Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80517 

multifamily housing properties, and an 

acceptable Quality Control Plan. 

Qualified lenders can then take 

advantage of a mortgage applicationprocessing plan that will take 

substantially less processing time than 

traditional processing. 

Frequency of Submission: Onoccasion, Annually. 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

responses x Hours per response = Burden hours 

Reporting Burden .............................................................................. 90 11.61 401.69 419,775 

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 

419,775. 

Status: Revision of a currently 

approved collection. 

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as 

amended. 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

Colette Pollard, 

Departmental Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32161 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5354–N–02] 

HUD Multifamily Rental Project Closing 

Documents—Revisions and Updates 

Notice of Information Collection; 30- 

Day Notice 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On January 21, 2010, and 

consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, HUD published 

for public comment, for a period of 60 

days, a notice advising that HUD was 

updating and revising a set of closing 

documents used in Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) multifamily 

rental projects. The 60-day notice 

published on January 21, 2010, started 

anew the process for updating the 

multifamily rental project closing 

documents, and obtaining approval of 

these documents under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, a process that had 

originally commenced on August 2, 

2004. 

This 30-day notice published today 

will complete the public comment 

process required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. With the 

issuance of this notice, HUD will submit 

the information collection for the 

closing documents to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval, and assignment of 

OMB control numbers. In accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

closing documents will undergo the 

public comment process every three 

years to retain OMB approval. 

While complying with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, this 30-day 

notice, as was the case with the 60-day 

notice, provides information beyond 

that normally provided in such notices. 

The 60-day notice published on January 

21, 2010, responded to the public 

comments submitted on the proposed 

closing documents issued for comment 

on August 2, 2004, and summarized and 

responded to the public comments. 

Similarly, this notice issued today 

identifies substantive changes that HUD 

has made to the closing documents in 

response to public comment submitted 

on the January 21, 2010, notice, and 

responds to significant issues raised by 

commenters on the closing documents. 

The multifamily closing documents 

that HUD is submitting to OMB are 

posted on HUD’s Web site at http:// 

www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/ 

mfhclosingdocuments.cfm. 

DATES: Comment Due Date: January 21, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this notice to the Regulations Division, 

Office of General Counsel, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Communications must refer to the above 

docket number and title. There are two 

methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. HUD 

strongly encourages commenters to 

submit comments electronically. 

Electronic submission of comments 

allows the commenter maximum time to 

prepare and submit a comment, ensures 

timely receipt by HUD, and enables 

HUD to make them immediately 

available to the public. Comments 

submitted electronically through the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site can 

be viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the Notice. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–708– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

via TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. Copies of all comments submitted 

are available for inspection and 

downloading at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Daly, Associate General Counsel for 

Insured Housing, Office of the General 

Counsel, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 

SW., Room 9226, Washington, DC 

20410–0500; telephone number 202– 

708–1274 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Persons with speech or 

hearing impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 1, 2009, HUD announced, on 

its Web site, that it would commence 

review of the multifamily rental project 

closing documents, for which review 

had started but was not completed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

under the prior Administration. HUD 

posted the documents on its Web site 

and welcomed the public to review 

these documents as HUD began its 

internal review prior to commencement 

of formal review and solicitation of 

public comment under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). (See 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/ 

mfhclosingdocuments.cfm.) 

Under the prior Administration, HUD 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on August 2, 2004 (69 FR 

46214) that advised that, consistent with 

the PRA, it was publishing for public 

comment a comprehensive set of revised 

closing forms and documents (closing 

documents) for use in the FHA 

multifamily rental project and health 

care facility (excluding hospitals) 

programs. In the notice, HUD advised 

that, in addition to seeking public 

comment on burden hours, which is the 

primary focus of the PRA, HUD 

welcomed input from the lending 

industry and other interested parties on 

whether the documents offer the 

requisite protection to all parties in 

these FHA-insured mortgage programs, 

while being consistent with modern real 

estate practice and mortgage lending 

laws and procedures. The August 2, 

2004, notice, in turn, followed an earlier 

informal solicitation of public comment 

on proposed revisions to the closing 

documents that were posted on HUD’s 

Web site in March 2000. In response to 

the comments received from the 2000 

solicitation of public comment, 

significant revisions were made to the 

proposed closing documents, and these 

revised documents were published in 

the Federal Register on August 2, 2004, 

for review and public comment. 

Although HUD reviewed the public 

comments and advised of initial policy 

decisions in response to certain 

comments (see HUD’s notice published 

on August 31, 2006, at 71 FR 51842), 

HUD was unable to complete the 

updating of the closing documents 

during the prior Administration. 

Consistent with its announcement on 

June 1, 2009 that HUD would start anew 

the updating of the closing documents, 

HUD published a notice in the Federal 

Register on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 

3544), which solicited public comment 

for a period of 60 days on the closing 

documents. The January 21, 2010, 

notice commenced the formal review 

and public input required by the PRA. 

However, consistent with the approach 

to updating the documents that HUD 

took in 2004, the January 21, 2010, 

notice went beyond the information 

generally provided in PRA notices. The 

notice identified changes HUD made to 

the closing documents since they were 

last published for comment in August 

2004. That January 21, 2010 notice also 

summarized the significant issues that 

commenters raised in response to both 

the 2004 publications and to HUD’s 

posting of documents on its Web site in 

2009. In addition to the summary, the 

January 2010 Notice also provided 

responses to the significant issues raised 

by the commenters. 

As noted in the Summary portion of 

this notice, this 30-day notice published 

today will complete the public comment 

process required by the PRA for the 

closing documents. Related to the 

closing documents is a proposed rule 

that HUD published on November 12, 

2010 (See 75 FR 6393, HUD Multifamily 

Rental Projects: Regulatory Revisions.) 

The November 12, 2010 proposed rule 

proposes to amend certain FHA 

regulations to update regulations to 

reflect current HUD policy in the area of 

multifamily rental projects. Similar to 

HUD’s updating of the closing 

documents, HUD seeks to have its 

regulations reflect current terminology, 

lending laws, and practices with respect 

to multifamily projects. 

II. The January 21, 2010 Notice (The 60- 

Day Notice) 

A. The 60-Day Public Comment Process, 

Generally 

While this 30-day notice addresses 

significant issues raised by the public 

commenters on the 60-day notice, HUD 

is not providing the detailed comment 

and response section as HUD did in the 

60-day notice. At the time of the first 

issuance of proposed updated closing 

documents in 2004, HUD was not 

accepting comments electronically 

through a publicly available Web site, 

and consequently, the public did not 

have a readily and easily available 

mechanism to review public comments 

on the August 2, 2004, notice. Therefore 

to compensate for the lack of publicly 

available Web site where all public 

comments could be viewed, HUD 

provided a detailed summary of the 

comments and HUD’s responses to these 

comments. For the January 21, 2010, 

notice, however, all the public 

comments submitted on the proposed 

updated closing documents can be 

viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

which included proposed mark-ups of 

several of the closing documents. 

B. The Public Comments, Generally 

At the close of the public comment 

period on March 22, 2010, HUD 

received 47 public comments. The 

commenters included lenders, home 

builders, construction companies, 

attorneys, real estate agencies, and 

organizations such as the Mortgage 

Bankers Association and the American 

Bar Association. Several of the 

commenters, as noted earlier, submitted 

with their comments HUD’s updated 

closing documents revised as certain 

commenters preferred to see the 

documents structured. HUD also held 

three public roundtables to obtain input 

from affected parties; on February 19 

and 23, 2010 and March 9, 2010. (See 

http://170.97.167.13/offices/hsg/mfh/ 

mfhlcd/roundtableinvitation.pdf.) HUD 

carefully reviewed all of the comments 

and appreciates the thorough review 

provided by the majority of the 

commenters as well as the time taken by 

several commenters to draft and submit 

for HUD’s consideration revised or 

alternative language. While HUD is not 

providing a detailed summary of the 

comments as it did in the January 2010 

notice, the following highlights some of 

the significant issues raised by the 

commenters. 

General Comments 

General concerns identified by 

commenters about the closing 

documents were as follows: The 

documents impose greater burdens and 

legal consequences on HUD borrowers 

(Borrowers) and lenders (Lenders), 

thereby potentially discouraging 

participation in HUD’s multifamily 

programs, especially for nonprofit 

organizations; the documents would 

result in fundamental changes in the 

nature of the mortgage insurance 

contract and shift additional risk to 

Lenders and Borrowers alike; the 

increased burdens on HUD call into 

question whether HUD staff, because of 

decreasing HUD personnel resources, 

can timely perform under the 

requirements of the new documents; 

and certain provisions in the documents 

appear to conflict with existing statutes 

regulations, and HUD handbooks. 

HUD acknowledges that with the 

updating of the closing documents, the 

majority of which have not been 

updated in over 20 years, the changes 

appear to impose greater burdens on 

HUD Lenders and Borrowers. However, 

HUD submits that the changes result in 

no greater burden than that involved in 

non-FHA private sector multifamily 

rental project closings. Further, 

although Lenders and Borrowers will 

need some time to become familiar with 

the updated closing documents, the 

existing closing documents, which these 

updated closing documents will replace, 

often necessitated the development of 

individual and additional documents 

for a transaction. Developing unique 

documents for a transaction frequently 

caused delays in the processing of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80519 

documents and completion of the 

closing. The updated closing documents 

are designed to eliminate much of the 

need for individual document 

development, and reduce the time to 

process and close HUD multifamily 

rental project transactions. 

Multifamily rental project 

transactions have changed significantly 

over the last 20 years, and, in certain 

aspects, are more complex than they 

were over 20 years ago. HUD has strived 

to make these closing documents 

consistent, to the extent feasible, with 

non-FHA documents in order to 

minimize differences in transactions, 

and therefore minimize burden often 

caused by variations between FHA 

multifamily rental project closings and 

non-FHA multifamily rental closings. 

The changes to the closing documents 

appropriately reflect the responsibilities 

and risk that are to be borne by HUD 

and the responsibilities and risk that are 

to borne by Lenders and Borrowers. The 

changes in responsibilities and risks to 

all parties, as provided in these 

documents, correspond to changes in 

multifamily rental transactions that 

have taken place over the last two 

decades. As noted earlier, these 

transactions are not the same as they 

were 20 years ago. There have been 

significant changes, and not only must 

the documents change to reflect the 

changes in the transactions, the parties 

to the transactions must accept the risks 

and responsibilities that are part of 

these transactions as these parties do in 

non-FHA multifamily rental 

transactions. 

HUD appreciates the concerns about 

whether HUD staffing levels will be 

sufficient to fulfill HUD’s obligations 

when updated closing documents are 

approved and ready to be used. HUD 

assures the industry and the public that 

sufficient staff will be available and 

thoroughly familiar with the documents 

to perform necessary tasks. 

Finally, with respect to concerns 

about the closing documents possibly 

conflicting with statutes and 

regulations, HUD notes that the review 

of these documents, including 

significant review by industry, has been 

thorough, with review commencing as 

early as 2000, continuing through 2004, 

and 2006, June 2009, and January 2010. 

(Please see preamble discussion in the 

January 22, 2010, notice at 75 FR 3545, 

first column.) Given this process, and 

with the aid of industry review, HUD 

believes that any conflicts with existing 

statutes and regulations that may have 

been in the documents have been 

addressed. 

In essence, HUD has sought to balance 

updated legal definitions and terms, and 

transfers of responsibilities to and 

between program participants with the 

government’s interest in managing risk. 

Further, the efficiencies achieved in 

standardizing and streamlining 

documents will achieve legal certainty 

and save time in closings which will 

benefit all participants. 

Comments directed at specific closing 

documents are addressed in the next 

section in the context of changes that 

were made to the closing documents as 

a result of public comments, and/or 

further consideration of issues by HUD. 

However, other overarching issues 

raised by the commenters follow. 

Disclosure of Gains From Trading 

Ginnie Mae Securities. Commenters 

noted that the proposed requirement in 

the loan documents that Lenders 

disclose gains from trading the Ginnie 

Mae security would create a substantial, 

significant and notable new policy. 

Commenters submitted that such 

disclosure does not belong in the 

closing documents nor should it be part 

of the process for changing loan 

documents. HUD agrees with this 

concern and has removed this 

requirement. 

Lender’s Determination of Interest 

Rate. Commenters expressed concern 

that through the process of rewriting 

their multifamily loan documents, FHA 

was attempting to create policy that 

altered Lender’s ability to determine the 

interest rate. HUD assures that there is 

no restriction on the Lender’s ability to 

determine the interest rate. 

Ability To Charge Origination and 

Servicing Fees for Increased Obligations 

Imposed by New Documents. 

Commenters expressed concerns that 

the proposed documents impose 

augmented obligations and liabilities on 

Lenders with little or no opportunity for 

Lenders to recoup what are sure to be 

increased origination and servicing 

costs. In some instances, commenters 

say that there is a significant shift of 

risks and responsibilities from HUD and 

Borrower’s counsel to Lender. 

HUD recognizes that the Lender and 

Borrower will be undertaking new 

responsibilities and anticipates that 

there will be negotiations between the 

parties which will result in a 

corresponding recognition and 

adjustment in fees. For example, HUD 

had included authority in the proposed 

documents for the Lender to charge the 

Borrower a fee, in accordance with 

Program Obligations, for the Lender’s 

increased responsibilities in reviewing a 

proposed transfer of physical assets. 

That provision was retained in this 

document publication. HUD’s current 

guidance recognizes that ‘‘reasonable 

and necessary expenses’’ can be 

recovered and anticipates that the 

Lender and Borrower will negotiate 

applicable fees which, while they can be 

expenses of the project, cannot be 

insured debt. The issue of costs and fees 

is further discussed later in this 

preamble. 

Emulating Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac Standards for Multifamily Loan 

Documents. Commenters contended that 

HUD was seeking to emulate Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac as setting modern 

standards for multifamily loan 

documents, yet also contended that 

HUD’s emulation is more selective than 

rational distinctions justify. They 

further contended that at the same time 

other Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loan 

documents provisions proposed for 

adoption by HUD might be problematic. 

HUD has not attempted to develop 

documents that emulate Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac, but has, in contrast, 

developed documents that are updated 

for current commercial legal standards, 

balanced with the public policy role 

that HUD programs serve. To some 

extent, HUD’s documents may therefore 

include provisions similar to Fannie 

Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s documents, 

but they do not replicate those 

documents. While HUD acknowledges 

that certain features of the FHA 

programs are unique, such as the 

payment of the mortgage insurance 

premium (MIP), execution of the 

Regulatory Agreement, and surplus cash 

requirements, these elements are 

essential to protecting the government’s 

financial interest and limiting 

unnecessary risk. Inclusion of such 

provisions is therefore a necessary 

tradeoff which protects the 

government’s financial interest and 

minimizes risk while providing the 

benefit of federally insured real estate 

financing. 

Proposed Changes to Section 232 

Health Care Processes Should Be 

Incorporated. Commenters stated that 

several potential health care program 

closing documents innovations were 

equally appropriate for the rental 

documents, and urged HUD to examine 

these potential changes. 

HUD is already closely reviewing the 

current health care program documents 

in the context of developing a separate 

rule and updated documents that will 

be published for public comment. 

C. Status of Changes to Documents 

1. Documents Not Revised 

Of the closing documents published 

in January 2010, the Surveyor’s Report, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

1HUD published proposed amendments to 

American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document 

B–181 in January 2010 and received comments on 

that document. However, the AIA is replacing this 

document with AIA Document B–108 effective May 

31, 2011. Given the timing of that document 

change, HUD will complete the notice and 

comment requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act under separate notice. 

2This document, which was included in the 

January 21, 2010, notice has not yet been assigned 

a form number. 

and HUD Survey Instructions and 

Report were not revised.1

2. Documents Revised 

The remaining documents listed 

below were revised. 

1. Security Instrument 

2. Note 

3. Multifamily Regulatory Agreement 

4. Lender’s Certificate 

5. Building Loan Agreement 

6. Supplement to Building Loan 

Agreement 

7. Construction Contract 

8. Supplementary Conditions of the 

Contract for Construction 

9. Guide for Opinion of Borrower’s 

Counsel 

10. Instructions to Guide for Opinion of 

Borrower’s Counsel 

11. Exhibit A to Opinion of Borrower’s 

Counsel 

12. Residual Receipts Note (Non-Profit 

Borrowers) 

13. Residual Receipts Note (Limited 

Dividend Borrowers) 

14. Escrow Agreement for Incomplete 

Construction 

15. Request for Final Endorsement of 

Credit Instrument 

16. Lease Addendum 

17. Surplus Cash Note 

18. Completion Assurance Agreement 

19. Payment Bond 

20. Performance Bond 

21. Request for Approval of Advance of 

Escrow Funds 

22. Escrow Agreement for Noncritical 

Deferred Repairs 

23. Agreement of Sponsor to Furnish 

Additional Funds 

24. Escrow Agreement for Operating 

Deficit 

25. Bond Guaranteeing Sponsor’s 

Performance 

26. Off Site Bond—Dual Obligee 

27. Escrow Agreement for Latent Defects 

28. Escrow Agreement for Working 

Capital 

29. Agreement and Certification 

30. Request for Endorsement of Credit 

Instrument 

31. Borrower’s Oath 

32. Subordination Agreement 2

All changes made to the multifamily 

closing documents are provided in 

redline/strikeout format on HUD’s Web 

site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/ 

mfh/mfhclosingdocuments.cfm. These 

changes capture both editorial changes 

and more substantive changes. The 

following sections of this preamble 

address some of the significant issues 

raised by the commenters in response to 

the January 2010 notice. Some 

commenters, however, proposed 

changes or raised issues that were the 

same as those proposed or raised in 

response to publication of the proposed 

revised closing documents issued in 

2004 and to which HUD has already 

provided responses in the January 2010 

notice. In this notice issued today, HUD 

is not repeating responses to proposed 

changes or issues that were addressed in 

the January 2010 notice. 

3. Across-the-Board Changes and 

Significant Policy Determinations 

HUD adopted many changes 

submitted by commenters including the 

following: 

Two-tier default. In 2004, HUD 

developed a new two-tiered default 

scheme as part of the revision to the 

Security Instrument. Regulatory 

language reflecting these proposed 

changes were also included in the 

proposed regulations published in 2004. 

Specifically, HUD proposed that there 

should be one class for financial 

defaults, which would give the lender 

an immediate right to an insurance fund 

claim. All other bases for default were 

grouped into a second class. HUD 

would require the lender to obtain 

HUD’s prior written approval for a claim 

in this second category before the lender 

would be able to make an insurance 

fund claim. This proposal for a two tier 

default system was also included in 

both the revisions to the Security 

Instrument published in January 2010 

and in the proposed changes to the 

multifamily regulations published 

November 12, 2010. 

Commenters on the changes proposed 

in 2004 and 2010 suggested that HUD 

update the foreclosure process for 

current legal terminology. HUD has 

adopted commenters’ recommendations 

to provide more details on the two tier 

default criteria in both the documents 

and the proposed rule, and accepted 

several of the commenters’ suggestions 

for technical language changes. 

Lender/Owner/Attorney 

Responsibilities. Several commenters 

submitted that HUD has placed new and 

inappropriate responsibilities on them 

in their respective roles. As an example 

Borrowers’ attorneys stated that they 

should not have to certify that flood 

insurance was in place, as the Lender 

typically undertook that responsibility. 

With respect to these statements, HUD 

notes that it has modified certifications 

to require the Lender to certify that 

there is flood insurance on a property, 

and has adopted similar provisions in 

other documents. The redlined versions 

of these documents on the web page 

highlight these changes. 

Recourse Liability and Definition of 

Principals. In the January 2010 notice, 

HUD noted that the 2004 proposed 

revisions to the closing documents 

included certain limited recourse 

liability for ‘‘Key Principals’’ which was 

opposed by several public commenters. 

While HUD’s August 31, 2006, notice 

advising of preliminary decisions on 

proposed revisions did not include 

provisions for recourse liability of 

Principals, the revised closing 

documents posted on HUD’s Web site 

on June 1, 2009, retained some of the 

provisions that were questioned. Some 

of the informal comments submitted in 

response to HUD’s posting in 2009 of 

proposed changes to the closing 

documents again opposed inclusion of 

any recourse liability provisions, 

arguing that inclusion would dissuade 

some individuals from participating in 

HUD insured multifamily housing 

transactions. 

In the January 2010 notice, HUD 

highlighted its current position that, in 

light of the consequences that certain 

insufficiently regulated actions have 

had on the housing finance markets in 

recent years, and given that public 

funds are put at risk in HUD 

multifamily housing transactions, it is 

appropriate for principals to be 

responsible for paying damages for 

certain ‘‘bad boy’’ acts. Accordingly, 

these provisions were included in the 

revised closing documents circulated for 

public comment, and HUD has 

determined to retain these provisions. 

Commenters on the January proposal 

expressed concerns that HUD had 

broadened liability in the proposed 

documents for principals, for example, 

for ‘‘bad boy’’ acts. HUD does not agree 

with this characterization. These 

documents retain the historic nonrecourse nature of FHA-insured 

financing. Individual principals are not 

personally liable for payment of the 

Note as a result of default. However, 

acts of fraud and misconduct that put 

the FHA insurance fund at risk will be 

pursued through contract rights made 

explicit in these documents and other 

remedies available to the federal 

government. As a result, HUD believes 

that the ‘‘bad boy’’ provisions referred to 

by commentators merely provide more 

certain legal mechanisms for enforcing 

HUD’s statutory, regulatory, and 

program requirements without 

overburdening those that work hard and 

play by the rules. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80521 

In addition, signers generally are 

attesting only ‘‘to the best of their 

knowledge,’’ and primarily to their own 

statements and representations. In 

several instances, principals’ liability is 

limited by the materiality of the 

certification to the issue in question. 

HUD has also referenced a definition 

of principals in the documents which is 

included in 24 CFR 200.215 of HUD’s 

regulations. Consequently, any changes 

to the definition of principals will 

require regulatory change. 

State Specific Provisions. Several 

commenters suggested that HUD 

develop and include state specific riders 

to the documents and publish them for 

review. HUD recognizes that publication 

of state specific provisions that are 

discretionary but not mandatory may be 

helpful, but believes that it is important 

to await adoption of this set of 

documents and allow some time 

following implementation to see if 

conflicts of law questions and other 

state law issues arise in order to 

determine the timing and substance of 

the next steps. 

Nevertheless, in the meantime, HUD 

will develop and use those limited state 

specific riders necessary to meet state 

law mandates. These latter provisions 

are recognized as necessary to complete 

closings and comply with state law 

requirements. HUD has no authority to 

modify the required language which 

fulfills those state law obligations. 

Program Obligations/Directives. One 

of the more significant changes made in 

revising this set of closing documents 

was to replace the term ‘‘Directives’’ 

with the term ‘‘Program Obligations.’’ 

Commenters raised concerns about the 

use of the term ‘‘Directives’’ in light of 

its historic meaning. HUD’s view is that 

the term ‘‘Program Obligations’’ better 

captures what was intended by use of 

the term ‘‘Directives,’’ namely, to advise 

parties to the closing documents of the 

program requirements embodied in 

statute and regulation and other 

documents issued in accordance with 

law, and not repeated in the closing 

documents, to which the parties must 

adhere. The language now used in the 

closing documents defines ‘‘Program 

Obligations,’’ as follows: 

Program Obligations means all applicable 

statutes and regulations, including all 

amendments to such statutes and regulations, 

as they become effective; and all applicable 

requirements in HUD handbooks, HUD 

guides, notices, and mortgagee letters that 

apply to the Project, including all updates 

and changes to such handbooks, guides, 

notices, and mortgagee letters that apply to 

the Project, except that updates and changes 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

shall become effective upon completion of 

the rulemaking process. Handbooks, guides, 

notices, and mortgagee letters are available 

on HUD’s official Web site (http:// 

www.hudclips.org or a successor location to 

that site). 

This language better identifies what 

HUD intended in its original use of the 

term ‘‘Directives.’’ The definition of 

Program Obligations identifies the 

specific, longstanding, and familiar 

types of requirements (those in statutes, 

regulations, handbooks, guides, notices, 

and mortgagee letters) to which the 

parties must adhere. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

that HUD has unfettered discretion to 

make material changes that will have an 

economic effect on the viability of the 

project, the definition of ‘‘Program 

Obligations’’ explicitly recognizes that 

notice and comment rulemaking will be 

followed for significant substantive 

requirements. In fact, HUD has currently 

proposed rules accompanying these 

documents which can serve as an 

example of the type of changes that are 

made in rulemaking. 

Borrowers will be subject, as they are 

in any other government program, to 

prospective programmatic changes. 

Further, Lenders should recognize that 

they are, to a great extent, protected by 

and subject to the FHA Contract of 

Insurance. As described previously, 

HUD has referenced HUD rules in 

several places. The revised Security 

Instrument specifically references the 

applicable sections of the Code of 

Federal Regulations to address these 

concerns. For example, because 

concerns have been expressed about the 

potential liability of principals, Section 

1(bb) of the new Security Instrument 

explicitly links to the definition of 

principal in 24 CFR 200.15, and to the 

definition of ‘‘contract of insurance’’ in 

24 CFR part 207, subpart B. 

Additionally, it is important to note 

that the imposition of new or revised 

information collection requirements 

(that is, generally new or revised forms) 

must undergo the notice and comment 

processes, including Federal Register 

publication, required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. From time to 

time, HUD also uses mortgagee letters or 

other types of direct notices to 

announce new binding requirements. 

These types of documents are used, for 

example, when new statutes impose 

requirements that are effective upon 

enactment and HUD has no discretion 

in implementation. In such situations, 

mortgagee letters or other types of direct 

notices are the best vehicles to advise 

the industry on implementation dates 

and provide implementation guidance 

that may be helpful. HUD may also 

issue mortgagee letters or direct notices 

to announce clarifications, 

interpretations, or certain procedural 

requirements, such as to which HUD 

offices or HUD officials certain types of 

executed documents must be submitted. 

In brief, HUD will follow the applicable 

procedures, as directed by statute or 

regulation that govern issuance of a 

document, which may announce 

additional policies, processes, forms, or 

standards to which parties to the closing 

documents must comply. 

Liability and New Responsibilities. 

The proposed closing documents 

reflected a series of changes directed to 

Lenders assuming a greater role in 

reviewing documents for the 

transaction. While commenters 

expressed concerns about this expanded 

role and potential liabilities, they also 

expressed concerns that the proposed 

closing documents significantly 

increased burdens on HUD staff at a 

time of shrinking HUD personnel 

resources and looming retirements. 

Commenters further submitted that 

the requirement for HUD to review and 

approve minor modifications to 

commercial leases, review additional 

financial statements, additional 

diligence with regard to the closing 

documents, and many other 

requirements all cause significant 

increases to the cost of doing business 

for which there is no additional 

compensation vehicle. 

HUD has addressed these comments 

in several ways. Lender liability is 

limited by warranty restrictions. For 

example, while the Borrower grants the 

Lender a security interest in their 

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 

collateral, the Borrower also warrants to 

the Lender that no UCC filings have 

been made against the Borrower, the 

Project, or the Project assets. The 

Borrower makes these warranties to the 

Lender prior to the initial/final 

endorsement of the Note by HUD. In 

further attempting to address these 

competing concerns, namely the 

increased due diligence, and transaction 

specific issues, HUD has provided for 

modification of Lender fees. 

In addition, HUD continues to allow 

Lenders to recover costs through the 

interest rate and servicing fees, and 

recover certain ‘‘reasonable and 

customary’’ fees as noted in the Lender’s 

Certificate. The Lender may impose 

reasonable and customary 

administrative fees and charges 

(including but not limited to, 

reimbursements for out-of-pocket 

expenses) for handling and investing the 

cash held in the Reserve for 

Replacement, the Residual Receipts 

account, if applicable, and any other 

interest-bearing escrows related to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

Project and for processing, reviewing 

and approving other matters 

(Administrative Fees). Further, while 

Lenders are required to pass on interest 

earned on escrows to the Borrower, the 

Lender is allowed to negotiate a 

reasonable fee with the Borrower based 

on the particular responsibilities taken 

on in each transaction by the respective 

parties in other respects. For example, 

HUD has allowed Lenders to recoup 

costs in fees for due diligence related to 

Transfer of Physical Assets. 

Waste. Commenters expressed 

concerns that HUD was including a 

definition of ‘‘waste’’ that was broad and 

exceeded industry standards. Namely, 

commenters objected to inclusion of 

standards related to the physical 

condition of the property, along with 

the financial condition of the property 

and the potential for fraud. Commenters 

suggested as an alternative, to limit the 

definition of ‘‘waste’’ used in the closing 

documents to fraud and financial issues 

such as tax delinquency, unauthorized 

retention of funds, and actions reducing 

the value of the property. Commenters 

also suggested limiting the definition of 

waste to ‘‘Program Obligations’’ in effect 

as of the date of HUD’s firm 

commitment to insure the loan. 

HUD has the responsibility to ensure 

that HUD-insured properties are decent, 

safe, sanitary, and in good repair, and to 

provide sufficient information regarding 

the specific items that HUD will review 

in makings its determination that waste 

has been committed. Accordingly, HUD 

has retained language defining waste 

that includes the general goal of 

maintaining decent, safe, and sanitary 

housing, and a list of specific items that 

provide direction to the Borrower. 

Within the list of specifics that 

constitute waste, HUD has modified the 

proposed language to include ‘‘failure to 

maintain and repair’’ the property in 

accordance with Program Obligations. 

(See the preamble section labeled 

Program Obligations/Directives for a 

discussion of HUD requirements under 

program obligations). 

Transition. Commenters expressed a 

desire for HUD to coordinate the 

effective date for these documents with 

training and updated program guidance. 

HUD agrees with these comments and 

carefully considered them in 

determining an effective date. Updated 

guidance and a training schedule will be 

published well in advance of any 

closings that require use of the new 

closing documents. Notwithstanding the 

many opportunities for public comment 

and input that HUD has provided on 

revisions to the closing documents, 

which commenced even before the 

formal proposal issued in 2004, 

commenters requested that Lenders be 

given the option of using current or 

revised documents for up to three years 

and suggested different mandated 

effective dates depending on the 

program. HUD disagrees with these 

comments due to the many 

opportunities already made available to 

review the proposed documents. HUD 

recognizes that when these documents 

are issued in final form and are ready 

for use in multifamily rental 

transactions, that time will be needed 

for parties to adjust practices to use the 

new documents. As a result, these 

revised closing documents shall be 

mandatory with respect to all (i) 

mortgage insurance applications for 

refinancing, or (ii) potential applicants 

that receive a letter of invitation for the 

submission of an application for new 

construction or substantial 

rehabilitation, on or after May 1, 2011. 

D. Changes To Highlight Specific 

Documents 

Subordination Agreement 

The creation of a new Subordination 

Agreement is one example of HUD’s 

updates to correspond to current real 

estate industry practices. The new 

Subordination Agreement incorporates 

many of the concepts in a rider that is 

currently used by HUD and it is more 

in line with current industry practices 

for governmental subordinate lenders. 

The new Subordination Agreement also 

improves upon notification to the 

public, including potential purchasers 

and lenders, of the government’s 

interest as it incorporates, in one 

recordable document, the specific 

conditions that will protect the 

government’s first lien security interest 

in the property. 

Security Agreement/Instrument (HUD 

9400M) 

HUD has adopted several changes to 

specify Lender responsibilities under 

the security instrument while allowing 

entities to legally own properties as 

single asset entities and limit liability of 

principals regarding ‘‘bad boy’’ acts. 

Some of the key changes, some of which 

have been previously discussed are as 

follows: 

• Provides a contractual definition of 

waste to provide certainty and national 

standardization for program 

participants; 

• Clarifies the treatment of interest 

rates, recovery of costs, and allowance 

of administrative fees, such as for 

Transfers of Physical Assets; 

• Establishes standards for 

maintenance of books and records 

consistent with current HUD guidance; 

• Adopts technical recommendations 

from commenters to clarify categories of 

defaults; 

• Moderates environmental 

requirements; 

• Defers development of specific state 

law provisions for implementation 

experience with the current documents, 

while requiring those riders mandated 

by state law; 

• Updates and modernizes the 

documents to allow Lenders to pay 

advances for certain items related to 

completion and preservation of the 

property that are added to indebtedness 

in accordance with statutory authority, 

the regulations, and current practices. 

Note (HUD 949001) 

Many of the changes to the Note are 

the same as those changes made to the 

Security Instrument. Additional changes 

to the Note are as follows: 

• Provides alternative clauses for 

construction and refinancing situations; 

• Modernizes language to address 

securitization and bonding requirements 

that have been adopted since the 

documents were last revised; and 

• Nonrecourse to the Borrower. 

Regulatory Agreement (Form 2466M) 

The Regulatory Agreement is 

designed to ensure that Borrowers 

participating in these programs comply 

with HUD rules. Several of the 

definitions of terms used in the 

Regulatory Agreement were modified in 

both the Regulatory Agreement and the 

Security Instrument. Some of the key 

changes made to the Regulatory 

Agreement follow: 

• Modification of the definitions of 

Mortgaged Property, Personalty, and 

Project Assets to address the distinction 

between project assets and non-project 

entity assets; 

• Limitation of the definition of 

mortgaged property and allowing 

owners more flexibility; 

• Including revised definitions to 

provide for receipt and use of financing 

and revenue sources from for–profit, 

nonprofit, and charitable sources; and 

• Adopting a contractual definition of 

waste in order to provide certainty and 

national standardization for program 

participants. 

In addition, the Regulatory 

Agreement: 

• Provides automatic termination 

provisions if the loan has been repaid 

and HUD is no longer involved in the 

property, while maintaining HUD’s 

ability to protect the government’s 

interest to enforce violations of the 

agreement prior to termination; 

• Clarifies the term ‘‘construction 

funds’’; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80523 

• Qualifies owner construction 

responsibilities; 

• Includes a conflicts provision 

providing that if there is any conflict 

between the Regulatory Agreement and 

any other HUD agreement executed by 

Borrower, the agreement which imposes 

the more restrictive requirements on 

Borrower controls; 

• Removes Article IX which 

referenced Section 8 Housing Assistance 

Payments Contracts; 

• Retains restrictions on affiliates; 

• Alleviates some restrictions on 

project management, for example 

contracts with third party vendors; 

• Limits requirements to notify HUD 

of changes in Borrower organizational 

structure to only those which have a 

material effect; 

• Continues liability for payment of 

damages only for certain ‘‘bad boy acts’’; 

• Maintains UCC references in order 

to protect HUD’s security interests; 

• Includes a new provision in which 

Borrower agrees that it is not a thirdparty beneficiary to the Contract of 

Insurance between HUD and Lender; 

and 

• Provides for limited signatories. 

Lender’s Certificate (HUD 9243M) 

The Lender is required to certify that 

specific actions have been taken before 

financing is finalized. Lenders are 

required to certify to HUD that certain 

due diligence has been performed and 

accordingly, will be compensated for 

these new responsibilities. A key change 

by HUD in response to public comment 

is modification of the certification 

requirement standards to provide that 

the Lender will be certifying ‘‘to the best 

of the Lender’s knowledge’’ that the 

statements in the certification are true, 

accurate and complete.’’(paragraph 40). 

Some of the key changes made to the 

Lender’s Certificate are as follows: 

• Modifies several provisions 

regarding fees including: 

• Shifting closing fees to a separate 

attachment in order to allow the parties 

to the transaction to develop a more 

comprehensive and transaction specific 

list of charges; 

• Eliminating the declaration to the 

Borrower of the trading premium earned 

by Mortgagee upon Sale of Ginnie Mae 

Securities to allow Lenders and 

Borrowers to negotiate appropriate 

compensation; 

• Allowing negotiation of reasonable 

and customary administrative fees for 

reimbursement for out of pocket 

expenses, and handling and investing 

the cash held in reserve for replacement, 

residual receipts, and other interest 

bearing accounts; 

• Removing the term prepayment 

penalty and substituting the term 

prepayment premium; 

• Requiring Lenders to notify HUD if 

payments are not received by the tenth 

day of the month in which it is due and 

thus imposing a late charge. 

Additional modifications include: 

• Adopting limitations on disclosure 

of future identities of interest, as 

defined in ‘‘Program Obligations,’’ 

during the construction period or prior 

to final endorsement; 

• Changing the term ‘‘off-site 

components’’ to ‘‘off-site materials’’ to be 

more consistent with modern day 

terminology; and 

• Updating and modernizing the 

documents, consistent with change to 

the Security Instrument to allow 

Lenders to pay advances for certain 

items related to completion and 

preservation of the property that are 

added to indebtedness in accordance 

with statutory authority, the regulations, 

and current practices. 

Opinion (HUD–91725M) 

Some of the key changes made to the 

Opinion are as follows: 

• Removes the requirement that 

attorneys certify that the Borrower has 

made UCC filings, in response to the 

comment that financing statements are 

filed by other parties, such as the title 

company; in accordance with HUD’s 

decision, announced in the January 21, 

2010 notice, to shift UCC 

responsibilities to Lenders; 

• Removes the requirement for 

certification of flood insurance as that 

responsibility now rests with the 

Lender; 

• Qualifies with a knowledge 

standard the conflicts of interest 

statement e that Borrower’s counsel 

does not represent the Lender or other 

lenders, investors or other parties 

involved with the transaction; and 

• Limits certification of knowledge of 

side deals to those that, based upon the 

certification of the Borrower, and to the 

best of their knowledge, amend or are 

inconsistent with the terms of the HUD 

Form closing document or commitment 

between Borrower and any other party 

to the transaction. 

E. Miscellaneous Documents 

In addition to the foregoing 

documents HUD has a number of 

additional closing documents which are 

used in specific situations, such as 

escrows for incomplete construction, 

escrows for latent defects, and a 

completion assurance agreement. In 

response to suggestions made by 

commenters, HUD has adopted several 

concurring changes across these forms 

to ensure that there is consistency in all 

forms. In addition, HUD is seeking to 

ensure that practices are consistent in 

all field offices with respect to releases 

of escrowed funds in order to encourage 

program participation while providing 

financing and servicing certainty. As 

noted earlier in this notice published 

today, changes to these documents are 

displayed in redline/strikeout format 

posted on HUD’s Web page. 

III. Findings and Certifications 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed new information 

collection requirements contained in 

this notice have been submitted to OMB 

for review under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency 

may not conduct or sponsor and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

The public reporting burden for this 

new collection of information is 

estimated to include: 

Information collection Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Responses 

per annum 

Burden hours 

per response 

Annual burden 

hours Hourly cost Total annual cost 

HUD–91710M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 $26 $7,800 

HUD–91712M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92023M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 26 15,600 

HUD–92070M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92223M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92412M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92414M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92450M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92452A–M ........ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92452M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

Information collection Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Responses 

per annum 

Burden hours 

per response 

Annual burden 

hours Hourly cost Total annual cost 

HUD–92455M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 26 15,600 

HUD–92456M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92457A–M ........ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92457M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92464M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 46 27,600 

HUD–92476.1M ......... 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92476a–M ........ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92477M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92478M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92479M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–91725M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 125 75,000 

HUD–91725M–CERT 600 1 600 1 600 46 27,600 

HUD–91725M–INST .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HUD–92434M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 26 7,800 

HUD–92441M–SUPP 600 1 600 0 .75 450 26 11,700 

HUD–92441M ............ 600 1 600 0 .75 450 26 11,700 

HUD–92442M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 58 34,800 

HUD–92466M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 58 34,800 

HUD–92554M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–94000M ............ 600 1 600 0 .75 450 26 11,700 

HUD–94001M ............ 600 1 600 1 600 26 15,600 

HUD–93305M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

HUD–92476M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 12,300 

HUD–92420M ............ 600 1 600 0 .5 300 26 7,800 

Totals .................. 600 ........................ 19,800 .......................... 13,050.00 ........................ 457,800.00 

The hourly rate is an estimate based 

on an average annual salary of $62,000 

for developers and mortgagees. 

In accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting 

comments from members of the public 

and affected agencies concerning the 

proposed collection of information to: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments regarding the 

information collection requirements in 

this proposal. Comments must be 

received by January 21, 2011. 

Comments must refer to the proposal by 

name and docket number (FR–5354–N– 

02) and must be sent to: HUD Desk 

Officer, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 

(202) 395–6947; and Paperwork 

Reduction Act Program Manager, Office 

of the Chief Information Officer, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 

Room 4178, Washington, DC 20410. 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32185 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N159; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Watercress Darter National Wildlife 

Refuge, Jefferson County, AL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: Final 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

finding of no significant impact. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of our final comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and finding of 

no significant impact (FONSI) for the 

environmental assessment for 

Watercress Darter National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR). In the final CCP, we 

describe how we will manage this 

refuge for the next 15 years. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the CCP by writing to: Mr. Stephen A. 

Miller, Refuge Manager, Mountain 

Longleaf NWR, P.O. Box 54087, 

Anniston, AL 36205. The CCP may also 

be accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Web site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/ under 

‘‘Final Documents.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, Jackson, 

MS; telephone: 601/965–4903, ext. 20; 

fax: 601/965–4010; e-mail: 

mike_dawson@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we finalize the CCP 

process for Watercress Darter NWR. We 

started this process through a notice in 

the Federal Register on March 12, 2007 

(72 FR 11048). 

Watercress Darter NWR, near the city 

of Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama, 

was established by the Service in 1980, 

to provide protection for the endangered 

watercress darter. The refuge is only 

about 24 acres of ponds, mixed pinehardwood forest, and a residence, and 

contains Thomas Spring. A second pond 

was constructed on the refuge in 1983, 

to provide additional watercress darter 

habitat. The refuge is unstaffed and 

administered by Mountain Longleaf 

NWR. 

We announce our decision and the 

availability of the final CCP and FONSI 

for Watercress Darter NWR in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [40 

CFR 1506.6(b)] requirements. We 

completed a thorough analysis of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES