31042 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed in the preamble, HUD amends 

24 CFR part 200 as follows: 

PART 200—INTRODUCTION TO FHA 

PROGRAMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 200 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1702–1715z–21; 42 

U.S.C. 3535(d). 

■ 2. In § 200.145, add paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 200.145 Property and mortgage 

assessment. 

* * * * * 

(c) For all new construction as well as 

structural repairs and/or renovations of 

existing properties, to the extent that an 

inspection is required to determine if 

construction quality of a one- to fourunit property is acceptable as security 

for an FHA-insured loan, the following 

requirements apply: 

(1)(i) In areas where local 

jurisdictions provide building code 

enforcement and the requisite 

documentation, the lender shall provide 

a copy of: 

(A) The building permit, or its 

equivalent, and a copy of the certificate 

of occupancy, or its equivalent; or 

(B) A satisfactory inspection notice for 

work completed, or its equivalent. 

(ii) The documentation provided 

under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section 

shall be considered satisfactory 

evidence of completion of the work. 

(2) In jurisdictions that do not provide 

building code enforcement and requisite 

documentation, three inspections are 

required for new construction. For 

existing construction, only one 

inspection and certification of work 

completed for structural repairs and 

renovations is required. For both new 

and existing construction, the lender 

shall, in order to ensure compliance 

with FHA requirements: 

(i) Select a Residential Combination 

Inspector (or its successor designation) 

or a Combination Inspector (or its 

successor designation) certified by the 

International Code Council (or its 

successor organization) who is licensed 

or certified as a home inspector in 

accordance with the applicable State 

and local requirements governing the 

licensing or certification of those 

jurisdictions that license or certify such 

inspectors in the respective jurisdiction. 

The lender shall provide a certification 

from such inspector that the new 

construction and/or structural repair or 

renovation work is completed 

satisfactorily and in compliance with 

any applicable building code. 

(ii) In the absence of such Residential 

Combination Inspector and 

Combination Inspector, the lender shall 

obtain an inspection performed by a 

third party, who is a registered architect, 

a professional engineer, or a trades 

person or contractor, and who has met 

the licensing and bonding requirements 

of the State in which the property is 

located. The lender shall provide a 

certification from such inspector that 

the inspector is licensed and bonded 

under applicable State law, and that the 

new construction and/or structural 

repair or renovation work is completed 

satisfactorily and in compliance with 

any applicable building code. 

§§ 200.170 through 200.172 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove the undesignated center 

heading ‘‘FHA Inspector Roster’’ and 

§§ 200.170 through 200.172. 

Dated: June 26, 2018. 

Brian D. Montgomery, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14212 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 330 

[Docket No. FR–6112–IA–01] 

Government National Mortgage 

Association: Loan Seasoning for 

Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed 

Securities—Interpretive Rule 

AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, 

HUD. 

ACTION: Interpretive rule. 

SUMMARY: HUD is issuing this 

interpretive rule to clarify the scope of 

the provision of the recently enacted 

Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, 

and Consumer Protection Act (Act) that 

prohibits the Government National 

Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) from 

guaranteeing the timely payment of 

principal and interest on a security that 

is ‘‘backed by a mortgage’’ that fails to 

meet certain ‘‘seasoning’’ requirements. 

With this new amendment, questions 

have arisen as to the effect of this 

provision on Ginnie Mae’s ability to 

guarantee Multiclass Securities where 

the trust assets consist of direct or 

indirect interests in certificates, 

previously lawfully guaranteed by 

Ginnie Mae, but with underlying 

mortgage loans that may not be in 

compliance with the seasoning 

requirements. This rule provides HUD’s 

interpretation that the statutory 

provision does not prohibit Ginnie Mae 

from making guarantees in this context. 

Although interpretive rules are exempt 

from public comment under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, HUD 

nevertheless invites public comment on 

the interpretation provided in this rule. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This interpretive rule is 

effective June 29, 2018, and is 

applicable beginning June 25, 2018. 

Comment due date: August 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this interpretive rule 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. Due to 

security measures at all Federal 

agencies, however, submission of 

comments by mail often results in 

delayed delivery. To ensure timely 

receipt of comments, HUD recommends 

that comments submitted by mail be 

submitted at least two weeks in advance 

of the public comment deadline. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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 

www.regulations.gov website 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 rule. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31043 

1 12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq. 2 12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1). 

3Public Law 115–174. 

4 12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1). 

5 38 U.S.C. chapter 37 governs VA loans. 

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 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled in 

advance 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 Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. Copies of all comments submitted 

are available for inspection and 

downloading at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin M. Simpson, Associate General 

Counsel for Finance and Administrative 

Law, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 

8150, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 

number 202–402–2036. Persons with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this number via TTY by calling 

the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Established by the Federal National 

Mortgage Association Charter Act 

(Ginnie Mae Charter),1 Ginnie Mae 

guarantees investors the timely payment 

of principal and interest on single class 

mortgage-backed securities (MBS) 

issued by private lenders and others that 

are backed by pools of mortgage loans 

insured or guaranteed by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA), U.S Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Rural 

Development (RD), and U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Public and Indian Housing 

(PIH). The Ginnie Mae guaranty, backed 

by the full faith and credit of the United 

States Government, which Ginnie Mae 

places on MBS lowers the cost of, and 

maintains the supply of, mortgage 

financing for such government-backed 

loans. The authority for these guaranties 

is found in section 306(g)(1) of the 

Ginnie Mae Charter.2 As stated in 

Ginnie Mae’s All Participants 

Memorandum 18–04, any Ginnie Mae 

MBS with an issuance date of May 2018 

or earlier is not affected by the Act. 

Further, any refinanced VA mortgage 

loan that does not meet the seasoning 

requirement contained in the Act, that 

was not backing a Ginnie Mae MBS 

prior to May 24, 2018, is ineligible to 

serve as MBS collateral. 

The ‘‘Multiclass Securities Program’’ 

is a vehicle that further increases the 

liquidity of Ginnie Mae MBS and 

attracts new sources of capital for 

federally insured or guaranteed loans. 

Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities are 

collateralized by trust assets that consist 

of direct or indirect interest in 

certificates with underlying FHA, VA, 

RD, and PIH mortgage loans (i.e., MBS 

or previously issued Multiclass 

Securities). Ginnie Mae Multiclass 

Securities direct principal and interest 

payments from the underlying MBS or 

previously-issued Multiclass Securities 

to classes (known as tranches) with 

different principal balances, interest 

rates, average lives, prepayment 

characteristics, and final maturities. 

This enables investors with different 

investment horizons, risk-reward 

preferences, and asset-liability 

management requirements to purchase 

mortgage securities that are tailored to 

their needs. The authority for this 

program is also found in section 

306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter. 

On May 24, 2018, President Trump 

signed into law the Act.3 Title III of the 

Act contains several legislative 

protections for veterans, consumers and 

homeowners, including section 309, 

which largely incorporated the 

‘‘Protecting Veterans from Predatory 

Lending Act of 2018.’’ Section 309(b) of 

the Act amended section 306(g)(1) of the 

Ginnie Mae Charter 4 to add the 

following sentence: ‘‘The Association 

may not guarantee the timely payment 

of principal and interest on a security 

that is backed by a mortgage insured or 

guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38, 

United States Code,5 and that was 

refinanced until the later of the date that 

is 210 days after the date on which the 

first monthly payment is made on the 

mortgage being refinanced and the date 

on which 6 full monthly payments have 

been made on the mortgage being 

refinanced.’’ 

This seasoning requirement was 

designed to deter lenders from 

encouraging veterans to refinance their 

VA mortgage loans often and repeatedly. 

This practice of ‘‘churning’’ led to faster 

prepayment speeds on the mortgages 

underlying Ginnie Mae MBS and 

Multiclass Securities, making these 

securities less valuable to investors. 

Increased prepayment speeds means 

that the underlying loans, and therefore 

a portion of the related securities, do not 

stay outstanding, at the agreed upon 

interest rates, as long as expected. This 

uncertainty adversely affects the 

investor expectations, resulting in low 

prices on the securities and therefore 

higher coupon rates for MBS and 

Multiclass Securities. The value to 

investors of the predictability of Ginnie 

Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities as 

opposed to alternatives is one reason, 

however, that interest rates on mortgage 

loans insured or guaranteed by VA, 

FHA, RD and PIH are kept at relatively 

low interest rates. Accordingly, 

‘‘churning’’ was seen as detrimental to 

veterans not only because those who 

refinanced often did not realize that the 

overall refinance costs could outweigh 

the short-term benefits, but also because 

overall mortgage rates were higher than 

they would otherwise be in part because 

of the adverse impact, in the view of the 

investors, of higher prepayment speeds 

on the VA mortgage loans backing the 

Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass 

Securities. 

II. This Interpretive Rule 

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) of 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 does not 

prohibit Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing 

Multiclass Securities where the trust 

assets consist of direct or indirect 

interests in Ginnie Mae guaranteed 

certificates with underlying VA 

mortgage loans that may not comply 

with the statutory seasoning 

requirement. As discussed more fully 

below, this reading of section 309(b) is 

supported by a close reading of the 

relevant statutory language. Further, and 

as discussed below, a contrary 

interpretation of section 309(b) of the 

Act would defeat the provision’s 

purposes of restricting VA loan 

churning and protecting veterans. 

A. Statutory Text 

HUD’s interpretation is supported by 

a close reading of the statutory text of 

the Ginnie Mae Charter, section 309(b) 

of the Act, and section 309 more 

broadly. 

The language of section 309(b) of the 

Act differs in significant respect from 

the long-standing language in the Ginnie 

Mae Charter. Section 306(g)(1) of the 

Ginnie Mae Charter refers to the 

securities that Ginnie Mae is authorized 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31044 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

6United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir. 

1999) (citing Crockett Telephone Co. v. F.C.C., 963 

F.2d 1564, 1570 (D.C. Cir. 1992) and other cases); 

see also A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The 

Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) (‘‘[W]here 

the document has used one term in one place, and 

a materially different term in another, the 

presumption is that the different term denotes a 

different idea.’’). 

7 Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 

392–93 (2013). 

8Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 

S. Ct. 843, 846 (1997). 

9 INS v. National Center for Immigrants Rights 

Inc, 502 U.S. 183 (1991). 

to guarantee as those ‘‘backed by a trust 

or pool composed of mortgages,’’ 

language that has long been understood 

by Congress and HUD to encompass 

both MBS and Multiclass Securities. See 

Letter from Nelson Diaz to Dwight P. 

Robinson (June 27, 1994). However, the 

language added by section 309(b) of the 

Act does not use similarly broad 

language—it refers only to those 

securities that are ‘‘backed by a 

mortgage.’’ It is a well-settled principle 

of statutory interpretation that ‘‘the use 

of different words within the same 

statutory context strongly suggests that 

different meanings were intended.’’ 6 In 

addition, ‘‘a statute should be 

constructed so that effect is given to all 

of its provisions, so that no part will be 

inoperative or superfluous, void or 

insignificant.’’ 7 Under these principles, 

Congress’s decision to use only the 

words ‘‘backed by a mortgage,’’ as 

compared to ‘‘backed by a trust or pool 

composed of mortgages,’’ should be 

given meaning. 

To give meaning to the narrower 

language in section 309(b) of the Act, 

that provision should be read to 

reference a narrower class of securities 

(MBS) than all of the securities long 

understood to be covered by the broader 

language of section 306(g) the of Ginnie 

Mae Charter (both MBS and Multiclass 

Securities). Had Congress intended 

section 309(b) of the Act to encompass 

Multiclass Securities as well as MBS, it 

would have employed the broader 

language known to encompass both 

types of securities—i.e., ‘‘backed by a 

trust or pool composed of mortgages.’’ 

Instead, Congress used only the words 

‘‘backed by a mortgage.’’ HUD believes 

that the best way to give that distinction 

meaning, as required under the case 

law, is to read the narrower phrase to 

encompass only those securities that are 

backed directly by mortgages (i.e., MBS) 

as opposed to securities that are backed 

directly by a trust of securities that are 

ultimately backed by mortgages (i.e., 

Multiclass Securities). 

This reading is supported by nearby 

statutory language in section 306(g)(3) of 

the Ginnie Mae Charter. As the Supreme 

Court has explained, ‘‘[t]he plainness or 

ambiguity of statutory language is 

determined by reference to the language 

itself, the specific context in which that 

language is used, and the broader 

context of the statute as a whole.’’ 8 The 

language of section 306(g)(3) of the 

Ginnie Mae Charter refers differently to 

MBS and to Multiclass Securities in a 

way that supports reading section 309(b) 

of the Act to apply only to MBS. In 

sections 306(g)(3)(A) and (B) of the 

Ginnie Mae Charter, Congress describes 

MBS as ‘‘securities or notes based on or 

backed by mortgages.’’ In contrast, in 

section 306(g)(3)(E) of the Ginnie Mae 

Charter, Congress refers distinctly to 

Multiclass Securities as being ‘‘backed 

by a trust or pool of securities or notes 

guaranteed by [Ginnie Mae].’’ Put more 

simply, section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie 

Mae Charter describes MBS as securities 

backed by mortgages and describes 

Multiclass Securities differently as 

securities backed by a trust or pool of 

securities or notes, even though 

Multiclass Securities ultimately also are 

backed by mortgages. The narrow 

language of section 309(b) of the Act 

—‘‘a security backed by a mortgage’’— 

appears intended to track the 

description of MBS in section 

306(g)(3)(A) and (B) of the Ginnie Mae 

Charter and not to include Multiclass 

Securities as described in section 

306(g)(3)(E) of the Ginnie Mae Charter. 

In addition, this interpretation of 

section 309(b) of the Act is supported by 

a holistic reading of section 309. Other 

provisions in this section refer explicitly 

to MBS, but none refers to Multiclass 

Securities. In section 309(c) of the Act, 

for example, the statute imposes 

reporting requirements on Ginnie Mae 

to allow it to monitor the effectiveness 

of the Act in regards to MBS, but the 

provision does not reference Multiclass 

Securities. This strongly implies that 

MBS were the only securities targeted 

by Congress in section 309 of the Act, 

and that section 309(b) of the Act 

therefore does not apply to Multiclass 

Securities. 

Lastly, this reading is supported by 

the heading of section 309(b) of the 

Act—‘‘Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae 

Mortgage-Backed Securities.’’ The 

heading refers only to MBS and makes 

no reference to Multiclass Securities. 

The Supreme Court has said that ‘‘the 

title of a statute or section can aid in 

resolving ambiguity in the legislation’s 

text.’’ 9 Thus, to the extent section 

309(b) of the Act is ambiguous, its 

heading clarifies its limited application 

to MBS only. 

B. Inconsistency With Purpose of Statute 

HUD’s interpretation of section 309(b) 

of the Act is also consistent with the 

purposes of both section 309 of the Act 

and the Ginnie Mae Charter. A contrary 

reading would prohibit Ginnie Mae 

from guaranteeing all new Multiclass 

Securities ultimately backed by any 

prohibited mortgage, including 

Multiclass Securities composed solely 

of securities lawfully guaranteed prior 

to enactment of the Act. Prohibiting 

Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing such 

securities would harm, not help, 

veterans and would therefore 

contravene the purposes of section 309 

of the Act and the Ginnie Mae Charter. 

1. Anti-Churning. As noted, section 

309 of the Act was intended to protect 

both veterans and investors by 

discouraging the unfair lending practice 

of ‘‘churning.’’ By prohibiting Ginnie 

Mae from guaranteeing MBS containing 

any loans refinanced in violation of the 

seasoning requirements, the Act 

decreases the marketability of these 

loans and thereby motivates lenders to 

avoid such practices in the future. By 

contrast, prohibiting Ginnie Mae’s 

ability to guarantee Multiclass 

Securities containing MBS that were 

guaranteed by Ginnie Mae prior to the 

Act becoming law can have no impact 

on lender behavior. The lender cannot 

change the circumstances surrounding 

the production of a loan securitized and 

sold prior to the enactment of the Act. 

Further, it may be unknowable whether 

the previously guaranteed MBS or 

previously issued Multiclass Security 

would comply with section 309(b) of the 

Act because assuring and tracking 

compliance with the seasoning 

requirements in the Act were not 

requirements for Ginnie Mae securities 

prior to the Act’s enactment. To 

interpret the prohibition of section 

309(b) of the Act to include Multiclass 

Securities, therefore, is to sanction a 

measure that does not advance the 

legislative aim of decreasing the 

financial motives of lenders to engage in 

the predatory practices at issue. 

2. Protection of Veterans. Interpreting 

section 309(b) of the Act to prohibit the 

guarantee of Multiclass Securities 

composed of trust assets that consist of 

direct or indirect interests in certificates 

with underlying VA mortgage loans that 

were guaranteed prior to the enactment 

of the statute would also have a negative 

impact on the liquidity of the Multiclass 

Securities market, driving up VA 

mortgage rates and restricting the 

availability of the VA mortgage loans to 

the very veterans that the statute was 

intended to protect. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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