption of such a plan, unless the plan is designed to facilitate, rather than prevent, unsolicited offers for the company; (8) shareholder proposals to eliminate supermajority requirements in company bylaws; (9) shareholder proposals to separate the roles of chairman of the board and CEO; (10) shareholder proposals to allow shareholders owning at least 3% of the outstanding common stock for at least three years to nominate candidates for election to the board of directors (“Proxy Access”); (11) a full slate of directors, where the directors are elected as a group and not individually, unless more than half of the nominees are not independent; and (12) election of individual directors nominated in an uncontested election, but against any director who: (a) had not attended at least 75% of the board meetings during the previous year; (b) serves as the company's chief financial officer; (c) has committed himself or herself to service on a large number of boards, such that we deem it unlikely that the director would be able to commit sufficient focus and time to a particular company; (d) is the chair of the nominating or governance committee when the roles of chairman of the board and CEO are combined and there is no lead independent director; (e) served on the compensation committee during a period in which compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers; or (f) served on a board that did not implement a shareholder proposal that Federated supported and received more than 50% shareholder support the previous year.

On matters of capital structure, generally the Adviser will vote against a proposal to authorize or issue shares that are senior in priority or voting rights to the voted securities, and in favor of a proposal to: (1) reduce the amount of shares authorized for issuance (subject to adequate provisions for outstanding convertible securities, options, warrants, rights and other existing obligations to issue shares); (2) grant authorities to issue shares with and without pre-emptive rights unless the size of the authorities would threaten to unreasonably dilute existing shareholders; and (3)authorize a stock repurchase program.

On matters relating to management compensation, generally the Adviser will vote in favor of stock incentive plans (including plans for directors) that align the recipients of stock incentives with the interests of shareholders, without creating undue dilution, and against: (1) the advisory vote on executive compensation plans (“Say On Pay”) when the plan has failed to align executive compensation with corporate performance; (2) the advisory vote on the frequency of the Say On Pay vote when the frequency is other than annual; (3) proposals that would permit the amendment or replacement of outstanding stock incentives having more favorable terms (e.g., lower purchase prices or easier vesting requirements); and (4) executive compensation plans that do not disclose the maximum amounts of compensation that may be awarded or the criteria for determining awards.

On matters relating to corporate transactions, the Adviser will vote proxies consistent with the General Policy. The Adviser will vote proxies in contested elections of directors based upon its analysis of the opposing slates and their proposed business strategy and the expected impact on the long-term value of the securities being voted. The Adviser generally votes proxies against proposals submitted by shareholders without the favorable recommendation of a company's board. The Adviser believes that a company's board should manage its business and policies, and that shareholders who seek specific changes should strive to convince the board of their merits or seek direct representation on the board. However, the Adviser would vote for shareholder proposals not supported by the company's board that the Adviser regards as: (a) likely to result in an immediate and favorable improvement in the total return of the voted security; and (b) unlikely to be adopted by the company's board in the absence of shareholder direction.

In addition, the Adviser will not vote any proxy if it determines that the consequences or costs of voting outweigh the potential benefit of voting. For example, if a foreign market requires shareholders voting proxies to retain the voted shares until the meeting date (thereby rendering the shares “illiquid” for some period of time), the Adviser will not vote proxies for such shares. In addition, the Adviser is not obligated to incur any expense to send a representative to a shareholder meeting or to translate proxy materials into English.

To the extent that the Adviser is permitted to loan securities, the Adviser will not have the right to vote on securities while they are on loan. However, the Adviser will take all reasonable steps to recall shares prior to the record date when the meeting raises issues that the Adviser believes materially affect shareholder value, including, but not limited to, excessive compensation, mergers and acquisitions, contested elections and weak oversight by the audit committee. However, there can be no assurance that the Adviser will have sufficient notice of such matters to be able to terminate the loan in time to vote thereon.

If proxies are not delivered in a timely or otherwise appropriate basis, the Adviser may not be able to vote a particular proxy.

For an Adviser that employs a quantitative investment strategy for certain funds or accounts that do not make use of qualitative research (“Non-Qualitative Accounts”), the Adviser may not have the kind of research to make decisions about how to vote proxies for them. Therefore, the Adviser will vote the proxies of these Non-Qualitative Accounts as follows: (a) in accordance with the Standard Voting Instructions (defined below) adopted by the Adviser with respect to issues subject to the proxies; (b) if the Adviser is directing votes for the same proxy on behalf of a regular qualitative account and a Non-Qualitative Account, the Non-Qualititave Account would vote in the same manner as the regular qualitative account; (c) if neither of the first two conditions apply, as the proxy voting service is recommending; and (d) if none of the previous conditions apply, as recommended by the Proxy Voting Committee (“Proxy Committee”).

Proxy Voting Procedures

The Adviser has established a Proxy Voting Committee (“Proxy Committee”), to exercise all voting discretion granted to the Adviser by the Board in accordance with the proxy voting policies. To assist it in carrying out the day-to-day operations related to proxy voting, the Proxy Committee has created the Proxy Voting Management Group (PVMG). The day-to-day operations related to proxy voting are carried out by the Proxy Voting Operations Team (PVOT) and overseen by the PVMG. This work includes, interacting with a proxy voting service on the Proxy Committee's behalf; soliciting voting recommendations from the Adviser's investment professionals, as necessary; bringing voting recommendations to the Proxy Committee from the Adviser's investment professionals; filing any required proxy voting reports; providing proxy voting reports to clients and investment companies as they are requested from time to time; keeping the Proxy Committee informed of any issues related to proxy voting; and voting client shares as directed by the Proxy Committee.

The Adviser has hired a proxy voting service to obtain, vote and record proxies in accordance with the directions of the Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee has supplied the proxy voting services with general instructions (the “Standard Voting Instructions”) that represent decisions made by the Proxy Committee in order to vote common proxy proposals. As the Proxy Committee believes that a shareholder vote is equivalent to an investment decision, the Proxy Committee retains the right to modify the Standard Voting Instructions at any time or to vote contrary to them at any time in order to cast proxy votes in a manner that the Proxy Committee believes is: (a) in the best interests of the Adviser's clients (and shareholders of the funds advised by the Adviser); and (b) will enhance the long-term value of the securities being voted. The proxy voting service may vote any proxy as directed in the Standard Voting Instructions without further direction from the Proxy Committee. However, if the Standard Voting Instructions require case-by-case direction for a proposal, the PVOT will work with the investment professionals and the proxy voting service to develop a voting recommendation for the Proxy Committee and to communicate the Proxy Committee's final voting decision to the proxy voting service. Further, if the Standard Voting Instructions require the PVOT to analyze a ballot question and make the final voting decision, the PVOT will report such votes to the Proxy Committee on a quarterly basis for review.

Conflicts of Interest

The Adviser has adopted procedures to address situations where a matter on which a proxy is sought may present a potential conflict between the interests of the Fund (and its shareholders) and those of the Adviser or Distributor. This may occur where a significant business relationship exists between the Adviser (or its affiliates) and a company involved with a proxy vote. A company that is a proponent, opponent, or the subject of a proxy vote, and which to the knowledge of the Proxy Committee has this type of significant business relationship, is referred to below as an “Interested Company.”

The Adviser has implemented the following procedures in order to avoid concerns that the conflicting interests of the Adviser or its affiliates have influenced proxy votes. Any employee of the Adviser or its affiliates who is contacted by an Interested Company regarding proxies to be voted by the Adviser must refer the Interested Company to a member of the Proxy Committee, and must inform the Interested Company that the Proxy Committee has exclusive authority to determine how the proxy will be voted. Any Proxy Committee member contacted by an Interested Company must report it to the full Proxy Committee and provide a written summary of the communication. Under no circumstances will the Proxy Committee or any member of the Proxy Committee make a commitment to an Interested Company regarding the voting of proxies or disclose to an Interested Company how the Proxy Committee has directed such proxies to be voted. If the Standard Voting Instructions already provide specific direction on the proposal in question, the Proxy Committee shall not alter or amend such directions. If the Standard Voting Instructions require the Proxy Committee to provide further direction, the Proxy Committee shall do so in accordance with the proxy voting policies, without regard for the interests of the Adviser with respect to the Interested Company. If the Proxy Committee provides any direction as to the voting of proxies relating to a proposal affecting an Interested Company, it must disclose annually to the Fund's Board information regarding: the significant business relationship; any material communication with the Interested Company; the matter(s) voted on; and how, and why, the Adviser voted as it did. Alternatively, the Proxy Committee may seek direction from the Fund's Board on how a proposal concerning an Interested Company shall be voted, and shall follow any such direction provided by the Board. In seeking such direction, the Proxy Committee will disclose the reason such company is considered an Interested Company and may provide a recommendation on how such proposal should be voted and the basis for such recommendation.

In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for the Adviser to vote in the same proportion as all other shareholders, so as to not affect the outcome beyond helping to establish a quorum at the shareholders' meeting. This is referred to as “proportional voting.” If the Fund owns shares of another Federated mutual fund, the Adviser will proportionally vote the client's proxies for that fund or seek direction from the Board or the client on how the proposal should be voted. If the Fund owns shares of an unaffiliated mutual fund, the Adviser may proportionally vote the Fund's proxies for that fund depending on the size of the position. If the Fund owns shares of an unaffiliated exchange-traded fund, the Adviser will proportionally vote the Fund's proxies for that fund.

Downstream Affiliates

If the Proxy Committee gives further direction, or seeks to vote contrary to the Standard Voting Instructions, for a proxy relating to a portfolio company in which the Fund owns more than 10% of the portfolio company's outstanding voting securities at the time of the vote (Downstream Affiliate), the Proxy Committee must first receive guidance from counsel to the Proxy Committee as to whether any relationship between the Adviser and the portfolio company, other than such ownership of the portfolio company's securities, gives rise to an actual conflict of interest. If counsel determines that an actual conflict exists, the Proxy Committee must address any such conflict with the executive committee of the board of directors or trustees of any investment company client prior to taking any action on the proxy at issue.

Proxy Advisers' Conflicts of Interest

Proxy advisory firms may have significant business relationships with the subjects of their research and voting recommendations. For example, a proxy voting service client may be a public company with an upcoming shareholders' meeting and the proxy voting service has published a research report with voting recommendations. In another example, a proxy voting service board member also sits on the board of a public company for which the proxy voting service will write a research report. These and similar situations give rise to an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

In order to avoid concerns that the conflicting interests of the engaged proxy voting service have influenced proxy voting recommendations, the Adviser will take the following steps:

Proxy Voting Report

A report on “Form N-PX” of how the Fund voted any proxies during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available via the Proxy Voting Record (Form N-PX) link associated with the Fund and share class name at www.FederatedInvestors.com/FundInformation. Form N-PX filings are also available at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

As of the date of filing of the report, the Portfolio Managers listed below are jointly and primarily responsible for managing the Fund’s assets.

R.J. Gallo

R.J. Gallo, CFA, has been the Fund’s Portfolio Manager since its inception December of 2002.

Mr. Gallo is a Senior Portfolio Manager, Head of the Municipal Bond Investment Group and Chairman of Duration Management Committee. He is responsible for day to day management of the Fund focusing on asset allocation, interest rate strategy and security selection in the portfolio. He has been with Federated since 2000; has worked in investment management since 1996; has managed investment portfolios since 2002. Education: B.A., University of Michigan; M.P.A., Princeton University.

Portfolio Manager Information

The following information about the Fund’s portfolio manager is provided as of the end of the Fund's most recently completed fiscal year.

* None of the Accounts has an advisory fee that is based on the performance of the account.

Dollar value range of shares owned in the Fund: None.

Richard J. Gallo is paid a fixed base salary and a variable annual incentive. Base salary is determined within a market competitive position-specific salary range, based on the portfolio manager’s experience and performance. The annual incentive amount is determined based primarily on Investment Product Performance (IPP) and, to a lesser extent, Financial Success, and may be paid entirely in cash, or in a combination of cash and restricted stock of Federated Investors, Inc. (Federated). The total combined annual incentive opportunity is intended to be competitive in the market for this portfolio manager role.

IPP is measured on a rolling one, three and five year total return basis versus the Fund’s benchmark (i.e. S&P, custom 70% A & up/20% BBB/10% HY/3yr+/Non AMT)and versus the Fund’s designated peer group of comparable accounts. Performance periods are adjusted if a portfolio manager has been managing an account for less than five years; accounts with less than one year of performance history under a portfolio manager may be excluded.

As noted above, Mr. Gallo is also the portfolio manager for other accounts in addition to the Fund. Such other accounts may have different benchmarks and performance measures. The allocation or weighting given to the performance of the Fund or other accounts or activities for which Mr. Gallo is responsible when his compensation is calculated may be equal or can vary.

In addition, Mr. Gallo has oversight responsibility for other portfolios that he does not personally manage and serves on one or more Investment Teams that establish guidelines on various performance drivers (e.g., currency, duration, sector, volatility and/or yield curve) for taxable, fixed-income accounts. A portion of the IPP score is based on Federated’s senior management’s assessment of team contributions.

For purposes of calculating the annual incentive amount, each account managed by the portfolio manager currently is categorized into one of two IPP groups (which may be adjusted periodically). Within each performance measurement period and IPP group, IPP currently is calculated on the basis of an assigned weighting to each account managed or activity engaged in by the portfolio manager and included in the IPP groups. At the account level, the weighting assigned to the Fund is greater than or equal to the weighting assigned to other accounts or activities used to determine IPP (but can be adjusted periodically). A portion of the bonus tied to the IPP score may be adjusted based on management's assessment of overall contributions to account performance and any other factors as deemed relevant.

The Financial Success category is designed to tie the portfolio manager’s bonus, in part, to Federated’s overall financial results. Funding for the Financial Success category may be determined on a product or asset class basis, as well as on corporate financial results (and may be adjusted periodically). Senior Management determines individual Financial Success bonuses on a discretionary basis, considering overall contributions and any other factors deemed relevant.

As a general matter, certain conflicts of interest may arise in connection with a portfolio manager’s management of a fund’s investments, on the one hand, and the investments of other funds/pooled investment vehicles or accounts (collectively, including the Fund, as applicable, “accounts”) for which the portfolio manager is responsible, on the other. For example, it is possible that the various accounts managed could have different investment strategies that, at times, might conflict with one another to the possible detriment of the Fund. Alternatively, to the extent that the same investment opportunities might be desirable for more than one account, possible conflicts could arise in determining how to allocate them. Other potential conflicts can include, for example, conflicts created by specific portfolio manager compensation arrangements (including, for example, the allocation or weighting given to the performance of the Fund or other accounts or activities for which the portfolio manager is responsible in calculating the portfolio manager’s compensation), and conflicts relating to selection of brokers or dealers to execute Fund portfolio trades and/or specific uses of commissions from Fund portfolio trades (for example, research, or “soft dollars”). The Adviser has adopted policies and procedures and has structured the portfolio managers’ compensation in a manner reasonably designed to safeguard the Fund from being negatively affected as a result of any such potential conflicts.

Lee R. Cunningham II

Lee R. Cunningham II has been the Fund’s Portfolio Manager since its inception December of 2002.

Mr. Cunningham is a Senior Portfolio Manager responsible for providing research and advice on sector allocation and security selection. He has been with Federated since 1995; has worked in investment management since 1995; has managed investment portfolios since 1998. Education: B.S., University of Pennsylvania; M.B.A., University of Pittsburgh.

Portfolio Manager Information

The following information about the Fund’s portfolio manager is provided as of the end of the Fund's most recently completed fiscal year.

* None of the Accounts has an advisory fee that is based on the performance of the account.

Dollar value range of shares owned in the Fund: None.

Lee Cunningham is paid a fixed base salary and a variable annual incentive. Base salary is determined within a market competitive position-specific salary range, based on the portfolio manager’s experience and performance. The annual incentive amount is determined based primarily on Investment Product Performance (IPP) and, to a lesser extent, Financial Success, and may be paid entirely in cash, or in a combination of cash and restricted stock of Federated Investors, Inc. (Federated). The total combined annual incentive opportunity is intended to be competitive in the market for this portfolio manager role.

IPP is measured on a rolling one, three and five year total return basis versus the Fund’s benchmark (i.e. S&P, custom 70% A & up/20% BBB/10% HY/3yr+/Non AMT)and versus the designated peer group of comparable accounts. Performance periods are adjusted if a portfolio manager has been managing an account for less than five years; accounts with less than one-year of performance history under a portfolio manager may be excluded.

As noted above, Mr. Cunningham is also the portfolio manager for other accounts in addition to the Fund. Such other accounts may have different benchmarks and performance measures. The allocation or weighting given to the performance of the Fund or other accounts for which Mr. Cunningham is responsible when his compensation is calculated may be equal or can vary.

For purposes of calculating the annual incentive amount, each account managed by the portfolio manager currently is categorized into one of two IPP groups (which may be adjusted periodically). Within each performance measurement period and IPP group, IPP currently is calculated on the basis of an assigned weighting to each account managed by the portfolio manager and included in the IPP groups. At the account level, the weighting assigned to the Fund is greater than or equal to the weighting assigned to other accounts used to determine IPP (but can be adjusted periodically). A portion of the bonus tied to the IPP score may be adjusted based on management's assessment of overall contributions to account performance and any other factors as deemed relevant.

The Financial Success category is designed to tie the portfolio manager’s bonus, in part, to Federated’s overall financial results. Funding for the Financial Success category may be determined on a product or asset class basis, as well as on corporate financial results (and may be adjusted periodically). Senior Management determines individual Financial Success bonuses on a discretionary basis, considering overall contributions and any other factors deemed relevant.

As a general matter, certain conflicts of interest may arise in connection with a portfolio manager’s management of a fund’s investments, on the one hand, and the investments of other funds/pooled investment vehicles or accounts (collectively, including the Fund, as applicable, “accounts”) for which the portfolio manager is responsible, on the other. For example, it is possible that the various products managed could have different investment strategies that, at times, might conflict with one another to the possible detriment of the Fund. Alternatively, to the extent that the same investment opportunities might be desirable for more than one account, possible conflicts could arise in determining how to allocate them. Other potential conflicts can include, for example, conflicts created by specific portfolio manager compensation arrangements (including, for example, the allocation or weighting given to the performance of the Fund or other accounts or activities for which the portfolio manager is responsible in calculating the portfolio manager’s compensation), and conflicts relating to selection of brokers or dealers to execute Fund portfolio trades and/or specific uses of commissions from Fund portfolio trades (for example, research, or “soft dollars”). The Adviser has adopted policies and procedures and has structured the portfolio managers’ compensation in a manner reasonably designed to safeguard the Fund from being negatively affected as a result of any such potential conflicts.

No such purchases this period.

No changes to report.

(a) The registrant’s President and Treasurer have concluded that the

registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in rule 30a-3(c) under the Act) are effective in design and operation and are sufficient to form the basis of the certifications required by Rule 30a-(2) under the Act, based on their evaluation of these disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days of the filing date of this report on Form N-CSR.

(b) There were no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in rule 30a-3(d) under the Act) during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12. Disclosure of Securities Lending Activities for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Securities Lending Activities

The services provided to the Fund by Citibank, N.A. as securities lending agent may include the following: selecting securities previously identified by the Fund as available for loan to be loaned; locating borrowers identified in the securities lending agency agreement; negotiating loan terms; monitoring daily the value of the loaned securities and collateral; requiring additional collateral as necessary; marking to market non-cash collateral; instructing the Fund’s custodian with respect to the transfer of loaned securities; indemnifying the Fund in the event of a borrower default; and arranging for return of loaned securities to the Fund at loan termination.

Following is a report of Fund income and fees and compensation paid to Citibank, N.A. related to securities lending activities during the Fund’s most recently completed fiscal year.

(a)(1) Code of Ethics- Not Applicable to this Report.

(a)(2) Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer.

(a)(3) Not Applicable.

(b) Certifications pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Registrant Federated Premier Municipal Income Fund

By /S/ Lori A. Hensler

Lori A. Hensler, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer

Date ___January 23, 2018____

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By /S/ J. Christopher Donahue

J. Christopher Donahue, President and Principal Executive Officer

Date ___January 23, 2018____

By /S/ Lori A. Hensler

Lori A. Hensler, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer

Date ___January 23, 2018____