Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100739 

1HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR 200.54(c) allow an 

exception to the requirement in 24 CFR 200.54(b) 

for certain projects involving low-income housing 

tax credit syndication proceeds, historic tax-credit 

syndication proceeds, New Markets Tax Credits 

proceeds, and funds provided by a grant or loan 

from a Federal, State, or local government. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all 

comments received, this final rule, and 

all background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

FAA Docket number. Electronic 

retrieval help and guidelines are 

available on the website. It is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ 

publications/. You may also contact the 

Rules and Regulations Group, Office of 

Policy, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 600 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington DC 20597; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations 

Group, Office of Policy, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20597; telephone (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it corrects an 

error of incorrect coordinates in a 

previously published regulatory text. 

History 

The FAA published a final rule for 

Docket No. FAA–2024–1347 in the 

Federal Register (89 FR 84812; October 

24, 2024) that amended Q–1, Q–902, V– 

495, and J–502. The action also revoked 

J–589 and established T–487 and T–895. 

Subsequent to publication, the FAA 

identified the coordinates listed in the 

regulatory text for the route point 

DISCO are incorrect. This action 

corrects that error. 

Correction to Final Rule 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, Amendment 

of United States Area Navigation Routes 

Q–1 and Q–902, Very High Frequency 

Omnidirectional Range Federal Airway 

V–495, and Jet Route J–502. Also, the 

revocation of Jet Route J–589 and the 

establishment of United States Area 

Navigation Route T–487 and Canadian 

Area Navigation Route T–895 in 

Northwestern United States, published 

in the Federal Register on October 24, 

2024 (89 FR 84812), is corrected as 

follows: 

FR Doc. 2024–24590, on page 84814, 

the coordinates listed for the route point 

DISCO in the regulatory text for Q–902 

and T–487 are revised to read (lat. 

48°22′35.81′′ N, long. 123°09′30.60′′ W) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 

2024. 

Richard Lee Parks, 

Manager(A), Rules and Regulations Group. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29299 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 200 

[Docket No. FR–6423–F–02] 

RIN 2502–AJ72 

Disbursing Multifamily Mortgage 

Proceeds: Permitting Mortgagees To 

Disburse Mortgage Proceeds With 

Mortgagor-Provided Funds 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: When funds provided by a 

mortgagor to a mortgagee are not fully 

disbursed with the initial advance of the 

insured mortgage proceeds, this final 

rule permits mortgagees to disburse up 

to 1 percent of the mortgage amount 

initially endorsed for insurance before 

requiring that the funds provided by the 

mortgagor be disbursed in full. This 

change to HUD’s requirements removes 

unusual and burdensome mortgage 

servicing practices that may result from 

pooling mortgages into mortgage-backed 

securities guaranteed by the 

Government National Mortgage 

Association prior to the funds provided 

by the mortgagor being disbursed in full. 

This final rule adopts HUD’s August 6, 

2024, proposed rule with only minor, 

non-substantive revisions. 

DATES: Effective January 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Lawrence, Deputy Director, 

Office of Multifamily Production, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 

6134, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 

202–431–7397 (this is not a toll-free 

number). HUD welcomes and is 

prepared to receive calls from 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing, as well as individuals with 

speech or communication disabilities. 

To learn more about how to make an 

accessible telephone call, please visit 

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/ 

telecommunications-relay-service-trs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

24 CFR 200.54 and Ginnie Mae 

Guaranteed Mortgage-Backed Securities 

Mortgagees seeking to originate a 

Federal Housing Administration (FHA)- 

insured mortgage regulated pursuant to 

24 CFR part 200, subpart A, must 

comply with the project completion 

funding requirements in 24 CFR 200.54. 

These requirements provide that a 

mortgagor must deposit funds with its 

mortgagee that are sufficient, when 

added to the proceeds from the FHAinsured mortgage, to assure completion 

of planned multifamily or healthcare 

facility project work and to pay the 

initial service charge, carrying charges, 

and legal and organization expenses 

incident to the construction of the 

project. Typically, 24 CFR 200.54(b) 

requires that the funds deposited by the 

mortgagor with the mortgagee 

(mortgagor-provided funds) must be 

disbursed in full for project work, 

material, and incidental charges and 

expenses (collectively, ‘‘project-related 

expenses’’) before the mortgagee may 

disburse any mortgage proceeds. HUD 

requires that mortgagees disburse the 

mortgagor-provided funds in full before 

disbursing any mortgage proceeds as a 

basic risk measure.1

For most mortgages regulated 

pursuant to 24 CFR part 200, subpart A, 

the mortgagor-provided funds are 

disbursed in full to pay for projectrelated expenses with the initial 

advance of the insured mortgage 

proceeds at the time the insured 

mortgage is endorsed. For certain 

mortgages, however, the amount of 

mortgagor-provided funds exceeds the 

amount of project-related expenses due 

at the time the insured mortgage is 

endorsed. Where the mortgagorprovided funds are not fully disbursed 

at the time the insured mortgage is 

endorsed, the mortgagor-provided funds 

are fully disbursed through subsequent 

disbursements by the mortgagee, usually 

with the mortgagor-provided funds 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2For additional information about Ginnie Mae 

and Ginnie Mae’s guarantee of MBSs, see Ginnie 

Mae’s About Us web page, available at https://

www.ginniemae.gov/about_us/who_we_are/Pages/ 

funding_government_lending.aspx. 

3The Partial Waiver of 24 CFR 200.54(b) was 

initially granted in July 2021. See 87 FR 14563 

(Mar. 15, 2022). The Partial Waiver of 24 CFR 

200.54(b) has subsequently been extended and 

remains in effect until July 4, 2025. 

4 89 FR 63847. 

being disbursed within two months after 

the insured mortgage is endorsed. 

Given that 24 CFR 200.54(b) does not 

typically permit insured mortgage 

proceeds to be disbursed until the 

mortgagee disburses all mortgagorprovided funds, if the mortgagorprovided funds are not fully disbursed 

at the time the insured mortgage is 

endorsed, there may be challenges in 

pooling the mortgage into a mortgagebacked security (MBS) guaranteed by 

the Government National Mortgage 

Association (Ginnie Mae) without 

conflicting with 24 CFR 200.54(b), 

possibly creating financial difficulties 

for the mortgagor.2 As such, for an 

insured mortgage to be pooled into a 

Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBS, the 

insured mortgage proceeds must be 

permitted to be disbursed. 

This financial difficulty created by 24 

CFR 200.54(b) typically only exists for 

a short period of usually no longer than 

two months after the endorsement of the 

FHA-insured mortgage, by which time 

the mortgagor-provided funds are 

usually fully disbursed. During the short 

period, the mortgagee must implement 

unusual and burdensome mortgage 

servicing practices to maintain 

compliance with 24 CFR 200.54(b). If a 

mortgagee is unable to pool an insured 

mortgage into a Ginnie Mae guaranteed 

MBS at endorsement, the mortgagee 

might never be able to securitize the 

insured mortgage and might fail to meet 

contractually required delivery dates 

between the mortgagee and investor. 

This could potentially lead to costly 

investor compensation fees. The 

mortgagee may also experience issues 

relating to its financial liquidity cycle. 

When many insured mortgages are 

unable to be pooled into Ginnie Mae 

guaranteed MBSs at the time the insured 

mortgages are endorsed, cascading 

issues for the broader mortgage market 

can occur. These can include reducing 

the overall liquidity of the mortgage 

market and increasing the cost on 

mortgagors to borrow funds, which 

reduces the availability of housing and 

ultimately harms HUD’s mission to 

create strong, sustainable, inclusive 

communities and affordable homes for 

all. 

Partial Regulatory Waiver of 24 CFR 

200.54(b) 

HUD has recently addressed this issue 

with the requirements in 24 CFR 

200.54(b) for mortgages insured under 

National Housing Act sections 213 and 

221(d)(4) by issuing a partial regulatory 

waiver of the requirements of 24 CFR 

200.54(b) (Partial Waiver of 24 CFR 

200.54(b)).3 The Partial Waiver of 24 

CFR 200.54(b) partially waives the 

requirement in 24 CFR 200.54(b) that 

mortgagor-provided funds ‘‘must be 

disbursed in full’’ for project-related 

expenses before any disbursement of 

funds from the insured mortgage. 

Instead, the Partial Waiver of 24 CFR 

200.54(b) permits a mortgagee to 

disburse funds from the insured 

mortgage in an amount up to one-half 

percent (0.5%) of the initially endorsed 

mortgage amount. The Partial Waiver of 

24 CFR 200.54(b) allows mortgagees to 

comply with FHA’s requirements and 

pool insured mortgages into Ginnie Mae 

guaranteed MBSs. 

II. The Proposed Rule 

On August 6, 2024, HUD published 

for public comment a proposed rule 

entitled ‘‘Disbursing Multifamily 

Mortgage Proceeds: Permitting 

Mortgagees to Disburse Mortgage 

Proceeds with Mortgagor-Provided 

Funds.’’ 4 The proposed rule proposed 

to add an exception to the requirement 

in 24 CFR 200.54(b) that the funds 

provided by the mortgagor must be 

disbursed in full before the 

disbursement of any proceeds from the 

insured mortgage. The proposed rule 

also proposed to make non-substantive 

terminology and organizational edits to 

24 CFR 200.54 that would not affect any 

other requirements within the section. 

The exception proposed to be added 

to 24 CFR 200.54(b) would permit 

mortgagees, where the funds provided 

by the mortgagor are not fully disbursed 

with the initial advance of the insured 

mortgage proceeds, to disburse up to 1 

percent of the mortgage amount initially 

endorsed for insurance before requiring 

that the funds provided by the 

mortgagor be disbursed in full. This 

proposed exception would permit that a 

mortgagee could disburse mortgage 

proceeds at the time the mortgage is 

initially endorsed for insurance up to a 

maximum of 1 percent of the initially 

endorsed mortgage amount. 

Alternatively, a mortgagee could choose 

to disburse mortgage proceeds in any 

amount on a monthly basis, whether 

consecutive or not, up to a combined 

maximum of 1 percent of the initially 

endorsed insured mortgage amount 

until the mortgagor-provided funds are 

fully disbursed. 

III. This Final Rule 

After reviewing and considering the 

public comments received during the 

proposed rule stage of this rulemaking, 

HUD is publishing this final rule with 

only minor, non-substantive revisions 

from the proposed rule. HUD believes 

that the added exception to 24 CFR 

200.54(b) will help keep FHA-insured 

mortgage products competitive in 

economic environments with rising 

interest rates and/or multi-year high 

interest rates, especially for new 

construction projects, where a higher 

proportion of mortgage proceeds are 

constrained by FHA’s debt service 

coverage ratio requirements. In an 

economic environment with rising and 

high interest rates, mortgagors must 

deposit additional funds with their 

mortgagee, making it more likely that 

the mortgagor-provided funds will not 

be fully disbursed during the initial 

advance of the insured mortgage 

proceeds. HUD believes that this added 

exception will help ensure that interest 

rates for FHA-insured mortgages remain 

competitive and ensure the liquidity of 

FHA-insured mortgages on the 

secondary mortgage market. 

IV. Public Comments 

This public comments section 

contains a summary of the public 

comments that HUD received in 

response to the proposed rule. 

HUD should allow mortgage proceeds 

to be disbursed using a proportional 

debt to equity amount without requiring 

that mortgagor-proved funds first be 

fully exhausted. 

A commenter supported the proposed 

rule as a step in the right direction but 

suggested that HUD go further. Other 

commenters supported HUD’s goal to 

allow mortgagees to pool mortgages into 

Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBSs prior to 

mortgagor-provided funds being 

disbursed in full but believed the rule 

as proposed would be ineffective. 

A commenter stated that HUD’s 

proposed rule should be changed to 

allow mortgage proceeds to be drawn for 

HUD-covered multifamily loans 

proportionate to the proportion of the 

amount of debt i.e., the loan amount, to 

equity, i.e., the mortgagor-provided 

funds, in the HUD transaction. As the 

commenter provided by example, a loan 

that has a 60 percent loan to cost ratio 

would, at each draw, draw 60 percent 

from the Ginnie Mae MBS and 40% 

from borrower equity. 

Another commenter, similarly, 

suggested that HUD allow up to 35 

percent of the insured loan proceeds to 

be drawn at initial endorsement, and 

then allow subsequent draws in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100741 

proportion to the mortgagor’s remaining 

funds. This commenter stated that their 

recommendation would significantly 

lower insured loan interest rates. 

Commenters pointed to the problems 

associated with higher interest rates for 

construction loans and stated that their 

recommendations would address the 

issue of investors requiring higher 

interest rates to hedge variable interest 

rates while waiting for issuance. 

A commenter stated that the multiple 

Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBSs issued 

and delivered in various amounts to a 

Ginnie Mae investor over the length of 

the construction period, typically 18 to 

24 months, are delivered to the investor 

in an amount equal to the mortgage 

proceeds disbursed and, in months 

where no mortgage proceeds can be 

disbursed, no Ginnie Mae MBS is 

delivered. The commenter stated 

concerns that under HUD’s proposed 

rule, in situations where mortgagorprovided funds are not fully disbursed 

in the first installment that the first 

Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBS delivery 

can be no more than 1 percent of the 

mortgage, and no subsequent Ginnie 

Mae guaranteed MBS deliveries will 

occur until borrower equity is 

exhausted. The commenter noted that it 

is common in today’s lending 

environment that borrower equity 

makes up 30 percent to 40 percent of the 

total sources of funds in a construction 

loan. The commenter described that all 

of this means that investors must price 

into the agreed interest rate the cost of 

waiting 7 to 14, or more, months for 

Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBS issuance in 

any substantive amount. The 

commenter stated that this delay can 

increase interest rates by approximately 

10 to 50 basis points. 

Another commenter specifically noted 

that for Midwestern and smaller 

community projects, it can take up to a 

year before any insured loan proceeds 

are disbursed in a meaningful amount 

because the amount of required equity 

can be higher and take longer to 

exhaust. The commenter noted that 

because of this, the increase in interest 

rates in these communities can be 

anywhere between 0.15 and 0.40 

percentage points. 

Commenters stated that their 

suggested changes represented a low 

risk to HUD, and that their suggestions 

do not increase the risk beyond the risk 

level already accepted under the 

proposed rule. A commenter noted that 

FHA-approved lenders are required to 

hold all the mortgagor’s required funds 

in escrow and to hold the initial 

operating deficit and working capital 

escrow fund either in cash or an 

irrevocable letter of credit. Another 

commenter noted that if a HUD-insured 

project defaulted during construction, 

HUD and the lender, under HUD forms 

HUD–92441M (building-loan 

agreement) and HUD–94000M (security 

instrument), have the right to use 

mortgagor-provided funds, which are 

pledged collateral, to offset any losses or 

claims on disbursed loan proceeds. The 

commenter provided the example of a 

$10 million project with 40 percent 

mortgagor-provided funds and 60 

percent mortgage-proceeds, which the 

commenter stated that the proposed rule 

would allow for a $60,000 Ginnie Mae 

draw before the mortgagor began to 

draw down equity. Under the 

commenter’s suggestion, the cash equity 

balance would stay higher for a longer 

period, meaning at the point where $3 

million had been drawn from Ginnie 

Mae, $2 million would remain in cash 

equity as collateral. 

A commenter noted that FHA lenders 

can model the projected interest cost by 

preparing a draw schedule based on the 

projected draw down of insured loan 

proceeds. The commenter noted an 

additional 10 percent cushion could be 

added to the estimate to be reasonably 

confident there is sufficient capitalized 

interest carried in the project’s budget. 

Commenters also stated that HUD has 

extensive experience with proportional 

debt to equity construction loan 

disbursements through the Low-Income 

Housing Credit (LIHTC) exception to 

HUD’s full mortgagor-provided funds 

disbursement requirement. Commenters 

stated that HUD has allowed this LIHTC 

exception without increased risk to 

HUD and its mortgage insurance fund. 

Commenters stated that allowing 

proportional debt to equity 

disbursements for non-LIHTC projects, 

under their suggested change, would be 

less risky because LIHTC equity and 

bridge loan proceeds are not funded in 

full nor are they held by the lender like 

the funds are in non-LIHTC 

construction projects to which this 

proposed change would apply. 

HUD Response: HUD disagrees that 

mortgage proceeds should be disbursed 

to mortgagors in proportional debt to 

equity amounts. Through this 

rulemaking, HUD’s is maintaining the 

intent of the existing regulation, which 

is that a borrower’s equity should be 

invested ahead of debt. With a 

borrower’s equity at risk upfront, the 

owners are properly incentivized to 

prudently manage and complete the 

project. 

The regulation change made through 

this rulemaking is a technical, limited 

modification to support the timely 

issuance of Ginnie Mae guaranteed 

MBSs, while preserving the risk 

mitigation principle of upfront equity 

investment. Under the existing 24 CFR 

200.54(b), a strict requirement that 100 

percent of all borrower equity must be 

disbursed can delay the initial issuance 

of a Ginnie Mae guaranteed MBS and 

potentially disrupt the mortgagebanking liquidity cycle. HUD has 

determined that 1 percent of the 

mortgage amount can be drawn before 

borrower’s equity is disbursed in full, 

without impairing a borrower’s 

incentive to protect its equity 

investment. HUD determined this, in 

part, by its experience processing 

mortgages and observing mortgagee 

performance while relying on the Partial 

Waiver of 24 CFR 200.54(b). 

HUD should also allow disbursements 

of up to $25,000 per month in mortgage 

proceeds. 

A commenter suggested several 

technical edits to the proposed 

regulatory text of 24 CFR 200.54(b)(2). 

The commenter suggested that HUD 

allow the greater of 1 percent of the 

mortgagee funds or $25,000 monthly in 

mortgage proceeds. The commenter 

noted that drawdowns are made 

monthly, and HUD’s proposed rule 

appeared to only apply to the initial 

draw. 

HUD Response: HUD disagrees that 

the regulation should allow the greater 

of 1 percent of the mortgagee funds or 

$25,000 monthly in mortgage proceeds. 

In very infrequent cases, certain small 

loan balance multifamily loans may not 

achieve the investors’ preferred $25,000 

minimum denomination under a 1 

percent threshold; however, modifying 

the regulation to optimize investor 

preferences for the infrequently 

occurring nuances of small loan sizes is 

beyond the scope of this regulation 

change. 

HUD should adjust its permitted 

disbursement amount through Federal 

Register notice. 

A commenter suggested that HUD 

create a new 24 CFR 200.54(b)(3) that 

allows HUD to adjust the permitted 

disbursement amount through the 

publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register. The commenter stated that the 

Federal Register notice should provide 

a 30 day public comment period prior 

to the finalizing of the adjusted 

disbursement amount that was 

announced in the suggested notice. The 

commenter believed that a 1 percent 

disbursement amount may not be 

enough and thought HUD might decide 

to increase the percentage in the future. 

The commenter noted that adjusting the 

permitted disbursement amount through 

a Federal Register notice is similar to 

the strategy used for HUD’s mortgage 

insurance premium regulations. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100742 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

HUD Response: HUD disagrees that 24 

CFR 200.54(b) needs periodic updates. 

Periodically adjusting the 1 percent 

threshold to a different percentage 

through a Federal Register notice is 

unnecessary because HUD has 

determined that it is sufficient to allow 

up to the 1 percent threshold amount 

can be drawn before a borrower’s equity 

is disbursed in full without impairing 

borrower incentive to protect its equity 

investment. 

HUD’s proposed rule goes too far by 

allowing even 1 percent of mortgage 

proceeds to be disbursed before 

requiring the full disbursement of 

mortgagor-provided funds. 

A commenter disagreed with HUD’s 

proposed rule by saying that HUD’s 

proposed rule goes too far by allowing 

even 1 percent of mortgagee proceeds to 

be disbursed before requiring the full 

disbursement of mortgagor-provided 

funds. The commenter stated that 

requiring full disbursement of 

mortgagor-provided funds before 

mortgage proceeds is a crucial risk 

mitigation measure to prevent financial 

mismanagement and delays in projects. 

The commenter stated that HUD’s 

proposed rule could introduce 

instability into the MBS market because, 

as is currently required, by first 

requiring the full disbursement of 

mortgagor-provided funds ensures the 

financial soundness of the securities 

issued. The commenter also suggested 

that HUD’s proposed rule could 

negatively impact small businesses by 

creating unpredictable financial 

environments, which would cause 

business uncertainties and cash-flow 

issues. 

HUD Response: HUD disagrees that a 

1 percent disbursement of mortgage 

proceeds prior to full disbursement of 

mortgagor-provided funds materially 

impairs the over-arching risk mitigation 

set forth by HUD’s regulations. HUD has 

determined that 1 percent of the 

mortgage amount can be drawn before a 

borrower’s equity is disbursed in full 

without impairing borrower incentive to 

protect its equity investment. HUD 

determined this, in part, by its 

experience processing mortgages and 

observing mortgagee performance while 

relying on the Partial Waiver of 24 CFR 

200.54(b). 

V. Findings and Certifications 

Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), a 

determination must be made whether a 

regulatory action is significant and, 

therefore, subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Executive Order. Executive Order 13563 

(Improving Regulations and Regulatory 

Review) emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. The order also 

directs Executive agencies to analyze 

regulations that are ‘‘outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal them in accordance 

with what has been learned.’’ Executive 

Order 13563 further directs that, where 

relevant, feasible, and consistent with 

regulatory objectives, and to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are to 

identify and consider regulatory 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public. Executive Order 

14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review) 

amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866, among other things. 

The only substantive regulatory 

change made through this rulemaking is 

to permit mortgagees, where the funds 

provided by the mortgagor are not fully 

disbursed with the initial advance of the 

insured mortgage proceeds, to disburse 

up to 1 percent of the mortgage amount 

initially endorsed for insurance before 

requiring that the funds provided by the 

mortgagor be disbursed in full. This 

rulemaking was determined to not be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094, and is not an economically 

significant regulatory action and 

therefore was not subject to OMB 

review. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires 

an agency to conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The changes in 

this rulemaking are limited to 

permitting mortgagees, where the funds 

provided by the mortgagor are not fully 

disbursed with the initial advance of the 

insured mortgage proceeds, to disburse 

up to 1 percent of the mortgage amount 

initially endorsed for insurance before 

requiring that the funds provided by the 

mortgagor be disbursed in full. This 

change will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

the undersigned certifies that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

prohibits an agency from publishing any 

rule that has federalism implications if 

the rule either imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments and is not required 

by statute or preempts State law, unless 

the agency meets the consultation and 

funding requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order. This rulemaking does 

not have federalism implications and 

does not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments or preempt State law 

within the meaning of the Executive 

Order. 

Environmental Impact 

A Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) with respect to the 

environment was made, at the proposed 

rule stage of this rulemaking, in 

accordance with HUD regulations at 24 

CFR part 50 that implement section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). The FONSI remains 

applicable to this final rule and is 

available through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. The FONSI is also 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in 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 the 

HUD Headquarters building, you must 

schedule an appointment in advance to 

review the FONSI by calling the 

Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 

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

welcomes and is prepared to receive 

calls from individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing, as well as individuals 

with speech or communication 

disabilities. To learn more about how to 

make an accessible telephone call, 

please visit https://www.fcc.gov/ 

consumers/guides/telecommunicationsrelay-service-trs. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements 

for Federal agencies to assess the effects 

of their regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments, and on 

the private sector. This rulemaking does 

not impose any Federal mandates on 

any State, local, or Tribal governments, 

or on the private sector, within the 

meaning of the UMRA. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100743 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 200 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Equal employment 

opportunity, Fair housing, Housing 

standards, Lead poisoning, Loan 

programs—housing and community 

development, Mortgage insurance, 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social security, 

Unemployment compensation, Wages. 

For the reasons stated 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 § 200.54: 

■ a. Amend paragraph (a) by removing 

the reference to ‘‘paragraph (d)’’ and 

adding, in its place, a reference to 

‘‘paragraph (c)’’; 

■ b. Amend paragraph (b) by removing 

the word ‘‘mortgage’’ and adding, in its 

place the term, ‘‘insured mortgage’’; 

■ c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (b)(1); 

■ d. Amend newly redesignated 

paragraph (b)(1) by removing the word 

‘‘mortgage’’ and adding in its place the 

term, ‘‘insured mortgage’’ and by adding 

the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of the 

paragraph; 

■ e. Add paragraph (b)(2); and 

■ f. Redesignate paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (c). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 200.54 Project completion funding. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) If the mortgagor’s deposit required 

by paragraph (a) of this section is not 

fully disbursed with the initial advance 

of the insured mortgage proceeds, the 

mortgagee may disburse up to one (1) 

percent of the mortgage amount initially 

endorsed for insurance before requiring 

that the funds provided by the 

mortgagor be disbursed in full. The 1 

percent of the initially endorsed 

mortgage amount may be disbursed in 

full at the time of initial endorsement or 

may be disbursed in any amount on a 

monthly basis, whether consecutive or 

nonconsecutive, until the funds 

provided by the mortgagor are fully 

disbursed. 

* * * * * 

Julia R. Gordon, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29390 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–1054] 

Special Local Regulations; Recurring 

Marine Events, Sector St. Petersburg 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

a special local regulation for the 

Gasparilla parade on January 25, 2025, 

to provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waterways during this event. 

Our regulation for recurring marine 

events within the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg identifies the regulated area 

for this event in Tampa, FL. During the 

enforcement periods, no person or 

vessel may enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

100.703 will be enforced for the location 

identified in Table 1 to § 100.703, Item 

1, from 11:30 a.m. through 2 p.m., on 

January 25, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice of 

enforcement, call or email Lieutenant 

Ryan McNaughton, Sector St. Petersburg 

Prevention Department, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 813–228–2191, email: 

Ryan.A.McNaughton@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the special local 

regulation in 33 CFR 100.703 for the 

Gasparilla parade regulated area 

identified in Table 1 to § 100.703, Item 

1, from 11:30 a.m. through 2 p.m. on 

January 25, 2025. This action is being 

taken to provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waterways during this event. 

Our regulation for recurring marine 

events, Captain of the Port Sector St. 

Petersburg, Table 1 to § 100.703, Item 1, 

specifies the location of the regulated 

area for the Gasparilla parade, which 

encompasses portions of Hillsborough 

Bay, Seddon Channel, Sparkman 

Channel and Hillsborough River located 

in Tampa, FL. Under the provisions of 

33 CFR 100.703(c), all persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering the 

regulated area, except those persons and 

vessels participating in the event, unless 

they receive permission to do so from 

the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or 

designated representative. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

100.703, spectator vessels may safely 

transit outside the regulated area, but 

may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede 

the transit of festival participants or 

official patrol vessels or enter the 

regulated area without approval from 

the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a 

designated representative. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agencies 

in enforcing this regulation. In addition 

to this notice of enforcement in the 

Federal Register, the Coast Guard will 

provide notice of the regulated area via 

Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety 

Information Bulletins, Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

Dated: December 6, 2024. 

Michael P. Kahle, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port St. Petersburg. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29448 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2022–0988] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone, Port Arthur Canal, Sabine, 

Pass, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending 

the temporary safety zones for waters of 

Port Arthur Canal adjacent to Golden 

Pass Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

Facility in Sabine Pass, TX. These safety 

zones will continue to be temporarily 

activated during high pressure testing of 

the piping systems to protect persons 

and vessels on these navigable waters 

from potential blast and fragmentation 

hazards associated with high pressure 

piping testing. Entry of vessels or 

persons into these zones is prohibited 

unless specifically authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Unit 

Port Arthur. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES