23152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The Proposal 

The FAA proposes an amendment to 

Title 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D 

airspace and Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

for Greenville Mid-Delta Airport 

(formerly Greenville Municipal Airport), 

Greenville, MS, due to the 

decommissioning of the Greenville 

VOR. The Class D airspace would be 

increased to a 4.4-mile radius, (from 4.0 

miles) and by adding 2-mile extensions 

to the north and south of the airport. 

Additionally, the Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface would be increased to an 

8.9-mile radius (from 7-miles), and 

eliminating two extensions, as well as 

removing the navigational aids from the 

airport’s description, as they are no 

longer necessary. Also, this action 

would update the airport’s name and 

replace the term Airport/Facility 

Directory with the term Chart 

Supplement in the Class D description. 

In addition, this action would remove 

Class E airspace designated as an 

extension to Class D airspace, as the 

extensions are addressed in the 

proposed Class D airspace. 

Class D and Class E airspace 

designations are published in 

Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, 

respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

dated August 10, 2021, and effective 

September 15, 2021, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class D and E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in FAA 

Order JO 7400.11F. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 10, 2021, and 

effective September 15, 2021, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO MS D Greenville, MS [Amended] 

Greenville Mid-Delta Airport, MS 

(Lat. 33°28′58′′ N, long. 90°59′08′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL, 

within a 4.4-mile radius of Greenville MidDelta Airport, and within 1-mile each side of 

a 180° bearing extending from the 4.4-mile 

radius to 6.4 miles south of the airport, and 

within 1-mile each side of the and a 360° 

bearing extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 

6.4 miles north of the airport. This Class D 

airspace area is effective during the specific 

dates and times established in advance by a 

Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously published in 

the Chart Supplement. 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace 

Designated as an Extension to Class D 

Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

ASO MS E4 Greenville, MS [Removed] 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO MS E5 Greenville, MS [Amended] 

Greenville Mid-Delta Airport, MS 

(Lat. 33°28′58′′ N, long. 90°59′08′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 8.9-mile 

radius of Greenville Mid-Delta Airport. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 

13, 2022. 

Andreese C. Davis, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08279 Filed 4–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 36 

RIN 2900–AR42 

Loan Guaranty: Servicer Tier Ranking 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) Loan Guaranty Service 

(LGY) intends to revise and finalize its 

temporary regulations governing the 

assignment of a performance-based tier 

ranking to each of the servicers that 

participate in VA’s guaranteed home 

loan program. VA is issuing this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) to solicit comments, questions, 

and information to assist VA in 

developing a future proposed 

regulation. Although VA identifies, 

below, specific topics and questions for 

discussion, it encourages commenters to 

discuss any other topic that will help 

VA develop regulations to assign 

performance-based tier rankings to 

servicers that participate in VA’s 

guaranteed home loan program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through 

www.Regulations.gov. Comments 

received will be available at 

www.Regulations.gov for public 

viewing, inspection, or copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Trevayne, Assistant Director for 

Loan Administration, Loan Guaranty 

Service (26), Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–8862. 

(This is not a toll-free telephone 

number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 23153 

I. Background 

On February 1, 2008, VA published a 

final rule, Loan Guaranty: Loan 

Servicing and Claims Procedures 

Modifications (VALERI final rule). 73 

FR 6293–6368. The VALERI final rule 

was the result of a lengthy business 

reengineering process that led to the 

modernization of VA’s loan servicing 

policies and began a phased 

implementation of a servicer reporting 

application called the VA Loan 

Electronic Interface (VALERI). In the 

VALERI final rule, VA established 

temporary procedures for servicer tier 

ranking, currently codified at 38 CFR 

36.4318. 73 FR 6293, 6327; 75 FR 

33704–33705. 

Section 36.4318(a) states that VA will 

assign to each servicer a tier ranking 

based upon the servicer’s performance 

in servicing guaranteed loans. Section 

36.4318(a) provides for four tiers, 

known as tier one, tier two, tier three, 

and tier four. In the VALERI final rule, 

VA explained that VA would presume 

each servicer to rank in tier two until 

VA develops and implements, via a 

regulation, a final Tier Ranking System 

(TRS). 73 FR 6293, 6301. After 

implementing a TRS, VA would 

quarterly evaluate each servicer’s 

performance, and annually rank each 

servicer in tier one, two, three, or fourtier one being the highest rated and tier 

four the lowest. 38 CFR 36.4318. The 

VALERI final rule also established 

servicer loss mitigation options and 

incentives, currently found at 38 CFR 

36.4319 (initially codified at § 36.4819). 

73 FR 6293, 6327; 75 FR 33704–33705. 

Section 36.4319 provides a schedule of 

incentive payments that VA will pay a 

servicer in tiers one, two, or three 

following successful completion of each 

applicable loss mitigation action or 

alternative to foreclosure. 38 CFR 

36.4319. For the same type of loss 

mitigation action or alternative to 

foreclosure, VA will pay servicers in tier 

one, the highest incentive payment, 

which will decrease for tier two, and 

further decrease for tier three. Id. A 

servicer in tier four will not receive any 

incentive payment. Id. 

As noted in the VALERI final rule 

(and its accompanying proposed rule), 

VA intended to fully operationalize 

VALERI, and collect specific, servicerreported loan servicing and claims data 

to develop its TRS. 73 FR 6293, 6301. 

However, due to competing priorities 

and VALERI reporting limitations, VA 

has delayed the development and 

implementation of a TRS. In the 

meantime, VA continues to presume 

each servicer to rank in tier two and 

pays them incentive payments 

accordingly. See 38 CFR 36.4318, 

36.4319. Considering a recent re-design 

of the VALERI application, which 

includes enhanced reporting 

functionality, VA is ready to develop 

and implement its TRS. By 

implementing a TRS, VA intends to 

further encourage its servicers to 

provide the best level of default 

resolution and foreclosure avoidance 

efforts to its borrowers. 

II. Questions for Comment 

Once VA’s TRS is effective, VA would 

use the TRS to calculate a quarterly 

performance score (quarterly score) for 

each servicer based on servicing data 

from the prior quarter. 38 CFR 

36.4318(c)(1). VA would notify each 

servicer of its quarterly score. Id. After 

four quarters, VA would aggregate the 

quarterly scores to derive the annual 

performance score (annual score) for 

each servicer. 38 CFR 36.4318(c)(2). 

Based on the servicer’s annual score, VA 

would assign each servicer a 

performance tier rank (tier rank) one, 

two, three, or four. 38 CFR 36.4318(a). 

Finally, this tier rank would determine 

the amount of incentive payment that 

each servicer would receive for each 

applicable loss mitigation or alternative 

to foreclosure action that the servicer 

would complete in the following year. 

38 CFR 36.4319. The purpose of this 

performance-based scoring and tier 

ranking, and tier-rank-based incentive 

payments, is to recognize and reward 

servicers based on their level of efforts 

to help borrowers resolve default and 

avoid foreclosure. Further, it would 

help identify servicers who may need 

additional training or assistance in 

improving their loss mitigation and 

foreclosure avoidance efforts. Timely 

default resolution helps borrowers 

retain their homes, and foreclosure 

avoidance helps them mitigate the 

negative impact on their chances of 

future homeownership. 

VA’s objective is to develop a TRS 

that accurately and effectively assesses 

the performance of each servicer’s loss 

mitigation and foreclosure avoidance 

efforts. Consequently, the tier-based 

incentive payments would encourage 

servicers to timely perform loss 

mitigation actions that are in the best 

interest of participants in VA’s 

guaranteed home loan program. With 

this objective, VA invites comments on 

the specific questions set forth in this 

ANPR, and on any other issues that 

commenters think should be addressed 

as part of the rulemaking that would 

establish VA’s TRS. 

Question 1: Are there concerns VA 

should be made aware of that could 

hinder the implementation of the TRS? 

VA would like to know whether 

ongoing financial effects of the COVID– 

19 National Emergency should affect the 

timing of a TRS implementation. Are 

there other possible considerations, 

burdens, or obstacles VA should be 

made aware of in the implementation of 

the TRS? 

Question 2: Should VA consider a 

servicer’s volume of VA loans in 

developing the TRS? 

For servicers who service a small 

number of VA loans, the performance of 

one or few seriously delinquent loan(s) 

would most likely have a volatile effect, 

good or bad, on the servicer’s quarterly/ 

annual score and/or the tier ranking. 

Should VA consider establishing 

separate requirements for scoring and 

ranking servicers who service a small 

number of VA loans? If yes, what 

volume of loans would be an 

appropriate definition of ‘‘small’’ and 

why? What information is relevant to 

understand whether VA should 

establish separate requirements for this 

type of servicer? Alternatively, is there 

another way VA could/should 

differentiate smaller servicers (i.e., 

number of annual foreclosure claims)? 

Question 3: Should VA expand the 

scope of the TRS to include 

consideration of factors beyond a 

servicer’s performance in the areas of 

default resolution and foreclosure 

avoidance? 

As described above, VA would use 

the TRS to evaluate and score a 

servicer’s performance during default 

resolution and foreclosure avoidance. 

Further, the tier ranking assigned would 

be used to determine the amount of 

incentive paid to the servicer for 

completing a loss mitigation activity or 

alternative to foreclosure. With that in 

mind, should VA limit its entire process 

of scoring, ranking, and calculating 

incentive payments to monthly servicerreported data related to default 

resolution and foreclosure avoidance, or 

should VA consider additional factors 

in its TRS that are not necessarily 

shown in default resolution and 

foreclosure avoidance rates? Such 

factors might include, for example, 

timely, accurate, and complete reporting 

of monthly servicer-reported data. 

Please elaborate on which factors 

should/should not be included and 

describe how VA would confirm the 

successful completion of such factors. 

Question 4: During the testing phase 

of the TRS, would servicers like to know 

their quarterly performance scores? If 

yes, for how many quarters prior to the 

TRS becoming effective? 

Once the TRS is effective, VA would 

evaluate an existing servicer’s 

performance for at least four full 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
23154 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

quarters to assign the servicer an annual 

tier ranking. Until then, based on 

current § 36.4318, VA will continue to 

presume each servicer to rank in tier 

two. VA is not planning to implement 

a TRS pilot. However, leading up to the 

TRS becoming effective, VA intends to 

test certain aspects of the TRS internally 

with live servicer-reported data. To the 

extent that VA is able, would there be 

any benefits to servicers if VA were to 

provide this information to servicers on 

a quarterly basis? 

Question 5: What would be the 

anticipated burden for a servicer to 

participate in an error resolution 

process? Should VA provide servicers 

with such option in developing the TRS? 

To derive the quarterly performance 

scores for each servicer, the TRS would 

apply a range of calculations onto a 

considerable volume of data. VA is 

considering a number of different 

criteria upon which to base the 

quarterly score on servicer performance, 

including: Delinquency rate, roll rate, 

default resolution rate percentage, 

quality of service, foreclosure timeline 

management, data quality and 

regulatory infractions, and recidivism 

rate. Subsequently, for each servicer, the 

TRS would aggregate the quarterly 

scores to calculate the annual score, and 

finally, the TRS would use the annual 

score to assign a tier ranking. It is 

conceivable that, due to inaccurate or 

incomplete data, the quarterly score, the 

annual score, and/or the annual tier 

ranking could be incorrect. 

VA might, within a certain number of 

days, allow a servicer to contest a 

quarterly or annual score or annual tier 

ranking by submitting supporting 

evidence to VA. VA is interested in 

understanding the potential burden to 

servicers to prepare such supporting 

evidence and submit it to VA. 

Question 6: Should VA consider 

providing a new VA servicer with a 

provisional tier ranking after 12 months 

of servicing has elapsed? 

For a new servicer, including a new 

servicer who acquires a portfolio of 

existing VA loans, VA is considering 

whether to presume the new servicer to 

rank in tier two until at least 12 months 

and four full quarters of servicing has 

elapsed. Once the new servicer 

completes at least 12 months and four 

full quarters of servicing, VA could 

continue to presume the new servicer to 

rank in tier two until VA next completes 

its annual scoring and tier ranking of all 

servicers. In some cases, this could 

result in VA presuming a new servicer 

to rank in tier two for up to 23 months. 

Alternatively, after the new servicer 

completes at least 12 months and four 

full quarters of servicing, VA could 

assign the new servicer a provisional 

tier rank based on the quarterly scores 

of four prior full quarters. The 

provisional tier rank would be in place 

until VA next completes its annual 

scoring and tier ranking of all servicers. 

VA invites comments as to which 

approach the public finds more 

reasonable and why. 

Question 7: Are there other servicer 

tier ranking systems that VA should 

review and consider, in part or full, for 

developing its TRS? Please describe. 

Question 8: Based on other servicer 

tier ranking system(s) that servicers may 

have implemented, approximately how 

long does it take a servicer to review and 

understand a new servicer tier ranking 

system? 

Question 9: Based on other servicer 

tier ranking system(s) that servicers may 

have implemented, as an estimate, what 

costs and burdens do servicers expect to 

incur for implementing a new servicer 

tier ranking system? Please describe the 

type(s) of cost(s) and provide dollar 

figures, if available. 

Question 10: Based on other servicer 

tier ranking system(s) that servicers may 

have implemented, what impact, if any, 

would a lower tier ranking (and smaller 

incentive payments) have on servicer 

participation in the VA home loan 

program? Would smaller incentive 

payments, due to a lower tier ranking, 

result in any costs for borrowers, either 

existing or new? 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on April 12, 2022, and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulations Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08276 Filed 4–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 22–151; RM–11927; DA 22– 

404; FRS 83016] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Hampton, Virginia 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by WVEC 

Television, LLC (Petitioner), the 

licensee of WVEC, channel 11, 

Hampton, Virginia. The Petitioner 

requests the substitution of channel 35 

for channel 11 at Hampton in the Table 

of Allotments. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before May 19, 2022 and reply 

comments on or before June 3, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 

L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve 

counsel for the Petitioner as follows: 

Michael Beder, Esq., Associate General 

Counsel, TEGNA, Inc., 8350 Broad 

Street, Suite 2000, Tysons, Virginia 

22102. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media 

Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support 

of its channel substitution request, the 

Petitioner states that the Commission 

has recognized that VHF channels have 

certain characteristics that pose 

challenges for their use in providing 

digital television service, including 

propagation characteristics that allow 

undesired signals and noise to be 

receivable at relatively far distances. 

According to the Petitioner, it has 

received many complaints from viewers 

unable to receive a reliable signal on 

channel 11, despite being able to receive 

the NBC, CBS, and FOX network 

affiliates in the Norfolk, Virginia market, 

all of which operate on UHF channels. 

The proposed channel change would 

not cause any loss of service to viewers 

of WVEC’s existing coverage area. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 22–151; 

RM–11927; DA 22–404, adopted April 

13, 2022, and released April 13, 2022. 

The full text of this document is 

available for download at https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials 

in accessible formats (braille, large 

print, computer diskettes, or audio 

recordings), please send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1