Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31045 

10See e.g., section 302 (limits, and establishes a 

dispute process and verification procedures with 

respect to, the inclusion of a veteran’s medical debt 

in a consumer credit report); section 313 (makes 

permanent the one-year grace period during which 

a servicemember is protected from foreclosure after 

leaving military service)). 11New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. 

Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 419–420 (1973). 12United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood 

Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988). 13See, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). 

The Act enacted several legislative 

changes, including section 309, that 

were aimed at protecting veterans from 

predatory lending practices in 

connection with refinancing activity 

and preserving the relatively low rates 

created by Ginnie Mae guarantees 

without the adverse impact of high 

prepayment speeds.10 The broader 

purpose of these provisions is to benefit 

veterans by providing them with 

affordable housing. Indeed, section 

309(b) of the Act is titled ‘‘Protecting 

Veterans from Predatory Lending.’’ This 

is also one of the purposes of the Ginnie 

Mae Charter, which was amended by 

section 309(b) of the Act. 

Under settled precedent, Section 

309(b) of the Act cannot be construed in 

a way that would frustrate the purposes 

of either Section 309 of the Act or the 

Ginnie Mae Charter. The Supreme Court 

has instructed that courts ‘‘cannot 

interpret federal statutes to negate their 

own stated purposes.’’ 11 Moreover, a 

statutory provision that may seem 

‘‘ambiguous in isolation is often 

clarified by the remainder of the 

statutory scheme . . . because only one 

of the permissible meanings produces a 

substantive effect that is compatible 

with the rest of the law.’’ 12

But to conclude that section 309(b) of 

the Act precludes the guarantee of 

Multiclass Securities collateralized by 

MBS and Multiclass Securities 

previously and lawfully issued by 

Ginnie Mae also would frustrate the 

purpose of these statutes. Precluding 

existing MBS and Multiclass 

Securities—where it is now difficult, if 

not practically impossible, to assess 

compliance with Section 309(b) of the 

Act would potentially ‘‘orphan’’ billions 

of dollars worth of outstanding Ginnie 

Mae securities that were validly 

guaranteed under prior law. This is 

because they never could be 

incorporated into Multiclass Securities 

after the enactment of the Act. This 

would frustrate the reasonable 

expectations of Ginnie Mae investors 

who purchased Ginnie Mae MBS at 

prices that explicitly contemplated their 

ultimate inclusion in Multiclass 

Securities. Because these securities 

would then decrease in value, the end 

result would be increased interest rates 

for veterans. Given that this would 

harm, rather than help, veterans, it is 

difficult to imagine that Congress 

intended to cause significant disruption 

to the Multiclass Securities program 

beyond what was needed to stop the 

undesirable lending practices on a 

prospective basis. Further, restricting 

the inclusion of existing MBS and 

previously issued Multiclass Securities 

as eligible collateral would not decrease 

the amount of risk to Ginnie Mae and 

the investors since the certificates are 

already guaranteed. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons described above, it is 

HUD’s interpretation that as of the 

enactment of the Act, any VA 

refinanced mortgage loan that does not 

meet the seasoning requirements 

contained in section 309(b) the Act is 

ineligible to serve as collateral for 

Ginnie Mae MBS. Ginnie Mae MBS 

guaranteed before the enactment of the 

Act, that contain VA refinanced 

mortgage loans that do not meet the 

seasoning requirements contained in the 

Act, are unaffected by the Act. For 

Multiclass Securities, the Act permits 

Ginnie Mae to guarantee Multiclass 

Securities even where the trust assets 

consist of direct or indirect interest in 

certificates guaranteed by Ginnie Mae 

without regard to whether the 

underlying VA mortgage loans are in 

compliance with the seasoning 

requirements in section 309(b) of the 

Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comment 

This interpretive rule represents 

HUD’s interpretation of section 309(b) of 

the Act and, as such, is exempt from the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act.13

Nevertheless, HUD is interested in 

receiving feedback from the public on 

this interpretation, specifically with 

respect to clarity and scope. 

Dated: June 25, 2018. 

J. Paul Compton, Jr., 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14354 Filed 6–29–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2018–0003] 

RIN 1218–AB76 

Revising the Beryllium Standard for 

General Industry 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is confirming the 

effective date of its direct final rule 

(DFR) adopting a number of clarifying 

amendments to the beryllium standard 

for general industry to address the 

application of the standard to materials 

containing trace amounts of beryllium. 

In the May 7, 2018, DFR, OSHA stated 

that the DFR would become effective on 

July 6, 2018, unless one or more 

significant adverse comments were 

submitted by June 6, 2018. OSHA did 

not receive significant adverse 

comments on the DFR, so by this 

document the agency is confirming that 

the DFR will become effective on July 6, 

2018. 

DATES: The DFR published on May 7, 

2018 (83 FR 19936), becomes effective 

on July 6, 2018. For purposes of judicial 

review, OSHA considers the date of 

publication of this document as the date 

of promulgation of the DFR. 

ADDRESSES: For purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

2112(a), OSHA designates the Associate 

Solicitor of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health as the recipient of 

petitions for review of the direct final 

rule. Contact the Associate Solicitor at 

the Office of the Solicitor, Room S– 

4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–5445. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, 

OSHA Office of Communications, Room 

N–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–1999; 

email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

General information and technical 

inquiries: Mr. William Perry or Ms. 

Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Room N–3718, 

OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–1950; 

fax: (202) 693–1678. 

Copies of this Federal Register 

document and news releases: Electronic 

copies of these documents are available 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

at OSHA’s web page at http://

www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Confirmation of Effective Date 

On May 7, 2018, OSHA published a 

DFR in the Federal Register (83 FR 

19936) amending the text of the 

beryllium standard for general industry 

to clarify OSHA’s intent with respect to 

certain terms in the standard, including 

the definition of Beryllium Work Area 

(BWA), the definition of emergency, and 

the meaning of the terms dermal contact 

and beryllium contamination. It also 

clarifies OSHA’s intent with respect to 

provisions for disposal and recycling 

and with respect to provisions that the 

agency intends to apply only where skin 

can be exposed to materials containing 

at least 0.1% beryllium by weight. 

Interested parties had until June 6, 2018, 

to submit comments on the DFR. 

The agency stated that it would 

publish another document confirming 

the effective date of the DFR if it 

received no significant adverse 

comments. OSHA received seven 

comments in the record from Materion 

Brush, Inc., Mead Metals Inc., National 

Association of Manufacturers, Airborn, 

Inc., Edison Electric Institute, and two 

private citizens (Document IDs OSHA– 

2018–0003–0004 thru OSHA–2018– 

0003–0010). The seven submissions 

contained comments that were either 

supportive of the DFR or were 

considered not to be significant adverse 

comments. (Document IDs OSHA–2018– 

0003–0004 thru OSHA–2018–0003– 

0010). Three of these submissions also 

contained comments that were outside 

the scope of the DFR and OSHA is not 

considering the portions of those 

submissions that are outside the scope 

(OSHA–2018–0003–0004 thru OSHA– 

2018–0003–0006). 

OSHA has determined this DFR will 

maintain safety and health protections 

for workers while reducing employers’ 

compliance burdens. As the agency did 

not receive any significant adverse 

comments, OSHA is hereby confirming 

that the DFR published on May 7, 2018, 

will become effective on July 6, 2018. 

II. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This action does not add or change 

any information collection requirements 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320. The PRA defines a collection of 

information as the obtaining, causing to 

be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 

disclosure to third parties or the public 

of facts or opinions by or for an agency 

regardless of form or format. See 44 

U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). While not affected by 

this rulemaking, the Department has 

cleared information collections related 

to occupational exposure to beryllium 

standards—general industry, 29 CFR 

1910.1024; construction, 29 CFR 

1926.1124; and shipyards, 29 CFR 

1915.1024—under control number 

1218–0267. The existing approved 

information collections are unchanged 

by this rulemaking. 

In the DFR published on May 7, 2018, 

OSHA provided 30 days for the public 

to comment on whether approved 

information collections would be 

affected by this rulemaking. The agency 

did not receive any comments on 

paperwork in response to that notice. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 

Beryllium, General industry, Health, 

Occupational safety and health. 

Authority and Signature 

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, directed the 

preparation of this direct final rule. The 

agency is issuing this rule under 

Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 

653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor’s 

Order 5–2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 

CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on June 27, 

2018. 

Loren Sweatt, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14274 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 706 

Certifications and Exemptions Under 

the International Regulations for 

Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

(DoN) is amending its certifications and 

exemptions under the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 

Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that 

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and 

Maritime Law) has determined that USS 

PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117) is a vessel 

of the Navy which, due to its special 

construction and purpose, cannot fully 

comply with certain provisions of the 72 

COLREGS without interfering with its 

special function as a naval ship. The 

intended effect of this rule is to warn 

mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS 

apply. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 3, 2018 

and is applicable beginning May 30, 

2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, 

(Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of 

the Judge Advocate General, Department 

of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, 

Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 

20374–5066, telephone 202–685–5040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 

1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706. 

This amendment provides notice that 

the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime 

Law), under authority delegated by the 

Secretary of the Navy, has certified that 

USS PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117) is a 

vessel of the Navy which, due to its 

special construction and purpose, 

cannot fully comply with the following 

specific provisions of 72 COLREGS 

without interfering with its special 

function as a naval ship: Annex I, 

paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the 

placement of the masthead light or 

lights above and clear of all other lights 

and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 

2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical 

placement of task lights; Rule 23(a), the 

requirement to display a forward and aft 

masthead light underway, and Annex I, 

paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the 

location of the forward masthead light 

in the forward quarter of the ship, and 

the horizontal distance between the 

forward and after masthead lights; and 

Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to 

placement of task lights not less than 

two meters from the fore and aft 

centerline of the ship in the athwartship 

direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and 

Maritime Law) has also certified that the 

lights involved are located in closest 

possible compliance with the applicable 

72 COLREGS requirements. 

Moreover, it has been determined, in 

accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 

701, that publication of this amendment 

for public comment prior to adoption is 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to public interest since it is 

based on technical findings that the 

placement of lights on this vessel in a 

manner differently from that prescribed 

herein will adversely affect the vessel’s 

ability to perform its military functions. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Vessels. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES