54020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1On November 13, 2009, HUD released an 

independent actuarial study that reported that FHA 

will likely sustain significant losses from mortgage 

loans made prior to 2009, due to the high 

concentration of seller-financed downpayment 

assistance mortgage loans and declining real estate 

values nationwide, and that the MMIF capital 

reserve relative to the amount of outstanding 

insurance in force had fallen below the statutorily 

mandated 2 percent ratio. The capital reserve 

account serves as a back-up fund, where FHA holds 

additional capital to cover unexpected losses. The 

capital ratio generally reflects the reserves available 

(net of expected claims and expenses), as a 

percentage of the current portfolio, to address 

unexpected losses. The report can be found at: 

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

fhafy09annualmanagementreport.pdf. 

2While the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 

requires that FHA (and all other government credit 

agencies) estimate and budget for the anticipated 

cost of mortgage loan guarantees, the National 

Ractopamine in 

grams/ton 

Combination in 

grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor 

(xiii) Not to exceed 800; to 

provide 70 to 400 mg/ 

head/day.

Monensin 10 to 40 to 

provide 0.14 to 0.42 

mg monensin/lb of 

body weight, depending on severity of 

coccidiosis challenge, 

up to 480 mg/head/ 

day, plus tylosin 8 to 

10. 

Cattle fed in confinement for 

slaughter: As in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) of this section; for prevention and control of coccidiosis 

due to Eimeria bovis and E. 

zuernii; and for reduction of incidence of liver abscesses caused 

by Fusobacterium necrophorum 

and Arcanobacterium 

(Actinomyces) pyogenes. 

Top dress ractopamine in a minimum of 1.0 lb of medicated feed 

during the last 28 to 42 days on 

feed. Not for animals intended for 

breeding. See §§ 558.355(d) and 

558.625(c). 

000986 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

Elizabeth Rettie, 

Deputy Director, Office of New Animal Drug 

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22071 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Ch. II 

[Docket No. FR–5404–N–02] 

Federal Housing Administration Risk 

Management Initiatives: New Loan-toValue and Credit Score Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2010, HUD issued 

a notice seeking comment on three 

initiatives that HUD proposed would 

contribute to the restoration of the 

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund 

(MMIF) capital reserve account. This 

document is limited to implementation 

of HUD’s proposal to introduce a 

minimum credit score threshold and 

reduce the maximum LTV. At the end 

of the public comment period on August 

16, 2010, HUD received 902 comments. 

The overwhelming majority of these 

comments focused on HUD’s proposal 

to cap seller concessions. HUD is 

continuing to review and consider the 

issues raised by commenters on capping 

seller concessions as well as those 

pertaining to HUD’s proposal to tighten 

manual underwriting guidelines. HUD’s 

final decision on these two proposals 

will be addressed separately. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karin Hill, Director, Office of Single 

Family Program Development, Office of 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 

SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 

20410; telephone number 202–708–2121 

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

with hearing or speech impairments 

may access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background—HUD’s July 15, 2010 

Notice 

On July 15, 2010, at 75 FR 41217, 

HUD issued a proposed rule seeking 

comment on three initiatives that HUD 

proposed would contribute to the 

restoration of the Mutual Mortgage 

Insurance Fund (MMIF) capital reserve 

account. The proposed changes were 

developed to preserve both the 

historical role of the Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) in providing a 

home financing vehicle during periods 

of economic volatility and HUD’s social 

mission of helping underserved 

borrowers. In the July 15, 2010, notice, 

HUD proposed the following: To reduce 

the amount of closing costs a seller may 

pay on behalf of a homebuyer 

purchasing a home with FHA-insured 

mortgage financing for the purposes of 

calculating the maximum mortgage 

amount; to introduce a credit score 

threshold as well as reduce the 

maximum loan-to-value (LTV) for 

borrowers with lower credit scores who 

represent a higher risk of default and 

mortgage insurance claim; and to 

tighten underwriting standards for 

mortgage loan transactions that are 

manually underwritten. 

A recently issued independent 

actuarial study shows that the MMIF 

capital ratio has fallen below its 

statutorily mandated threshold.1

Consistent with HUD’s responsibility 

under the National Housing Act to 

ensure that the MMIF remains 

financially sound, HUD published the 

July 15, 2010 document and sought 

public comment on the three proposals 

described above designed to address 

features of FHA mortgage insurance that 

have resulted in high mortgage 

insurance claim rates and present an 

unacceptable risk of loss to FHA. 

Over the past two years, the volume 

of FHA insurance has increased rapidly 

as private sources of mortgage finance 

retreated from the market. FHA’s share 

of the single-family mortgage market 

today is approximately 30 percent—up 

from 3 percent in 2007, and the dollar 

volume of insurance written has jumped 

from the $56 billion issued in that year 

to more than $300 billion in 2009. The 

growth in the MMIF portfolio over such 

a short period of time coincided with 

worsening economic conditions that 

have seen high levels of defaults and 

foreclosures, and consequently 

unacceptable risks of loss to the MMIF. 

Given these conditions and concerns, 

FHA, in managing the MMIF, must be 

especially vigilant in monitoring the 

performance of the portfolio, enhancing 

risk controls, and tightening standards 

to address portions of the business that 

expose homeowners to excessive 

financial risks. FHA’s authorizing 

statute, the National Housing Act (12 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), envisions that FHA 

will adjust program standards and 

practices, as necessary, to operate the 

MMIF, with reasonable expectations of 

financial loss. Within the past year, 

FHA has adjusted several program 

standards and practices so that the 

MMIF is preserved and FHA is 

operating the MMIF with acceptable 

risks of financial loss, not unacceptable 

risks.2


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54021 

Housing Act imposes a special requirement that the 

MMIF hold an additional amount of funds in 

reserve to cover unexpected losses. FHA maintains 

the MMIF capital reserve in a special reserve 

account. The MMIF capital reserve account serves 

as a back-up fund, where FHA holds additional 

capital to cover unexpected losses. 

3FHA will continue to allow borrowers to use 

permissible sources of funds, as described in FHA 

Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 5.B.1, to meet the 

minimum cash investment in the form of a 

downpayment. Gifts from family members, 

charitable organizations, employers, and 

government entities are also permitted, provided 

that none of the parties financially benefit from the 

sales transaction. In addition, governmental 

entities, including instrumentalities thereof, as 

described in Section 528 of the National Housing 

Act, may offer secondary financing to cover the 

borrowers’ cash investment. 

The July 15, 2010, notice represents 

another step in HUD’s effort to preserve 

the MMIF and preserve FHA as a source 

of available credit for affordable home 

mortgages. Interested readers are 

referred to the July 15, 2010 notice for 

details regarding the proposed changes 

to FHA requirements. 

II. This Notice—Addressing Solely 

Minimum Credit Score and New LTV 

Requirements 

As noted in the preceding section, 

this document is limited to 

implementation of the revised credit 

score and LTV requirements, and takes 

into consideration the public comments 

received on HUD’s proposal to establish 

a minimum decision credit score and 

reduce LTV, as set forth in the July 15, 

2010 notice. The majority of the public 

comments that HUD received in 

response to the July 15, 2010, focused 

on the other two proposals (the 

reduction in seller concessions and 

revised manual underwriting 

requirements). HUD is continuing to 

review and consider the issues raised by 

the comments on these two proposals, 

as well as alternative proposals raised 

by commenters. HUD’s final decision on 

these two proposals will be addressed 

separately. Section III of this document 

discusses the significant issues raised by 

the public comments regarding the new 

credit score and LTV requirements, as 

well as HUD’s responses to these issues. 

The separate document to address 

capping seller concessions and 

tightening underwriting guidelines will 

address the public comments on these 

proposals. 

The July 15, 2010 notice more fully 

addresses the reasons for the 

establishment of a minimum decision 

credit score and reduction in LTV for 

FHA mortgage insurance, and readers 

are referred to the notice for the more 

in-depth discussion of this proposal (see 

75 FR 41220–41222). As discussed in 

the July 15, 2010, notice, FHA serves 

very few borrowers with credit scores 

below 500; however, the performance of 

these borrowers is very poor. FHA data 

indicate that insured mortgages with 

decision credit scores below 580 have 

significantly worse default and claim 

experience than do loans at or above 

580. The revised credit score and LTV 

requirements increase the likelihood 

that borrowers who are offered FHAinsured mortgages are capable of 

repaying these mortgages. Under this 

document, effectively, a borrower with 

a decision credit score between 500 and 

579 will be required to make a greater 

downpayment [at minimum, 10 percent] 

than a borrower with a higher score, for 

the purchase of a home with the same 

sales price.3 Borrowers with credit 

scores below 500 will not be eligible for 

FHA-insured financing. The new LTV 

and credit score requirements will 

reduce the risk to the MMIF and ensure 

that home buyers are offered mortgage 

loans that are sustainable. Section IV of 

this document implements the 

minimum decision credit score and new 

LTV requirements. HUD will also issue 

additional guidance through Mortgagee 

Letter to assist in implementation of 

these new requirements. 

III. Discussion of the Public Comments 

on the July 15, 2010 Proposal 

At the close of the public comment 

period on August 16, 2010, HUD 

received 902 public comments on the 

issue of establishing a minimum 

decision credit score and new LTV 

requirements. This section discusses the 

most significant issues raised by the 

commenters on these proposals, and 

HUD’s responses to these issues. 

Comment: Support for revised credit 

score and LTV requirements. Several 

commenters wrote in support of the 

proposed revised credit score and LTV 

requirements. The commenters agreed 

that proposed changes to FHA 

requirements would help ensure that 

borrowers do not assume more mortgage 

debt than they are able to afford. 

HUD Response. HUD appreciates the 

support expressed by commenters, and 

agrees that the changes will reduce the 

risk to the MMIF and ensure that 

homebuyers are offered FHA-insured 

mortgage loans that are sustainable. 

Comment: The proposed revisions do 

not go far enough. Several commenters, 

while supportive of the proposed 

changes, recommended that HUD adopt 

more stringent credit score and LTV 

requirements. The measures 

recommended by the commenters 

varied, with suggested minimum 

decision scores most commonly ranging 

between 580 and 625. The commenters 

were in agreement that a higher 

minimum credit score would further 

protect borrowers and the FHA 

insurance funds. 

HUD Response. HUD has not revised 

its proposal in response to these 

comments. In establishing the revised 

credit score requirements, HUD has 

endeavored to balance the need to 

protect the MMIF capital reserve 

account, while at the same time 

preserving the historical role of FHA in 

providing home financing vehicles 

during periods of economic volatility. 

Too high of a minimum score would 

undermine HUD’s mission of expanding 

affordable homeownership opportunity, 

while too low a score would fail to 

replenish the MMIF capital reserves. As 

noted above, and discussed in more 

detail in the July 15, 2010, notice, the 

minimum credit score of 500 to 

determine eligibility for FHA financing 

was selected after a careful analysis of 

FHA mortgage performance data. This 

data indicates that while FHA serves 

few borrowers with credit scores below 

500 their performance is clearly very 

poor. The data also indicates that 

insured mortgages with decision credit 

scores below 580 have significantly 

worse default and claim experience than 

do loans at or above 580. 

Comment: Opposition to revised 

credit score requirements. In contrast to 

the preceding comments, several 

commenters opposed any changes to the 

FHA credit score and LTV requirements. 

These commenters wrote that the 

changes would only make it more 

difficult for borrowers in difficult 

economic times to obtain mortgage 

financing. The commenters also 

expressed concerns that the changes 

would hurt the overall economy by 

further restricting the availability of 

mortgage financing. 

HUD Response. As noted in the 

response to the preceding comments, 

FHA takes seriously its mission to help 

underserved borrowers. As discussed 

above, HUD also has a statutory 

obligation to protect the MMIF capital 

reserve accounts by ensuring that 

borrowers who are offered FHA-insured 

mortgages are capable of repaying these 

mortgages. The changes balance the 

twin goals of protecting the financial 

health of the MMIF, while continuing to 

meet FHA’s historic role of providing a 

vehicle for mortgage lenders to provide 

affordable mortgages. Moreover, as also 

noted, sustainable homeownership is 

essential to a healthy and wellfunctioning housing market. These 

changes will promote that goal by 

helping to ensure that FHA homeowners 

are able to afford their mortgage loans. 

HUD based the revised credit score 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
54022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4The Mortgagee Letter is available at: http:// 

www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/ 

mortgagee/ 

requirements on a careful analysis of 

historical data that indicates FHA serves 

few borrowers with a credit score below 

the new minimum of 500. Moreover, 

HUD has taken steps to mitigate the 

impacts of establishing a minimum 

decision credit score. First, HUD has 

established a threshold score for FHAinsured mortgages that is below the cutoff score of 620 used by many private 

lenders. Second, HUD is providing a 

special, temporary allowance to permit 

a higher LTV when refinancing 

mortgage loans for certain borrowers 

with decision credit scores between 500 

and 579. HUD is providing this special 

exemption in recognition of the fact that 

even homeowners who have been able 

to make their monthly payments may 

have had their credit scores negatively 

impacted by the downturn in the 

economy. 

Comment: A revision to the credit 

score requirements will have minimal 

effect. Many commenters questioned the 

need of establishing a minimum 

decision credit score of 500, given that 

most mortgage lenders have adopted a 

higher minimum credit score. The 

commenters cited to several industry 

standards, and most commonly to a 

minimum credit score of 620. These 

commenters wrote that HUD’s proposal 

would have little impact since mortgage 

lenders will not provide mortgage loans 

to borrowers with credit scores below 

the minimums they have established. 

HUD Response. HUD has not revised 

its proposal based on these comments. 

Unlike private mortgage lenders, HUD 

has an important historical 

countercyclical position of supporting 

the private sector when access to capital 

is constrained, and an equally important 

social mission of helping unserved 

borrowers. HUD takes these 

responsibilities seriously and, as 

discussed more fully in the responses to 

the preceding comments, continues to 

believe that the revised credit score 

requirements strike the appropriate 

balance between fulfilling HUD’s 

historical and social responsibilities, as 

well as its statutory duty to preserve the 

MMIF capital reserves. 

Comment: Acceptable score ranges for 

other scoring models. The July 15, 2010, 

notice invited comment on the best 

means for FHA to provide guidance on 

acceptable score ranges for scoring 

models other than FICO-based decision 

scores, to ensure that the scales used for 

all scoring systems are consistent and 

appropriate for FHA borrowers (see 75 

FR 41220). In response, a few 

commenters wrote to suggest alternative 

scoring models. For example, one 

commenter (the developer of a 

consumer credit score model) proposed 

a calibration analysis of the FHA loan 

portfolio using its credit score model. 

Another commenter advocated that 

HUD provide further guidance on risk 

thresholds, decision points and pricing 

tiers, so that developers of risk 

assessment services can initiate new 

processes. The majority of these 

commenters, however, questioned the 

usefulness of using any credit score 

model, writing that credit scores are an 

imperfect indicator of risk and often not 

reflective of a person’s ability to pay. 

The commenters also wrote that credit 

scores sometimes have disparate impact 

on minorities compared to other 

borrowers. 

HUD Response. HUD has not revised 

the July 15, 2010, notice in response to 

these comments. With respect to the use 

of other credit scoring models, HUD 

greatly appreciates the suggestions 

offered by the commenters. However, 

HUD believes that additional analysis of 

this issue is required given the 

complexity of the proposed approaches 

as well as the need to provide sufficient 

notice to the industry of such a 

significant change to current FHA 

requirements. HUD is not 

unsympathetic to the concerns 

expressed by the commenters that 

questioned the utility of credit models, 

and reiterates that it has taken several 

steps to mitigate the impacts of 

establishing a minimum decision credit 

score. As noted, HUD has established a 

threshold below the threshold score 

widely used by many private lenders 

and is providing a temporary allowance 

to permit a higher LTV when 

refinancing mortgage loans for certain 

borrowers. Further, in response to many 

of the concerns expressed by these 

commenters, FHA requires the use of 

manual underwriting to address cases 

where the borrower has very limited or 

nontraditional credit history, a FICObased credit score may not have been 

issued, or the credit score may be based 

on references that are few in number or 

do not effectively predict future credit 

worthiness. 

IV. Establishment of Minimum Decision 

Credit Score and New LTV 

Requirements 

Commencing on the effective date: 

1. Minimum Credit Score. Borrowers 

will be required to have a minimum 

decision credit score of no less than 500 

to be eligible for FHA financing. 

The decision credit score used by 

FHA is based on methodologies 

developed by the FICO Corporation. 

FICO scores, which range from a low of 

300 to a high of 850, are calculated with 

input by each of the three National 

Credit Bureaus and are based upon 

credit-related information reported by 

creditors, specific to each applicant. 

Lower credit scores indicate greater risk 

of default on any new credit extended 

to the applicant. The decision credit 

score is based on the middle of three 

National Credit Bureau scores or the 

lower of two scores when all three are 

not available, for the lowest scoring 

applicant. 

2. LTV requirements. The LTV for 

FHA-insured mortgage loans (purchase 

and refinance) will be limited to 90 

percent for borrowers with a decision 

score between 500 and 579. Maximum 

FHA-insured financing (typically, 96.5 

percent LTV for purchase transactions 

and 97.75 percent for rate and term 

refinance transactions) will continue to 

be available for borrowers with credit 

scores at or above 580. 

3. Temporary Exemption for 

Borrowers Seeking to Refinance. As 

indicated in the July 15, 2010 notice, 

FHA is providing a special, temporary 

allowance to permit higher LTV 

mortgage loans for borrowers with lower 

decision credit scores, so long as they 

involve a reduction of existing mortgage 

indebtedness pursuant to FHA program 

adjustments announced in HUD 

Mortgagee Letter 2010–23.4 In 

accordance with Mortgagee Letter 2010– 

23, the current mortgage lender will 

need to agree to accept a short pay off, 

accepting less than the full amount 

owed on the original mortgage in order 

to satisfy the outstanding debt. 

This temporary exemption recognizes 

that, given current economic conditions, 

the decision credit scores announced in 

this notice may be counterproductive in 

helping existing homeowners refinance 

to obtain more affordable mortgages and 

save their homes. FHA recognizes that 

even homeowners who have been able 

to make their monthly payments may 

have had their credit scores negatively 

impacted by the downturn in the 

economy which has so seriously 

affected the housing market. 

This exemption is applicable only to 

borrowers with credit scores between 

500 to 579. Further, the exemption is 

applicable only to refinance transactions 

originated pursuant to Mortgagee Letter 

2010–23 and closed on or before 

December 31, 2012. 

V. Findings and Certification 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) reviewed this document under 

Executive Order 12866 (entitled 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54023 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’). The 

document was determined to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of the Order 

(although not economically significant, 

as provided in section 3(f)(1) of the 

Order). 

FHA is implementing one change to 

replenish the MMIF capital reserve 

account. FHA is establishing a two-part 

credit-score threshold, with one lower 

bound for loans with loan-to-value 

ratios of 90 percent or less, and a higher 

threshold for those with loan-to-value 

ratios up to the statutory maximums. 

This is the first time that FHA has ever 

instituted an absolute lower-bound for 

borrower credit scores. Borrowers with 

low credit scores present higher risk of 

default and mortgage insurance claim. 

Such transactions that lack the 

additional credit enhancements 

announced in this document result in 

higher mortgage insurance claim rates 

and present an unacceptable risk of loss. 

The benefit of the revised credit score 

and LTV requirements will be to reduce 

the net losses due to high rates of 

insurance claims on affected loans, 

while the cost will be the value of the 

homeownership opportunity denied to 

the excluded borrowers. HUD prepared 

an economic analysis assessing costs 

and benefits in conjunction with 

development of the July 15, 2010, 

Federal Register notice. As noted above, 

HUD is implementing the proposed 

credit score and LTV requirements 

without change and, therefore that 

analysis remains applicable to this 

document. HUD’s full analysis can be 

found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/ 

hsg/sfh/hsgsingle.cfm. 

The docket file is available for public 

inspection 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, please schedule 

an appointment to review the docket file 

by calling the Regulations Division at 

202–402–3055 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with speech or 

hearing impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. 

Environmental Impact 

A Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) with respect to the 

environment has been made in 

accordance with HUD regulations at 24 

CFR part 50, which implement section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

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

4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No 

Significant Impact is available for public 

inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations 

Division, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 

Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410. 

Due to security measures at the HUD 

Headquarters building, please schedule 

an appointment to review the FONSI by 

calling the Regulations Division at 

202–708–3055 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Individuals with speech or 

hearing impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339. 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22133 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0800] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Camp 

Lejeune, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulations 

governing the operation of the Onslow 

Beach Swing Bridge, across the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, mile 240.7, at 

Camp Lejeune, NC. The deviation is 

necessary to facilitate urgent 

replacement of the main hydraulic 

system. This deviation allows the bridge 

to be in the closed-to-navigation 

position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

1 a.m. on September 8, 2010 to 11:59 

p.m. on September 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

0800 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0800 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box 

and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Bill H. Brazier, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Fifth Coast 

Guard District; telephone 757–398– 

6422, e-mail Bill.H.Brazier@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Onslow Beach Swing Bridge at Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, mile 240.7, at 

Camp Lejeune NC, has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position to 

vessels of approximately 12 feet, above 

mean high water. 

The U.S. Marine Corps at Camp 

Lejeune NC, who owns and operates 

this swing-type drawbridge, has 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the current operating regulations set out 

in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(1) to facilitate 

urgent replacement of the main 

hydraulic system. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

Onslow Beach Swing Bridge will be 

maintained in the closed-to-navigation 

position from 1 a.m. on Wednesday, 

September 8, 2010 through 11:59 p.m. 

on Tuesday, September 14, 2010. 

Vessels that can pass under the bridge 

without a bridge opening may do so at 

anytime. There are no alternate routes 

for vessels transiting this section of the 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the 

drawbridge will be unable to open in 

the event of an emergency. 

The Coast Guard has coordinated the 

restrictions with the local users of the 

waterway, the Steamship Trade 

Committee, the Virginia Maritime 

Association, and marinas and will 

inform unexpected users through our 

Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners 

of the closure period for the bridge so 

that vessels can arrange their transits to 

minimize any impact caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: August 18, 2010. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22033 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES