HUD Multifamily Rental Project Closing Documents-Revisions and Updates Notice of Information Collection; 30-Day Notice, 80517-80524 [2010-32185]
Download as PDF
80517
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
multifamily housing properties, and an
acceptable Quality Control Plan.
Qualified lenders can then take
advantage of a mortgage application-
processing plan that will take
substantially less processing time than
traditional processing.
Frequency of Submission: Onoccasion, Annually.
Number of
respondents
Annual
responses
90
11.61
Reporting Burden ..............................................................................
Total Estimated Burden Hours:
419,775.
Status: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as
amended.
Dated: December 17, 2010.
Colette Pollard,
Departmental Reports Management Officer,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–32161 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5354–N–02]
HUD Multifamily Rental Project Closing
Documents—Revisions and Updates
Notice of Information Collection; 30Day Notice
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
On January 21, 2010, and
consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, HUD published
for public comment, for a period of 60
days, a notice advising that HUD was
updating and revising a set of closing
documents used in Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) multifamily
rental projects. The 60-day notice
published on January 21, 2010, started
anew the process for updating the
multifamily rental project closing
documents, and obtaining approval of
these documents under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, a process that had
originally commenced on August 2,
2004.
This 30-day notice published today
will complete the public comment
process required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. With the
issuance of this notice, HUD will submit
the information collection for the
closing documents to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval, and assignment of
OMB control numbers. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
closing documents will undergo the
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
public comment process every three
years to retain OMB approval.
While complying with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this 30-day
notice, as was the case with the 60-day
notice, provides information beyond
that normally provided in such notices.
The 60-day notice published on January
21, 2010, responded to the public
comments submitted on the proposed
closing documents issued for comment
on August 2, 2004, and summarized and
responded to the public comments.
Similarly, this notice issued today
identifies substantive changes that HUD
has made to the closing documents in
response to public comment submitted
on the January 21, 2010, notice, and
responds to significant issues raised by
commenters on the closing documents.
The multifamily closing documents
that HUD is submitting to OMB are
posted on HUD’s Web site at https://
www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/
mfhclosingdocuments.cfm.
DATES:
Comment Due Date: January 21,
2011.
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this notice 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.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
x
Hours per
response
401.69
=
Burden hours
419,775
HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments
submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 Notice.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
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 advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled 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. Copies of all comments submitted
are available for inspection and
downloading at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
J. Daly, Associate General Counsel for
Insured Housing, Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street,
SW., Room 9226, Washington, DC
20410–0500; telephone number 202–
708–1274 (this is not a toll-free
number). Persons with speech or
hearing impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service
at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 1, 2009, HUD announced, on
its Web site, that it would commence
review of the multifamily rental project
closing documents, for which review
had started but was not completed
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80518
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
under the prior Administration. HUD
posted the documents on its Web site
and welcomed the public to review
these documents as HUD began its
internal review prior to commencement
of formal review and solicitation of
public comment under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). (See
https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/
mfhclosingdocuments.cfm.)
Under the prior Administration, HUD
published a notice in the Federal
Register on August 2, 2004 (69 FR
46214) that advised that, consistent with
the PRA, it was publishing for public
comment a comprehensive set of revised
closing forms and documents (closing
documents) for use in the FHA
multifamily rental project and health
care facility (excluding hospitals)
programs. In the notice, HUD advised
that, in addition to seeking public
comment on burden hours, which is the
primary focus of the PRA, HUD
welcomed input from the lending
industry and other interested parties on
whether the documents offer the
requisite protection to all parties in
these FHA-insured mortgage programs,
while being consistent with modern real
estate practice and mortgage lending
laws and procedures. The August 2,
2004, notice, in turn, followed an earlier
informal solicitation of public comment
on proposed revisions to the closing
documents that were posted on HUD’s
Web site in March 2000. In response to
the comments received from the 2000
solicitation of public comment,
significant revisions were made to the
proposed closing documents, and these
revised documents were published in
the Federal Register on August 2, 2004,
for review and public comment.
Although HUD reviewed the public
comments and advised of initial policy
decisions in response to certain
comments (see HUD’s notice published
on August 31, 2006, at 71 FR 51842),
HUD was unable to complete the
updating of the closing documents
during the prior Administration.
Consistent with its announcement on
June 1, 2009 that HUD would start anew
the updating of the closing documents,
HUD published a notice in the Federal
Register on January 21, 2010 (75 FR
3544), which solicited public comment
for a period of 60 days on the closing
documents. The January 21, 2010,
notice commenced the formal review
and public input required by the PRA.
However, consistent with the approach
to updating the documents that HUD
took in 2004, the January 21, 2010,
notice went beyond the information
generally provided in PRA notices. The
notice identified changes HUD made to
the closing documents since they were
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
last published for comment in August
2004. That January 21, 2010 notice also
summarized the significant issues that
commenters raised in response to both
the 2004 publications and to HUD’s
posting of documents on its Web site in
2009. In addition to the summary, the
January 2010 Notice also provided
responses to the significant issues raised
by the commenters.
As noted in the Summary portion of
this notice, this 30-day notice published
today will complete the public comment
process required by the PRA for the
closing documents. Related to the
closing documents is a proposed rule
that HUD published on November 12,
2010 (See 75 FR 6393, HUD Multifamily
Rental Projects: Regulatory Revisions.)
The November 12, 2010 proposed rule
proposes to amend certain FHA
regulations to update regulations to
reflect current HUD policy in the area of
multifamily rental projects. Similar to
HUD’s updating of the closing
documents, HUD seeks to have its
regulations reflect current terminology,
lending laws, and practices with respect
to multifamily projects.
II. The January 21, 2010 Notice (The 60Day Notice)
A. The 60-Day Public Comment Process,
Generally
While this 30-day notice addresses
significant issues raised by the public
commenters on the 60-day notice, HUD
is not providing the detailed comment
and response section as HUD did in the
60-day notice. At the time of the first
issuance of proposed updated closing
documents in 2004, HUD was not
accepting comments electronically
through a publicly available Web site,
and consequently, the public did not
have a readily and easily available
mechanism to review public comments
on the August 2, 2004, notice. Therefore
to compensate for the lack of publicly
available Web site where all public
comments could be viewed, HUD
provided a detailed summary of the
comments and HUD’s responses to these
comments. For the January 21, 2010,
notice, however, all the public
comments submitted on the proposed
updated closing documents can be
viewed at https://www.regulations.gov,
which included proposed mark-ups of
several of the closing documents.
B. The Public Comments, Generally
At the close of the public comment
period on March 22, 2010, HUD
received 47 public comments. The
commenters included lenders, home
builders, construction companies,
attorneys, real estate agencies, and
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
organizations such as the Mortgage
Bankers Association and the American
Bar Association. Several of the
commenters, as noted earlier, submitted
with their comments HUD’s updated
closing documents revised as certain
commenters preferred to see the
documents structured. HUD also held
three public roundtables to obtain input
from affected parties; on February 19
and 23, 2010 and March 9, 2010. (See
https://170.97.167.13/offices/hsg/mfh/
mfhlcd/roundtableinvitation.pdf.) HUD
carefully reviewed all of the comments
and appreciates the thorough review
provided by the majority of the
commenters as well as the time taken by
several commenters to draft and submit
for HUD’s consideration revised or
alternative language. While HUD is not
providing a detailed summary of the
comments as it did in the January 2010
notice, the following highlights some of
the significant issues raised by the
commenters.
General Comments
General concerns identified by
commenters about the closing
documents were as follows: The
documents impose greater burdens and
legal consequences on HUD borrowers
(Borrowers) and lenders (Lenders),
thereby potentially discouraging
participation in HUD’s multifamily
programs, especially for nonprofit
organizations; the documents would
result in fundamental changes in the
nature of the mortgage insurance
contract and shift additional risk to
Lenders and Borrowers alike; the
increased burdens on HUD call into
question whether HUD staff, because of
decreasing HUD personnel resources,
can timely perform under the
requirements of the new documents;
and certain provisions in the documents
appear to conflict with existing statutes
regulations, and HUD handbooks.
HUD acknowledges that with the
updating of the closing documents, the
majority of which have not been
updated in over 20 years, the changes
appear to impose greater burdens on
HUD Lenders and Borrowers. However,
HUD submits that the changes result in
no greater burden than that involved in
non-FHA private sector multifamily
rental project closings. Further,
although Lenders and Borrowers will
need some time to become familiar with
the updated closing documents, the
existing closing documents, which these
updated closing documents will replace,
often necessitated the development of
individual and additional documents
for a transaction. Developing unique
documents for a transaction frequently
caused delays in the processing of the
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
documents and completion of the
closing. The updated closing documents
are designed to eliminate much of the
need for individual document
development, and reduce the time to
process and close HUD multifamily
rental project transactions.
Multifamily rental project
transactions have changed significantly
over the last 20 years, and, in certain
aspects, are more complex than they
were over 20 years ago. HUD has strived
to make these closing documents
consistent, to the extent feasible, with
non-FHA documents in order to
minimize differences in transactions,
and therefore minimize burden often
caused by variations between FHA
multifamily rental project closings and
non-FHA multifamily rental closings.
The changes to the closing documents
appropriately reflect the responsibilities
and risk that are to be borne by HUD
and the responsibilities and risk that are
to borne by Lenders and Borrowers. The
changes in responsibilities and risks to
all parties, as provided in these
documents, correspond to changes in
multifamily rental transactions that
have taken place over the last two
decades. As noted earlier, these
transactions are not the same as they
were 20 years ago. There have been
significant changes, and not only must
the documents change to reflect the
changes in the transactions, the parties
to the transactions must accept the risks
and responsibilities that are part of
these transactions as these parties do in
non-FHA multifamily rental
transactions.
HUD appreciates the concerns about
whether HUD staffing levels will be
sufficient to fulfill HUD’s obligations
when updated closing documents are
approved and ready to be used. HUD
assures the industry and the public that
sufficient staff will be available and
thoroughly familiar with the documents
to perform necessary tasks.
Finally, with respect to concerns
about the closing documents possibly
conflicting with statutes and
regulations, HUD notes that the review
of these documents, including
significant review by industry, has been
thorough, with review commencing as
early as 2000, continuing through 2004,
and 2006, June 2009, and January 2010.
(Please see preamble discussion in the
January 22, 2010, notice at 75 FR 3545,
first column.) Given this process, and
with the aid of industry review, HUD
believes that any conflicts with existing
statutes and regulations that may have
been in the documents have been
addressed.
In essence, HUD has sought to balance
updated legal definitions and terms, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
transfers of responsibilities to and
between program participants with the
government’s interest in managing risk.
Further, the efficiencies achieved in
standardizing and streamlining
documents will achieve legal certainty
and save time in closings which will
benefit all participants.
Comments directed at specific closing
documents are addressed in the next
section in the context of changes that
were made to the closing documents as
a result of public comments, and/or
further consideration of issues by HUD.
However, other overarching issues
raised by the commenters follow.
Disclosure of Gains From Trading
Ginnie Mae Securities. Commenters
noted that the proposed requirement in
the loan documents that Lenders
disclose gains from trading the Ginnie
Mae security would create a substantial,
significant and notable new policy.
Commenters submitted that such
disclosure does not belong in the
closing documents nor should it be part
of the process for changing loan
documents. HUD agrees with this
concern and has removed this
requirement.
Lender’s Determination of Interest
Rate. Commenters expressed concern
that through the process of rewriting
their multifamily loan documents, FHA
was attempting to create policy that
altered Lender’s ability to determine the
interest rate. HUD assures that there is
no restriction on the Lender’s ability to
determine the interest rate.
Ability To Charge Origination and
Servicing Fees for Increased Obligations
Imposed by New Documents.
Commenters expressed concerns that
the proposed documents impose
augmented obligations and liabilities on
Lenders with little or no opportunity for
Lenders to recoup what are sure to be
increased origination and servicing
costs. In some instances, commenters
say that there is a significant shift of
risks and responsibilities from HUD and
Borrower’s counsel to Lender.
HUD recognizes that the Lender and
Borrower will be undertaking new
responsibilities and anticipates that
there will be negotiations between the
parties which will result in a
corresponding recognition and
adjustment in fees. For example, HUD
had included authority in the proposed
documents for the Lender to charge the
Borrower a fee, in accordance with
Program Obligations, for the Lender’s
increased responsibilities in reviewing a
proposed transfer of physical assets.
That provision was retained in this
document publication. HUD’s current
guidance recognizes that ‘‘reasonable
and necessary expenses’’ can be
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80519
recovered and anticipates that the
Lender and Borrower will negotiate
applicable fees which, while they can be
expenses of the project, cannot be
insured debt. The issue of costs and fees
is further discussed later in this
preamble.
Emulating Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac Standards for Multifamily Loan
Documents. Commenters contended that
HUD was seeking to emulate Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac as setting modern
standards for multifamily loan
documents, yet also contended that
HUD’s emulation is more selective than
rational distinctions justify. They
further contended that at the same time
other Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loan
documents provisions proposed for
adoption by HUD might be problematic.
HUD has not attempted to develop
documents that emulate Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, but has, in contrast,
developed documents that are updated
for current commercial legal standards,
balanced with the public policy role
that HUD programs serve. To some
extent, HUD’s documents may therefore
include provisions similar to Fannie
Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s documents,
but they do not replicate those
documents. While HUD acknowledges
that certain features of the FHA
programs are unique, such as the
payment of the mortgage insurance
premium (MIP), execution of the
Regulatory Agreement, and surplus cash
requirements, these elements are
essential to protecting the government’s
financial interest and limiting
unnecessary risk. Inclusion of such
provisions is therefore a necessary
tradeoff which protects the
government’s financial interest and
minimizes risk while providing the
benefit of federally insured real estate
financing.
Proposed Changes to Section 232
Health Care Processes Should Be
Incorporated. Commenters stated that
several potential health care program
closing documents innovations were
equally appropriate for the rental
documents, and urged HUD to examine
these potential changes.
HUD is already closely reviewing the
current health care program documents
in the context of developing a separate
rule and updated documents that will
be published for public comment.
C. Status of Changes to Documents
1. Documents Not Revised
Of the closing documents published
in January 2010, the Surveyor’s Report,
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
80520
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
and HUD Survey Instructions and
Report were not revised.1
2. Documents Revised
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
The remaining documents listed
below were revised.
1. Security Instrument
2. Note
3. Multifamily Regulatory Agreement
4. Lender’s Certificate
5. Building Loan Agreement
6. Supplement to Building Loan
Agreement
7. Construction Contract
8. Supplementary Conditions of the
Contract for Construction
9. Guide for Opinion of Borrower’s
Counsel
10. Instructions to Guide for Opinion of
Borrower’s Counsel
11. Exhibit A to Opinion of Borrower’s
Counsel
12. Residual Receipts Note (Non-Profit
Borrowers)
13. Residual Receipts Note (Limited
Dividend Borrowers)
14. Escrow Agreement for Incomplete
Construction
15. Request for Final Endorsement of
Credit Instrument
16. Lease Addendum
17. Surplus Cash Note
18. Completion Assurance Agreement
19. Payment Bond
20. Performance Bond
21. Request for Approval of Advance of
Escrow Funds
22. Escrow Agreement for Noncritical
Deferred Repairs
23. Agreement of Sponsor to Furnish
Additional Funds
24. Escrow Agreement for Operating
Deficit
25. Bond Guaranteeing Sponsor’s
Performance
26. Off Site Bond—Dual Obligee
27. Escrow Agreement for Latent Defects
28. Escrow Agreement for Working
Capital
29. Agreement and Certification
30. Request for Endorsement of Credit
Instrument
31. Borrower’s Oath
32. Subordination Agreement 2
All changes made to the multifamily
closing documents are provided in
redline/strikeout format on HUD’s Web
site at https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/
1 HUD published proposed amendments to
American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document
B–181 in January 2010 and received comments on
that document. However, the AIA is replacing this
document with AIA Document B–108 effective May
31, 2011. Given the timing of that document
change, HUD will complete the notice and
comment requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act under separate notice.
2 This document, which was included in the
January 21, 2010, notice has not yet been assigned
a form number.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
mfh/mfhclosingdocuments.cfm. These
changes capture both editorial changes
and more substantive changes. The
following sections of this preamble
address some of the significant issues
raised by the commenters in response to
the January 2010 notice. Some
commenters, however, proposed
changes or raised issues that were the
same as those proposed or raised in
response to publication of the proposed
revised closing documents issued in
2004 and to which HUD has already
provided responses in the January 2010
notice. In this notice issued today, HUD
is not repeating responses to proposed
changes or issues that were addressed in
the January 2010 notice.
3. Across-the-Board Changes and
Significant Policy Determinations
HUD adopted many changes
submitted by commenters including the
following:
Two-tier default. In 2004, HUD
developed a new two-tiered default
scheme as part of the revision to the
Security Instrument. Regulatory
language reflecting these proposed
changes were also included in the
proposed regulations published in 2004.
Specifically, HUD proposed that there
should be one class for financial
defaults, which would give the lender
an immediate right to an insurance fund
claim. All other bases for default were
grouped into a second class. HUD
would require the lender to obtain
HUD’s prior written approval for a claim
in this second category before the lender
would be able to make an insurance
fund claim. This proposal for a two tier
default system was also included in
both the revisions to the Security
Instrument published in January 2010
and in the proposed changes to the
multifamily regulations published
November 12, 2010.
Commenters on the changes proposed
in 2004 and 2010 suggested that HUD
update the foreclosure process for
current legal terminology. HUD has
adopted commenters’ recommendations
to provide more details on the two tier
default criteria in both the documents
and the proposed rule, and accepted
several of the commenters’ suggestions
for technical language changes.
Lender/Owner/Attorney
Responsibilities. Several commenters
submitted that HUD has placed new and
inappropriate responsibilities on them
in their respective roles. As an example
Borrowers’ attorneys stated that they
should not have to certify that flood
insurance was in place, as the Lender
typically undertook that responsibility.
With respect to these statements, HUD
notes that it has modified certifications
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to require the Lender to certify that
there is flood insurance on a property,
and has adopted similar provisions in
other documents. The redlined versions
of these documents on the web page
highlight these changes.
Recourse Liability and Definition of
Principals. In the January 2010 notice,
HUD noted that the 2004 proposed
revisions to the closing documents
included certain limited recourse
liability for ‘‘Key Principals’’ which was
opposed by several public commenters.
While HUD’s August 31, 2006, notice
advising of preliminary decisions on
proposed revisions did not include
provisions for recourse liability of
Principals, the revised closing
documents posted on HUD’s Web site
on June 1, 2009, retained some of the
provisions that were questioned. Some
of the informal comments submitted in
response to HUD’s posting in 2009 of
proposed changes to the closing
documents again opposed inclusion of
any recourse liability provisions,
arguing that inclusion would dissuade
some individuals from participating in
HUD insured multifamily housing
transactions.
In the January 2010 notice, HUD
highlighted its current position that, in
light of the consequences that certain
insufficiently regulated actions have
had on the housing finance markets in
recent years, and given that public
funds are put at risk in HUD
multifamily housing transactions, it is
appropriate for principals to be
responsible for paying damages for
certain ‘‘bad boy’’ acts. Accordingly,
these provisions were included in the
revised closing documents circulated for
public comment, and HUD has
determined to retain these provisions.
Commenters on the January proposal
expressed concerns that HUD had
broadened liability in the proposed
documents for principals, for example,
for ‘‘bad boy’’ acts. HUD does not agree
with this characterization. These
documents retain the historic nonrecourse nature of FHA-insured
financing. Individual principals are not
personally liable for payment of the
Note as a result of default. However,
acts of fraud and misconduct that put
the FHA insurance fund at risk will be
pursued through contract rights made
explicit in these documents and other
remedies available to the federal
government. As a result, HUD believes
that the ‘‘bad boy’’ provisions referred to
by commentators merely provide more
certain legal mechanisms for enforcing
HUD’s statutory, regulatory, and
program requirements without
overburdening those that work hard and
play by the rules.
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
In addition, signers generally are
attesting only ‘‘to the best of their
knowledge,’’ and primarily to their own
statements and representations. In
several instances, principals’ liability is
limited by the materiality of the
certification to the issue in question.
HUD has also referenced a definition
of principals in the documents which is
included in 24 CFR 200.215 of HUD’s
regulations. Consequently, any changes
to the definition of principals will
require regulatory change.
State Specific Provisions. Several
commenters suggested that HUD
develop and include state specific riders
to the documents and publish them for
review. HUD recognizes that publication
of state specific provisions that are
discretionary but not mandatory may be
helpful, but believes that it is important
to await adoption of this set of
documents and allow some time
following implementation to see if
conflicts of law questions and other
state law issues arise in order to
determine the timing and substance of
the next steps.
Nevertheless, in the meantime, HUD
will develop and use those limited state
specific riders necessary to meet state
law mandates. These latter provisions
are recognized as necessary to complete
closings and comply with state law
requirements. HUD has no authority to
modify the required language which
fulfills those state law obligations.
Program Obligations/Directives. One
of the more significant changes made in
revising this set of closing documents
was to replace the term ‘‘Directives’’
with the term ‘‘Program Obligations.’’
Commenters raised concerns about the
use of the term ‘‘Directives’’ in light of
its historic meaning. HUD’s view is that
the term ‘‘Program Obligations’’ better
captures what was intended by use of
the term ‘‘Directives,’’ namely, to advise
parties to the closing documents of the
program requirements embodied in
statute and regulation and other
documents issued in accordance with
law, and not repeated in the closing
documents, to which the parties must
adhere. The language now used in the
closing documents defines ‘‘Program
Obligations,’’ as follows:
Program Obligations means all applicable
statutes and regulations, including all
amendments to such statutes and regulations,
as they become effective; and all applicable
requirements in HUD handbooks, HUD
guides, notices, and mortgagee letters that
apply to the Project, including all updates
and changes to such handbooks, guides,
notices, and mortgagee letters that apply to
the Project, except that updates and changes
subject to notice and comment rulemaking
shall become effective upon completion of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
the rulemaking process. Handbooks, guides,
notices, and mortgagee letters are available
on HUD’s official Web site (https://
www.hudclips.org or a successor location to
that site).
This language better identifies what
HUD intended in its original use of the
term ‘‘Directives.’’ The definition of
Program Obligations identifies the
specific, longstanding, and familiar
types of requirements (those in statutes,
regulations, handbooks, guides, notices,
and mortgagee letters) to which the
parties must adhere.
In response to commenters’ concerns
that HUD has unfettered discretion to
make material changes that will have an
economic effect on the viability of the
project, the definition of ‘‘Program
Obligations’’ explicitly recognizes that
notice and comment rulemaking will be
followed for significant substantive
requirements. In fact, HUD has currently
proposed rules accompanying these
documents which can serve as an
example of the type of changes that are
made in rulemaking.
Borrowers will be subject, as they are
in any other government program, to
prospective programmatic changes.
Further, Lenders should recognize that
they are, to a great extent, protected by
and subject to the FHA Contract of
Insurance. As described previously,
HUD has referenced HUD rules in
several places. The revised Security
Instrument specifically references the
applicable sections of the Code of
Federal Regulations to address these
concerns. For example, because
concerns have been expressed about the
potential liability of principals, Section
1(bb) of the new Security Instrument
explicitly links to the definition of
principal in 24 CFR 200.15, and to the
definition of ‘‘contract of insurance’’ in
24 CFR part 207, subpart B.
Additionally, it is important to note
that the imposition of new or revised
information collection requirements
(that is, generally new or revised forms)
must undergo the notice and comment
processes, including Federal Register
publication, required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. From time to
time, HUD also uses mortgagee letters or
other types of direct notices to
announce new binding requirements.
These types of documents are used, for
example, when new statutes impose
requirements that are effective upon
enactment and HUD has no discretion
in implementation. In such situations,
mortgagee letters or other types of direct
notices are the best vehicles to advise
the industry on implementation dates
and provide implementation guidance
that may be helpful. HUD may also
issue mortgagee letters or direct notices
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
80521
to announce clarifications,
interpretations, or certain procedural
requirements, such as to which HUD
offices or HUD officials certain types of
executed documents must be submitted.
In brief, HUD will follow the applicable
procedures, as directed by statute or
regulation that govern issuance of a
document, which may announce
additional policies, processes, forms, or
standards to which parties to the closing
documents must comply.
Liability and New Responsibilities.
The proposed closing documents
reflected a series of changes directed to
Lenders assuming a greater role in
reviewing documents for the
transaction. While commenters
expressed concerns about this expanded
role and potential liabilities, they also
expressed concerns that the proposed
closing documents significantly
increased burdens on HUD staff at a
time of shrinking HUD personnel
resources and looming retirements.
Commenters further submitted that
the requirement for HUD to review and
approve minor modifications to
commercial leases, review additional
financial statements, additional
diligence with regard to the closing
documents, and many other
requirements all cause significant
increases to the cost of doing business
for which there is no additional
compensation vehicle.
HUD has addressed these comments
in several ways. Lender liability is
limited by warranty restrictions. For
example, while the Borrower grants the
Lender a security interest in their
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
collateral, the Borrower also warrants to
the Lender that no UCC filings have
been made against the Borrower, the
Project, or the Project assets. The
Borrower makes these warranties to the
Lender prior to the initial/final
endorsement of the Note by HUD. In
further attempting to address these
competing concerns, namely the
increased due diligence, and transaction
specific issues, HUD has provided for
modification of Lender fees.
In addition, HUD continues to allow
Lenders to recover costs through the
interest rate and servicing fees, and
recover certain ‘‘reasonable and
customary’’ fees as noted in the Lender’s
Certificate. The Lender may impose
reasonable and customary
administrative fees and charges
(including but not limited to,
reimbursements for out-of-pocket
expenses) for handling and investing the
cash held in the Reserve for
Replacement, the Residual Receipts
account, if applicable, and any other
interest-bearing escrows related to the
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80522
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
Project and for processing, reviewing
and approving other matters
(Administrative Fees). Further, while
Lenders are required to pass on interest
earned on escrows to the Borrower, the
Lender is allowed to negotiate a
reasonable fee with the Borrower based
on the particular responsibilities taken
on in each transaction by the respective
parties in other respects. For example,
HUD has allowed Lenders to recoup
costs in fees for due diligence related to
Transfer of Physical Assets.
Waste. Commenters expressed
concerns that HUD was including a
definition of ‘‘waste’’ that was broad and
exceeded industry standards. Namely,
commenters objected to inclusion of
standards related to the physical
condition of the property, along with
the financial condition of the property
and the potential for fraud. Commenters
suggested as an alternative, to limit the
definition of ‘‘waste’’ used in the closing
documents to fraud and financial issues
such as tax delinquency, unauthorized
retention of funds, and actions reducing
the value of the property. Commenters
also suggested limiting the definition of
waste to ‘‘Program Obligations’’ in effect
as of the date of HUD’s firm
commitment to insure the loan.
HUD has the responsibility to ensure
that HUD-insured properties are decent,
safe, sanitary, and in good repair, and to
provide sufficient information regarding
the specific items that HUD will review
in makings its determination that waste
has been committed. Accordingly, HUD
has retained language defining waste
that includes the general goal of
maintaining decent, safe, and sanitary
housing, and a list of specific items that
provide direction to the Borrower.
Within the list of specifics that
constitute waste, HUD has modified the
proposed language to include ‘‘failure to
maintain and repair’’ the property in
accordance with Program Obligations.
(See the preamble section labeled
Program Obligations/Directives for a
discussion of HUD requirements under
program obligations).
Transition. Commenters expressed a
desire for HUD to coordinate the
effective date for these documents with
training and updated program guidance.
HUD agrees with these comments and
carefully considered them in
determining an effective date. Updated
guidance and a training schedule will be
published well in advance of any
closings that require use of the new
closing documents. Notwithstanding the
many opportunities for public comment
and input that HUD has provided on
revisions to the closing documents,
which commenced even before the
formal proposal issued in 2004,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
commenters requested that Lenders be
given the option of using current or
revised documents for up to three years
and suggested different mandated
effective dates depending on the
program. HUD disagrees with these
comments due to the many
opportunities already made available to
review the proposed documents. HUD
recognizes that when these documents
are issued in final form and are ready
for use in multifamily rental
transactions, that time will be needed
for parties to adjust practices to use the
new documents. As a result, these
revised closing documents shall be
mandatory with respect to all (i)
mortgage insurance applications for
refinancing, or (ii) potential applicants
that receive a letter of invitation for the
submission of an application for new
construction or substantial
rehabilitation, on or after May 1, 2011.
D. Changes To Highlight Specific
Documents
Subordination Agreement
The creation of a new Subordination
Agreement is one example of HUD’s
updates to correspond to current real
estate industry practices. The new
Subordination Agreement incorporates
many of the concepts in a rider that is
currently used by HUD and it is more
in line with current industry practices
for governmental subordinate lenders.
The new Subordination Agreement also
improves upon notification to the
public, including potential purchasers
and lenders, of the government’s
interest as it incorporates, in one
recordable document, the specific
conditions that will protect the
government’s first lien security interest
in the property.
Security Agreement/Instrument (HUD
9400M)
HUD has adopted several changes to
specify Lender responsibilities under
the security instrument while allowing
entities to legally own properties as
single asset entities and limit liability of
principals regarding ‘‘bad boy’’ acts.
Some of the key changes, some of which
have been previously discussed are as
follows:
• Provides a contractual definition of
waste to provide certainty and national
standardization for program
participants;
• Clarifies the treatment of interest
rates, recovery of costs, and allowance
of administrative fees, such as for
Transfers of Physical Assets;
• Establishes standards for
maintenance of books and records
consistent with current HUD guidance;
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Adopts technical recommendations
from commenters to clarify categories of
defaults;
• Moderates environmental
requirements;
• Defers development of specific state
law provisions for implementation
experience with the current documents,
while requiring those riders mandated
by state law;
• Updates and modernizes the
documents to allow Lenders to pay
advances for certain items related to
completion and preservation of the
property that are added to indebtedness
in accordance with statutory authority,
the regulations, and current practices.
Note (HUD 949001)
Many of the changes to the Note are
the same as those changes made to the
Security Instrument. Additional changes
to the Note are as follows:
• Provides alternative clauses for
construction and refinancing situations;
• Modernizes language to address
securitization and bonding requirements
that have been adopted since the
documents were last revised; and
• Nonrecourse to the Borrower.
Regulatory Agreement (Form 2466M)
The Regulatory Agreement is
designed to ensure that Borrowers
participating in these programs comply
with HUD rules. Several of the
definitions of terms used in the
Regulatory Agreement were modified in
both the Regulatory Agreement and the
Security Instrument. Some of the key
changes made to the Regulatory
Agreement follow:
• Modification of the definitions of
Mortgaged Property, Personalty, and
Project Assets to address the distinction
between project assets and non-project
entity assets;
• Limitation of the definition of
mortgaged property and allowing
owners more flexibility;
• Including revised definitions to
provide for receipt and use of financing
and revenue sources from for–profit,
nonprofit, and charitable sources; and
• Adopting a contractual definition of
waste in order to provide certainty and
national standardization for program
participants.
In addition, the Regulatory
Agreement:
• Provides automatic termination
provisions if the loan has been repaid
and HUD is no longer involved in the
property, while maintaining HUD’s
ability to protect the government’s
interest to enforce violations of the
agreement prior to termination;
• Clarifies the term ‘‘construction
funds’’;
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
80523
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
• Qualifies owner construction
responsibilities;
• Includes a conflicts provision
providing that if there is any conflict
between the Regulatory Agreement and
any other HUD agreement executed by
Borrower, the agreement which imposes
the more restrictive requirements on
Borrower controls;
• Removes Article IX which
referenced Section 8 Housing Assistance
Payments Contracts;
• Retains restrictions on affiliates;
• Alleviates some restrictions on
project management, for example
contracts with third party vendors;
• Limits requirements to notify HUD
of changes in Borrower organizational
structure to only those which have a
material effect;
• Continues liability for payment of
damages only for certain ‘‘bad boy acts’’;
• Maintains UCC references in order
to protect HUD’s security interests;
• Includes a new provision in which
Borrower agrees that it is not a thirdparty beneficiary to the Contract of
Insurance between HUD and Lender;
and
• Provides for limited signatories.
Lender’s Certificate (HUD 9243M)
The Lender is required to certify that
specific actions have been taken before
financing is finalized. Lenders are
required to certify to HUD that certain
due diligence has been performed and
accordingly, will be compensated for
these new responsibilities. A key change
by HUD in response to public comment
is modification of the certification
requirement standards to provide that
the Lender will be certifying ‘‘to the best
of the Lender’s knowledge’’ that the
statements in the certification are true,
accurate and complete.’’(paragraph 40).
Some of the key changes made to the
Lender’s Certificate are as follows:
• Modifies several provisions
regarding fees including:
• Shifting closing fees to a separate
attachment in order to allow the parties
to the transaction to develop a more
comprehensive and transaction specific
list of charges;
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Information collection
Number of
respondents
HUD–91710M ............
HUD–91712M ............
HUD–92023M ............
HUD–92070M ............
HUD–92223M ............
HUD–92412M ............
HUD–92414M ............
HUD–92450M ............
HUD–92452A–M ........
HUD–92452M ............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
• Eliminating the declaration to the
Borrower of the trading premium earned
by Mortgagee upon Sale of Ginnie Mae
Securities to allow Lenders and
Borrowers to negotiate appropriate
compensation;
• Allowing negotiation of reasonable
and customary administrative fees for
reimbursement for out of pocket
expenses, and handling and investing
the cash held in reserve for replacement,
residual receipts, and other interest
bearing accounts;
• Removing the term prepayment
penalty and substituting the term
prepayment premium;
• Requiring Lenders to notify HUD if
payments are not received by the tenth
day of the month in which it is due and
thus imposing a late charge.
Additional modifications include:
• Adopting limitations on disclosure
of future identities of interest, as
defined in ‘‘Program Obligations,’’
during the construction period or prior
to final endorsement;
• Changing the term ‘‘off-site
components’’ to ‘‘off-site materials’’ to be
more consistent with modern day
terminology; and
• Updating and modernizing the
documents, consistent with change to
the Security Instrument to allow
Lenders to pay advances for certain
items related to completion and
preservation of the property that are
added to indebtedness in accordance
with statutory authority, the regulations,
and current practices.
• Qualifies with a knowledge
standard the conflicts of interest
statement e that Borrower’s counsel
does not represent the Lender or other
lenders, investors or other parties
involved with the transaction; and
• Limits certification of knowledge of
side deals to those that, based upon the
certification of the Borrower, and to the
best of their knowledge, amend or are
inconsistent with the terms of the HUD
Form closing document or commitment
between Borrower and any other party
to the transaction.
Opinion (HUD–91725M)
Some of the key changes made to the
Opinion are as follows:
• Removes the requirement that
attorneys certify that the Borrower has
made UCC filings, in response to the
comment that financing statements are
filed by other parties, such as the title
company; in accordance with HUD’s
decision, announced in the January 21,
2010 notice, to shift UCC
responsibilities to Lenders;
• Removes the requirement for
certification of flood insurance as that
responsibility now rests with the
Lender;
Paperwork Reduction Act
Frequency of
response
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Jkt 223001
Responses
per annum
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PO 00000
Frm 00069
In addition to the foregoing
documents HUD has a number of
additional closing documents which are
used in specific situations, such as
escrows for incomplete construction,
escrows for latent defects, and a
completion assurance agreement. In
response to suggestions made by
commenters, HUD has adopted several
concurring changes across these forms
to ensure that there is consistency in all
forms. In addition, HUD is seeking to
ensure that practices are consistent in
all field offices with respect to releases
of escrowed funds in order to encourage
program participation while providing
financing and servicing certainty. As
noted earlier in this notice published
today, changes to these documents are
displayed in redline/strikeout format
posted on HUD’s Web page.
III. Findings and Certifications
The proposed new information
collection requirements contained in
this notice have been submitted to OMB
for review under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
The public reporting burden for this
new collection of information is
estimated to include:
Burden hours
per response
Annual burden
hours
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
300
300
600
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Fmt 4703
E. Miscellaneous Documents
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Hourly cost
$26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Total annual
cost
$7,800
7,800
15,600
7,800
7,800
7,800
7,800
7,800
7,800
7,800
80524
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices
Information collection
Number of
respondents
Frequency of
response
Responses
per annum
Burden hours
per response
Annual burden
hours
Hourly cost
Total annual
cost
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
0
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
0
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
0
1
0.75
0.75
1
1
0.5
0.75
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
600
300
300
300
600
300
300
300
300
300
600
600
0
600
450
450
600
600
300
450
600
300
300
300
26
26
26
26
46
26
26
26
26
26
125
46
0
26
26
26
58
58
26
26
26
26
26
26
15,600
7,800
7,800
7,800
27,600
7,800
7,800
7,800
7,800
7,800
75,000
27,600
0
7,800
11,700
11,700
34,800
34,800
7,800
11,700
15,600
7,800
12,300
7,800
Totals ..................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
HUD–92455M ............
HUD–92456M ............
HUD–92457A–M ........
HUD–92457M ............
HUD–92464M ............
HUD–92476.1M .........
HUD–92476a–M ........
HUD–92477M ............
HUD–92478M ............
HUD–92479M ............
HUD–91725M ............
HUD–91725M–CERT
HUD–91725M–INST ..
HUD–92434M ............
HUD–92441M–SUPP
HUD–92441M ............
HUD–92442M ............
HUD–92466M ............
HUD–92554M ............
HUD–94000M ............
HUD–94001M ............
HUD–93305M ............
HUD–92476M ............
HUD–92420M ............
600
........................
19,800
..........................
13,050.00
........................
457,800.00
The hourly rate is an estimate based
on an average annual salary of $62,000
for developers and mortgagees.
In accordance with 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting
comments from members of the public
and affected agencies concerning the
proposed collection of information to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Interested persons are invited to
submit comments regarding the
information collection requirements in
this proposal. Comments must be
received by January 21, 2011.
Comments must refer to the proposal by
name and docket number (FR–5354–N–
02) and must be sent to: HUD Desk
Officer, Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, Fax number:
(202) 395–6947; and Paperwork
Reduction Act Program Manager, Office
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:24 Dec 21, 2010
Jkt 223001
of the Chief Information Officer,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW.,
Room 4178, Washington, DC 20410.
Dated: December 17, 2010.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal
Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010–32185 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
Longleaf NWR, P.O. Box 54087,
Anniston, AL 36205. The CCP may also
be accessed and downloaded from the
Service’s Web site: https://
southeast.fws.gov/planning/ under
‘‘Final Documents.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, Jackson,
MS; telephone: 601/965–4903, ext. 20;
fax: 601/965–4010; e-mail:
mike_dawson@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–R–2010–N159; 40136–1265–0000–
S3]
Watercress Darter National Wildlife
Refuge, Jefferson County, AL
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: Final
comprehensive conservation plan and
finding of no significant impact.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce the
availability of our final comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) and finding of
no significant impact (FONSI) for the
environmental assessment for
Watercress Darter National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). In the final CCP, we
describe how we will manage this
refuge for the next 15 years.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of
the CCP by writing to: Mr. Stephen A.
Miller, Refuge Manager, Mountain
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP
process for Watercress Darter NWR. We
started this process through a notice in
the Federal Register on March 12, 2007
(72 FR 11048).
Watercress Darter NWR, near the city
of Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama,
was established by the Service in 1980,
to provide protection for the endangered
watercress darter. The refuge is only
about 24 acres of ponds, mixed pinehardwood forest, and a residence, and
contains Thomas Spring. A second pond
was constructed on the refuge in 1983,
to provide additional watercress darter
habitat. The refuge is unstaffed and
administered by Mountain Longleaf
NWR.
We announce our decision and the
availability of the final CCP and FONSI
for Watercress Darter NWR in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [40
CFR 1506.6(b)] requirements. We
completed a thorough analysis of
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80517-80524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32185]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5354-N-02]
HUD Multifamily Rental Project Closing Documents--Revisions and
Updates Notice of Information Collection; 30-Day Notice
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 21, 2010, and consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, HUD published for public comment, for a period
of 60 days, a notice advising that HUD was updating and revising a set
of closing documents used in Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
multifamily rental projects. The 60-day notice published on January 21,
2010, started anew the process for updating the multifamily rental
project closing documents, and obtaining approval of these documents
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a process that had originally
commenced on August 2, 2004.
This 30-day notice published today will complete the public comment
process required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. With the
issuance of this notice, HUD will submit the information collection for
the closing documents to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval, and assignment of OMB control numbers. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the closing documents will
undergo the public comment process every three years to retain OMB
approval.
While complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 30-
day notice, as was the case with the 60-day notice, provides
information beyond that normally provided in such notices. The 60-day
notice published on January 21, 2010, responded to the public comments
submitted on the proposed closing documents issued for comment on
August 2, 2004, and summarized and responded to the public comments.
Similarly, this notice issued today identifies substantive changes that
HUD has made to the closing documents in response to public comment
submitted on the January 21, 2010, notice, and responds to significant
issues raised by commenters on the closing documents.
The multifamily closing documents that HUD is submitting to OMB are
posted on HUD's Web site at https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/mfhclosingdocuments.cfm.
DATES: Comment Due Date: January 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this notice 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.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://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
https://www.regulations.gov Web site 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
Notice.
.No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not
acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted
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 advance appointment to review the public comments must be
scheduled 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. Copies of all comments submitted are available
for inspection and downloading at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Daly, Associate General
Counsel for Insured Housing, Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 9226,
Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-1274 (this is not a
toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may
access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 1, 2009, HUD announced, on its Web site, that it would
commence review of the multifamily rental project closing documents,
for which review had started but was not completed
[[Page 80518]]
under the prior Administration. HUD posted the documents on its Web
site and welcomed the public to review these documents as HUD began its
internal review prior to commencement of formal review and solicitation
of public comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). (See
https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/mfhclosingdocuments.cfm.)
Under the prior Administration, HUD published a notice in the
Federal Register on August 2, 2004 (69 FR 46214) that advised that,
consistent with the PRA, it was publishing for public comment a
comprehensive set of revised closing forms and documents (closing
documents) for use in the FHA multifamily rental project and health
care facility (excluding hospitals) programs. In the notice, HUD
advised that, in addition to seeking public comment on burden hours,
which is the primary focus of the PRA, HUD welcomed input from the
lending industry and other interested parties on whether the documents
offer the requisite protection to all parties in these FHA-insured
mortgage programs, while being consistent with modern real estate
practice and mortgage lending laws and procedures. The August 2, 2004,
notice, in turn, followed an earlier informal solicitation of public
comment on proposed revisions to the closing documents that were posted
on HUD's Web site in March 2000. In response to the comments received
from the 2000 solicitation of public comment, significant revisions
were made to the proposed closing documents, and these revised
documents were published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2004, for
review and public comment. Although HUD reviewed the public comments
and advised of initial policy decisions in response to certain comments
(see HUD's notice published on August 31, 2006, at 71 FR 51842), HUD
was unable to complete the updating of the closing documents during the
prior Administration.
Consistent with its announcement on June 1, 2009 that HUD would
start anew the updating of the closing documents, HUD published a
notice in the Federal Register on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3544), which
solicited public comment for a period of 60 days on the closing
documents. The January 21, 2010, notice commenced the formal review and
public input required by the PRA. However, consistent with the approach
to updating the documents that HUD took in 2004, the January 21, 2010,
notice went beyond the information generally provided in PRA notices.
The notice identified changes HUD made to the closing documents since
they were last published for comment in August 2004. That January 21,
2010 notice also summarized the significant issues that commenters
raised in response to both the 2004 publications and to HUD's posting
of documents on its Web site in 2009. In addition to the summary, the
January 2010 Notice also provided responses to the significant issues
raised by the commenters.
As noted in the Summary portion of this notice, this 30-day notice
published today will complete the public comment process required by
the PRA for the closing documents. Related to the closing documents is
a proposed rule that HUD published on November 12, 2010 (See 75 FR
6393, HUD Multifamily Rental Projects: Regulatory Revisions.) The
November 12, 2010 proposed rule proposes to amend certain FHA
regulations to update regulations to reflect current HUD policy in the
area of multifamily rental projects. Similar to HUD's updating of the
closing documents, HUD seeks to have its regulations reflect current
terminology, lending laws, and practices with respect to multifamily
projects.
II. The January 21, 2010 Notice (The 60-Day Notice)
A. The 60-Day Public Comment Process, Generally
While this 30-day notice addresses significant issues raised by the
public commenters on the 60-day notice, HUD is not providing the
detailed comment and response section as HUD did in the 60-day notice.
At the time of the first issuance of proposed updated closing documents
in 2004, HUD was not accepting comments electronically through a
publicly available Web site, and consequently, the public did not have
a readily and easily available mechanism to review public comments on
the August 2, 2004, notice. Therefore to compensate for the lack of
publicly available Web site where all public comments could be viewed,
HUD provided a detailed summary of the comments and HUD's responses to
these comments. For the January 21, 2010, notice, however, all the
public comments submitted on the proposed updated closing documents can
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov, which included proposed mark-
ups of several of the closing documents.
B. The Public Comments, Generally
At the close of the public comment period on March 22, 2010, HUD
received 47 public comments. The commenters included lenders, home
builders, construction companies, attorneys, real estate agencies, and
organizations such as the Mortgage Bankers Association and the American
Bar Association. Several of the commenters, as noted earlier, submitted
with their comments HUD's updated closing documents revised as certain
commenters preferred to see the documents structured. HUD also held
three public roundtables to obtain input from affected parties; on
February 19 and 23, 2010 and March 9, 2010. (See https://170.97.167.13/offices/hsg/mfh/mfhlcd/roundtableinvitation.pdf.) HUD carefully
reviewed all of the comments and appreciates the thorough review
provided by the majority of the commenters as well as the time taken by
several commenters to draft and submit for HUD's consideration revised
or alternative language. While HUD is not providing a detailed summary
of the comments as it did in the January 2010 notice, the following
highlights some of the significant issues raised by the commenters.
General Comments
General concerns identified by commenters about the closing
documents were as follows: The documents impose greater burdens and
legal consequences on HUD borrowers (Borrowers) and lenders (Lenders),
thereby potentially discouraging participation in HUD's multifamily
programs, especially for nonprofit organizations; the documents would
result in fundamental changes in the nature of the mortgage insurance
contract and shift additional risk to Lenders and Borrowers alike; the
increased burdens on HUD call into question whether HUD staff, because
of decreasing HUD personnel resources, can timely perform under the
requirements of the new documents; and certain provisions in the
documents appear to conflict with existing statutes regulations, and
HUD handbooks.
HUD acknowledges that with the updating of the closing documents,
the majority of which have not been updated in over 20 years, the
changes appear to impose greater burdens on HUD Lenders and Borrowers.
However, HUD submits that the changes result in no greater burden than
that involved in non-FHA private sector multifamily rental project
closings. Further, although Lenders and Borrowers will need some time
to become familiar with the updated closing documents, the existing
closing documents, which these updated closing documents will replace,
often necessitated the development of individual and additional
documents for a transaction. Developing unique documents for a
transaction frequently caused delays in the processing of the
[[Page 80519]]
documents and completion of the closing. The updated closing documents
are designed to eliminate much of the need for individual document
development, and reduce the time to process and close HUD multifamily
rental project transactions.
Multifamily rental project transactions have changed significantly
over the last 20 years, and, in certain aspects, are more complex than
they were over 20 years ago. HUD has strived to make these closing
documents consistent, to the extent feasible, with non-FHA documents in
order to minimize differences in transactions, and therefore minimize
burden often caused by variations between FHA multifamily rental
project closings and non-FHA multifamily rental closings.
The changes to the closing documents appropriately reflect the
responsibilities and risk that are to be borne by HUD and the
responsibilities and risk that are to borne by Lenders and Borrowers.
The changes in responsibilities and risks to all parties, as provided
in these documents, correspond to changes in multifamily rental
transactions that have taken place over the last two decades. As noted
earlier, these transactions are not the same as they were 20 years ago.
There have been significant changes, and not only must the documents
change to reflect the changes in the transactions, the parties to the
transactions must accept the risks and responsibilities that are part
of these transactions as these parties do in non-FHA multifamily rental
transactions.
HUD appreciates the concerns about whether HUD staffing levels will
be sufficient to fulfill HUD's obligations when updated closing
documents are approved and ready to be used. HUD assures the industry
and the public that sufficient staff will be available and thoroughly
familiar with the documents to perform necessary tasks.
Finally, with respect to concerns about the closing documents
possibly conflicting with statutes and regulations, HUD notes that the
review of these documents, including significant review by industry,
has been thorough, with review commencing as early as 2000, continuing
through 2004, and 2006, June 2009, and January 2010. (Please see
preamble discussion in the January 22, 2010, notice at 75 FR 3545,
first column.) Given this process, and with the aid of industry review,
HUD believes that any conflicts with existing statutes and regulations
that may have been in the documents have been addressed.
In essence, HUD has sought to balance updated legal definitions and
terms, and transfers of responsibilities to and between program
participants with the government's interest in managing risk. Further,
the efficiencies achieved in standardizing and streamlining documents
will achieve legal certainty and save time in closings which will
benefit all participants.
Comments directed at specific closing documents are addressed in
the next section in the context of changes that were made to the
closing documents as a result of public comments, and/or further
consideration of issues by HUD. However, other overarching issues
raised by the commenters follow.
Disclosure of Gains From Trading Ginnie Mae Securities. Commenters
noted that the proposed requirement in the loan documents that Lenders
disclose gains from trading the Ginnie Mae security would create a
substantial, significant and notable new policy. Commenters submitted
that such disclosure does not belong in the closing documents nor
should it be part of the process for changing loan documents. HUD
agrees with this concern and has removed this requirement.
Lender's Determination of Interest Rate. Commenters expressed
concern that through the process of rewriting their multifamily loan
documents, FHA was attempting to create policy that altered Lender's
ability to determine the interest rate. HUD assures that there is no
restriction on the Lender's ability to determine the interest rate.
Ability To Charge Origination and Servicing Fees for Increased
Obligations Imposed by New Documents. Commenters expressed concerns
that the proposed documents impose augmented obligations and
liabilities on Lenders with little or no opportunity for Lenders to
recoup what are sure to be increased origination and servicing costs.
In some instances, commenters say that there is a significant shift of
risks and responsibilities from HUD and Borrower's counsel to Lender.
HUD recognizes that the Lender and Borrower will be undertaking new
responsibilities and anticipates that there will be negotiations
between the parties which will result in a corresponding recognition
and adjustment in fees. For example, HUD had included authority in the
proposed documents for the Lender to charge the Borrower a fee, in
accordance with Program Obligations, for the Lender's increased
responsibilities in reviewing a proposed transfer of physical assets.
That provision was retained in this document publication. HUD's current
guidance recognizes that ``reasonable and necessary expenses'' can be
recovered and anticipates that the Lender and Borrower will negotiate
applicable fees which, while they can be expenses of the project,
cannot be insured debt. The issue of costs and fees is further
discussed later in this preamble.
Emulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Standards for Multifamily Loan
Documents. Commenters contended that HUD was seeking to emulate Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac as setting modern standards for multifamily loan
documents, yet also contended that HUD's emulation is more selective
than rational distinctions justify. They further contended that at the
same time other Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loan documents provisions
proposed for adoption by HUD might be problematic.
HUD has not attempted to develop documents that emulate Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, but has, in contrast, developed documents that are
updated for current commercial legal standards, balanced with the
public policy role that HUD programs serve. To some extent, HUD's
documents may therefore include provisions similar to Fannie Mae's and
Freddie Mac's documents, but they do not replicate those documents.
While HUD acknowledges that certain features of the FHA programs are
unique, such as the payment of the mortgage insurance premium (MIP),
execution of the Regulatory Agreement, and surplus cash requirements,
these elements are essential to protecting the government's financial
interest and limiting unnecessary risk. Inclusion of such provisions is
therefore a necessary tradeoff which protects the government's
financial interest and minimizes risk while providing the benefit of
federally insured real estate financing.
Proposed Changes to Section 232 Health Care Processes Should Be
Incorporated. Commenters stated that several potential health care
program closing documents innovations were equally appropriate for the
rental documents, and urged HUD to examine these potential changes.
HUD is already closely reviewing the current health care program
documents in the context of developing a separate rule and updated
documents that will be published for public comment.
C. Status of Changes to Documents
1. Documents Not Revised
Of the closing documents published in January 2010, the Surveyor's
Report,
[[Page 80520]]
and HUD Survey Instructions and Report were not revised.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HUD published proposed amendments to American Institute of
Architects (AIA) Document B-181 in January 2010 and received
comments on that document. However, the AIA is replacing this
document with AIA Document B-108 effective May 31, 2011. Given the
timing of that document change, HUD will complete the notice and
comment requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act under separate
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Documents Revised
The remaining documents listed below were revised.
1. Security Instrument
2. Note
3. Multifamily Regulatory Agreement
4. Lender's Certificate
5. Building Loan Agreement
6. Supplement to Building Loan Agreement
7. Construction Contract
8. Supplementary Conditions of the Contract for Construction
9. Guide for Opinion of Borrower's Counsel
10. Instructions to Guide for Opinion of Borrower's Counsel
11. Exhibit A to Opinion of Borrower's Counsel
12. Residual Receipts Note (Non-Profit Borrowers)
13. Residual Receipts Note (Limited Dividend Borrowers)
14. Escrow Agreement for Incomplete Construction
15. Request for Final Endorsement of Credit Instrument
16. Lease Addendum
17. Surplus Cash Note
18. Completion Assurance Agreement
19. Payment Bond
20. Performance Bond
21. Request for Approval of Advance of Escrow Funds
22. Escrow Agreement for Noncritical Deferred Repairs
23. Agreement of Sponsor to Furnish Additional Funds
24. Escrow Agreement for Operating Deficit
25. Bond Guaranteeing Sponsor's Performance
26. Off Site Bond--Dual Obligee
27. Escrow Agreement for Latent Defects
28. Escrow Agreement for Working Capital
29. Agreement and Certification
30. Request for Endorsement of Credit Instrument
31. Borrower's Oath
32. Subordination Agreement \2\
\2\ This document, which was included in the January 21, 2010,
notice has not yet been assigned a form number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All changes made to the multifamily closing documents are provided
in redline/strikeout format on HUD's Web site at https://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/mfhclosingdocuments.cfm. These changes capture both
editorial changes and more substantive changes. The following sections
of this preamble address some of the significant issues raised by the
commenters in response to the January 2010 notice. Some commenters,
however, proposed changes or raised issues that were the same as those
proposed or raised in response to publication of the proposed revised
closing documents issued in 2004 and to which HUD has already provided
responses in the January 2010 notice. In this notice issued today, HUD
is not repeating responses to proposed changes or issues that were
addressed in the January 2010 notice.
3. Across-the-Board Changes and Significant Policy Determinations
HUD adopted many changes submitted by commenters including the
following:
Two-tier default. In 2004, HUD developed a new two-tiered default
scheme as part of the revision to the Security Instrument. Regulatory
language reflecting these proposed changes were also included in the
proposed regulations published in 2004. Specifically, HUD proposed that
there should be one class for financial defaults, which would give the
lender an immediate right to an insurance fund claim. All other bases
for default were grouped into a second class. HUD would require the
lender to obtain HUD's prior written approval for a claim in this
second category before the lender would be able to make an insurance
fund claim. This proposal for a two tier default system was also
included in both the revisions to the Security Instrument published in
January 2010 and in the proposed changes to the multifamily regulations
published November 12, 2010.
Commenters on the changes proposed in 2004 and 2010 suggested that
HUD update the foreclosure process for current legal terminology. HUD
has adopted commenters' recommendations to provide more details on the
two tier default criteria in both the documents and the proposed rule,
and accepted several of the commenters' suggestions for technical
language changes.
Lender/Owner/Attorney Responsibilities. Several commenters
submitted that HUD has placed new and inappropriate responsibilities on
them in their respective roles. As an example Borrowers' attorneys
stated that they should not have to certify that flood insurance was in
place, as the Lender typically undertook that responsibility. With
respect to these statements, HUD notes that it has modified
certifications to require the Lender to certify that there is flood
insurance on a property, and has adopted similar provisions in other
documents. The redlined versions of these documents on the web page
highlight these changes.
Recourse Liability and Definition of Principals. In the January
2010 notice, HUD noted that the 2004 proposed revisions to the closing
documents included certain limited recourse liability for ``Key
Principals'' which was opposed by several public commenters. While
HUD's August 31, 2006, notice advising of preliminary decisions on
proposed revisions did not include provisions for recourse liability of
Principals, the revised closing documents posted on HUD's Web site on
June 1, 2009, retained some of the provisions that were questioned.
Some of the informal comments submitted in response to HUD's posting in
2009 of proposed changes to the closing documents again opposed
inclusion of any recourse liability provisions, arguing that inclusion
would dissuade some individuals from participating in HUD insured
multifamily housing transactions.
In the January 2010 notice, HUD highlighted its current position
that, in light of the consequences that certain insufficiently
regulated actions have had on the housing finance markets in recent
years, and given that public funds are put at risk in HUD multifamily
housing transactions, it is appropriate for principals to be
responsible for paying damages for certain ``bad boy'' acts.
Accordingly, these provisions were included in the revised closing
documents circulated for public comment, and HUD has determined to
retain these provisions.
Commenters on the January proposal expressed concerns that HUD had
broadened liability in the proposed documents for principals, for
example, for ``bad boy'' acts. HUD does not agree with this
characterization. These documents retain the historic non-recourse
nature of FHA-insured financing. Individual principals are not
personally liable for payment of the Note as a result of default.
However, acts of fraud and misconduct that put the FHA insurance fund
at risk will be pursued through contract rights made explicit in these
documents and other remedies available to the federal government. As a
result, HUD believes that the ``bad boy'' provisions referred to by
commentators merely provide more certain legal mechanisms for enforcing
HUD's statutory, regulatory, and program requirements without
overburdening those that work hard and play by the rules.
[[Page 80521]]
In addition, signers generally are attesting only ``to the best of
their knowledge,'' and primarily to their own statements and
representations. In several instances, principals' liability is limited
by the materiality of the certification to the issue in question.
HUD has also referenced a definition of principals in the documents
which is included in 24 CFR 200.215 of HUD's regulations. Consequently,
any changes to the definition of principals will require regulatory
change.
State Specific Provisions. Several commenters suggested that HUD
develop and include state specific riders to the documents and publish
them for review. HUD recognizes that publication of state specific
provisions that are discretionary but not mandatory may be helpful, but
believes that it is important to await adoption of this set of
documents and allow some time following implementation to see if
conflicts of law questions and other state law issues arise in order to
determine the timing and substance of the next steps.
Nevertheless, in the meantime, HUD will develop and use those
limited state specific riders necessary to meet state law mandates.
These latter provisions are recognized as necessary to complete
closings and comply with state law requirements. HUD has no authority
to modify the required language which fulfills those state law
obligations.
Program Obligations/Directives. One of the more significant changes
made in revising this set of closing documents was to replace the term
``Directives'' with the term ``Program Obligations.'' Commenters raised
concerns about the use of the term ``Directives'' in light of its
historic meaning. HUD's view is that the term ``Program Obligations''
better captures what was intended by use of the term ``Directives,''
namely, to advise parties to the closing documents of the program
requirements embodied in statute and regulation and other documents
issued in accordance with law, and not repeated in the closing
documents, to which the parties must adhere. The language now used in
the closing documents defines ``Program Obligations,'' as follows:
Program Obligations means all applicable statutes and
regulations, including all amendments to such statutes and
regulations, as they become effective; and all applicable
requirements in HUD handbooks, HUD guides, notices, and mortgagee
letters that apply to the Project, including all updates and changes
to such handbooks, guides, notices, and mortgagee letters that apply
to the Project, except that updates and changes subject to notice
and comment rulemaking shall become effective upon completion of the
rulemaking process. Handbooks, guides, notices, and mortgagee
letters are available on HUD's official Web site (https://www.hudclips.org or a successor location to that site).
This language better identifies what HUD intended in its original
use of the term ``Directives.'' The definition of Program Obligations
identifies the specific, longstanding, and familiar types of
requirements (those in statutes, regulations, handbooks, guides,
notices, and mortgagee letters) to which the parties must adhere.
In response to commenters' concerns that HUD has unfettered
discretion to make material changes that will have an economic effect
on the viability of the project, the definition of ``Program
Obligations'' explicitly recognizes that notice and comment rulemaking
will be followed for significant substantive requirements. In fact, HUD
has currently proposed rules accompanying these documents which can
serve as an example of the type of changes that are made in rulemaking.
Borrowers will be subject, as they are in any other government
program, to prospective programmatic changes. Further, Lenders should
recognize that they are, to a great extent, protected by and subject to
the FHA Contract of Insurance. As described previously, HUD has
referenced HUD rules in several places. The revised Security Instrument
specifically references the applicable sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations to address these concerns. For example, because concerns
have been expressed about the potential liability of principals,
Section 1(bb) of the new Security Instrument explicitly links to the
definition of principal in 24 CFR 200.15, and to the definition of
``contract of insurance'' in 24 CFR part 207, subpart B.
Additionally, it is important to note that the imposition of new or
revised information collection requirements (that is, generally new or
revised forms) must undergo the notice and comment processes, including
Federal Register publication, required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995. From time to time, HUD also uses mortgagee letters or other
types of direct notices to announce new binding requirements. These
types of documents are used, for example, when new statutes impose
requirements that are effective upon enactment and HUD has no
discretion in implementation. In such situations, mortgagee letters or
other types of direct notices are the best vehicles to advise the
industry on implementation dates and provide implementation guidance
that may be helpful. HUD may also issue mortgagee letters or direct
notices to announce clarifications, interpretations, or certain
procedural requirements, such as to which HUD offices or HUD officials
certain types of executed documents must be submitted. In brief, HUD
will follow the applicable procedures, as directed by statute or
regulation that govern issuance of a document, which may announce
additional policies, processes, forms, or standards to which parties to
the closing documents must comply.
Liability and New Responsibilities. The proposed closing documents
reflected a series of changes directed to Lenders assuming a greater
role in reviewing documents for the transaction. While commenters
expressed concerns about this expanded role and potential liabilities,
they also expressed concerns that the proposed closing documents
significantly increased burdens on HUD staff at a time of shrinking HUD
personnel resources and looming retirements.
Commenters further submitted that the requirement for HUD to review
and approve minor modifications to commercial leases, review additional
financial statements, additional diligence with regard to the closing
documents, and many other requirements all cause significant increases
to the cost of doing business for which there is no additional
compensation vehicle.
HUD has addressed these comments in several ways. Lender liability
is limited by warranty restrictions. For example, while the Borrower
grants the Lender a security interest in their Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC) collateral, the Borrower also warrants to the Lender that no UCC
filings have been made against the Borrower, the Project, or the
Project assets. The Borrower makes these warranties to the Lender prior
to the initial/final endorsement of the Note by HUD. In further
attempting to address these competing concerns, namely the increased
due diligence, and transaction specific issues, HUD has provided for
modification of Lender fees.
In addition, HUD continues to allow Lenders to recover costs
through the interest rate and servicing fees, and recover certain
``reasonable and customary'' fees as noted in the Lender's Certificate.
The Lender may impose reasonable and customary administrative fees and
charges (including but not limited to, reimbursements for out-of-pocket
expenses) for handling and investing the cash held in the Reserve for
Replacement, the Residual Receipts account, if applicable, and any
other interest-bearing escrows related to the
[[Page 80522]]
Project and for processing, reviewing and approving other matters
(Administrative Fees). Further, while Lenders are required to pass on
interest earned on escrows to the Borrower, the Lender is allowed to
negotiate a reasonable fee with the Borrower based on the particular
responsibilities taken on in each transaction by the respective parties
in other respects. For example, HUD has allowed Lenders to recoup costs
in fees for due diligence related to Transfer of Physical Assets.
Waste. Commenters expressed concerns that HUD was including a
definition of ``waste'' that was broad and exceeded industry standards.
Namely, commenters objected to inclusion of standards related to the
physical condition of the property, along with the financial condition
of the property and the potential for fraud. Commenters suggested as an
alternative, to limit the definition of ``waste'' used in the closing
documents to fraud and financial issues such as tax delinquency,
unauthorized retention of funds, and actions reducing the value of the
property. Commenters also suggested limiting the definition of waste to
``Program Obligations'' in effect as of the date of HUD's firm
commitment to insure the loan.
HUD has the responsibility to ensure that HUD-insured properties
are decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair, and to provide
sufficient information regarding the specific items that HUD will
review in makings its determination that waste has been committed.
Accordingly, HUD has retained language defining waste that includes the
general goal of maintaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and a
list of specific items that provide direction to the Borrower. Within
the list of specifics that constitute waste, HUD has modified the
proposed language to include ``failure to maintain and repair'' the
property in accordance with Program Obligations. (See the preamble
section labeled Program Obligations/Directives for a discussion of HUD
requirements under program obligations).
Transition. Commenters expressed a desire for HUD to coordinate the
effective date for these documents with training and updated program
guidance. HUD agrees with these comments and carefully considered them
in determining an effective date. Updated guidance and a training
schedule will be published well in advance of any closings that require
use of the new closing documents. Notwithstanding the many
opportunities for public comment and input that HUD has provided on
revisions to the closing documents, which commenced even before the
formal proposal issued in 2004, commenters requested that Lenders be
given the option of using current or revised documents for up to three
years and suggested different mandated effective dates depending on the
program. HUD disagrees with these comments due to the many
opportunities already made available to review the proposed documents.
HUD recognizes that when these documents are issued in final form and
are ready for use in multifamily rental transactions, that time will be
needed for parties to adjust practices to use the new documents. As a
result, these revised closing documents shall be mandatory with respect
to all (i) mortgage insurance applications for refinancing, or (ii)
potential applicants that receive a letter of invitation for the
submission of an application for new construction or substantial
rehabilitation, on or after May 1, 2011.
D. Changes To Highlight Specific Documents
Subordination Agreement
The creation of a new Subordination Agreement is one example of
HUD's updates to correspond to current real estate industry practices.
The new Subordination Agreement incorporates many of the concepts in a
rider that is currently used by HUD and it is more in line with current
industry practices for governmental subordinate lenders. The new
Subordination Agreement also improves upon notification to the public,
including potential purchasers and lenders, of the government's
interest as it incorporates, in one recordable document, the specific
conditions that will protect the government's first lien security
interest in the property.
Security Agreement/Instrument (HUD 9400M)
HUD has adopted several changes to specify Lender responsibilities
under the security instrument while allowing entities to legally own
properties as single asset entities and limit liability of principals
regarding ``bad boy'' acts. Some of the key changes, some of which have
been previously discussed are as follows:
Provides a contractual definition of waste to provide
certainty and national standardization for program participants;
Clarifies the treatment of interest rates, recovery of
costs, and allowance of administrative fees, such as for Transfers of
Physical Assets;
Establishes standards for maintenance of books and records
consistent with current HUD guidance;
Adopts technical recommendations from commenters to
clarify categories of defaults;
Moderates environmental requirements;
Defers development of specific state law provisions for
implementation experience with the current documents, while requiring
those riders mandated by state law;
Updates and modernizes the documents to allow Lenders to
pay advances for certain items related to completion and preservation
of the property that are added to indebtedness in accordance with
statutory authority, the regulations, and current practices.
Note (HUD 949001)
Many of the changes to the Note are the same as those changes made
to the Security Instrument. Additional changes to the Note are as
follows:
Provides alternative clauses for construction and
refinancing situations;
Modernizes language to address securitization and bonding
requirements that have been adopted since the documents were last
revised; and
Nonrecourse to the Borrower.
Regulatory Agreement (Form 2466M)
The Regulatory Agreement is designed to ensure that Borrowers
participating in these programs comply with HUD rules. Several of the
definitions of terms used in the Regulatory Agreement were modified in
both the Regulatory Agreement and the Security Instrument. Some of the
key changes made to the Regulatory Agreement follow:
Modification of the definitions of Mortgaged Property,
Personalty, and Project Assets to address the distinction between
project assets and non-project entity assets;
Limitation of the definition of mortgaged property and
allowing owners more flexibility;
Including revised definitions to provide for receipt and
use of financing and revenue sources from for-profit, nonprofit, and
charitable sources; and
Adopting a contractual definition of waste in order to
provide certainty and national standardization for program
participants.
In addition, the Regulatory Agreement:
Provides automatic termination provisions if the loan has
been repaid and HUD is no longer involved in the property, while
maintaining HUD's ability to protect the government's interest to
enforce violations of the agreement prior to termination;
Clarifies the term ``construction funds'';
[[Page 80523]]
Qualifies owner construction responsibilities;
Includes a conflicts provision providing that if there is
any conflict between the Regulatory Agreement and any other HUD
agreement executed by Borrower, the agreement which imposes the more
restrictive requirements on Borrower controls;
Removes Article IX which referenced Section 8 Housing
Assistance Payments Contracts;
Retains restrictions on affiliates;
Alleviates some restrictions on project management, for
example contracts with third party vendors;
Limits requirements to notify HUD of changes in Borrower
organizational structure to only those which have a material effect;
Continues liability for payment of damages only for
certain ``bad boy acts'';
Maintains UCC references in order to protect HUD's
security interests;
Includes a new provision in which Borrower agrees that it
is not a third-party beneficiary to the Contract of Insurance between
HUD and Lender; and
Provides for limited signatories.
Lender's Certificate (HUD 9243M)
The Lender is required to certify that specific actions have been
taken before financing is finalized. Lenders are required to certify to
HUD that certain due diligence has been performed and accordingly, will
be compensated for these new responsibilities. A key change by HUD in
response to public comment is modification of the certification
requirement standards to provide that the Lender will be certifying
``to the best of the Lender's knowledge'' that the statements in the
certification are true, accurate and complete.''(paragraph 40). Some of
the key changes made to the Lender's Certificate are as follows:
Modifies several provisions regarding fees including:
Shifting closing fees to a separate attachment in order to
allow the parties to the transaction to develop a more comprehensive
and transaction specific list of charges;
Eliminating the declaration to the Borrower of the trading
premium earned by Mortgagee upon Sale of Ginnie Mae Securities to allow
Lenders and Borrowers to negotiate appropriate compensation;
Allowing negotiation of reasonable and customary
administrative fees for reimbursement for out of pocket expenses, and
handling and investing the cash held in reserve for replacement,
residual receipts, and other interest bearing accounts;
Removing the term prepayment penalty and substituting the
term prepayment premium;
Requiring Lenders to notify HUD if payments are not
received by the tenth day of the month in which it is due and thus
imposing a late charge.
Additional modifications include:
Adopting limitations on disclosure of future identities of
interest, as defined in ``Program Obligations,'' during the
construction period or prior to final endorsement;
Changing the term ``off-site components'' to ``off-site
materials'' to be more consistent with modern day terminology; and
Updating and modernizing the documents, consistent with
change to the Security Instrument to allow Lenders to pay advances for
certain items related to completion and preservation of the property
that are added to indebtedness in accordance with statutory authority,
the regulations, and current practices.
Opinion (HUD-91725M)
Some of the key changes made to the Opinion are as follows:
Removes the requirement that attorneys certify that the
Borrower has made UCC filings, in response to the comment that
financing statements are filed by other parties, such as the title
company; in accordance with HUD's decision, announced in the January
21, 2010 notice, to shift UCC responsibilities to Lenders;
Removes the requirement for certification of flood
insurance as that responsibility now rests with the Lender;
Qualifies with a knowledge standard the conflicts of
interest statement e that Borrower's counsel does not represent the
Lender or other lenders, investors or other parties involved with the
transaction; and
Limits certification of knowledge of side deals to those
that, based upon the certification of the Borrower, and to the best of
their knowledge, amend or are inconsistent with the terms of the HUD
Form closing document or commitment between Borrower and any other
party to the transaction.
E. Miscellaneous Documents
In addition to the foregoing documents HUD has a number of
additional closing documents which are used in specific situations,
such as escrows for incomplete construction, escrows for latent
defects, and a completion assurance agreement. In response to
suggestions made by commenters, HUD has adopted several concurring
changes across these forms to ensure that there is consistency in all
forms. In addition, HUD is seeking to ensure that practices are
consistent in all field offices with respect to releases of escrowed
funds in order to encourage program participation while providing
financing and servicing certainty. As noted earlier in this notice
published today, changes to these documents are displayed in redline/
strikeout format posted on HUD's Web page.
III. Findings and Certifications
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed new information collection requirements contained in
this notice have been submitted to OMB for review under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public reporting burden for this new collection of information
is estimated to include:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Responses per Burden hours Annual burden Total annual
Information collection respondents response annum per response hours Hourly cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD-91710M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 $26 $7,800
HUD-91712M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92023M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 26 15,600
HUD-92070M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92223M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92412M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92414M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92450M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92452A-M............................ 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92452M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
[[Page 80524]]
HUD-92455M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 26 15,600
HUD-92456M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92457A-M............................ 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92457M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92464M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 46 27,600
HUD-92476.1M............................ 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92476a-M............................ 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92477M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92478M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92479M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-91725M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 125 75,000
HUD-91725M-CERT......................... 600 1 600 1 600 46 27,600
HUD-91725M-INST......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUD-92434M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 26 7,800
HUD-92441M-SUPP......................... 600 1 600 0.75 450 26 11,700
HUD-92441M.............................. 600 1 600 0.75 450 26 11,700
HUD-92442M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 58 34,800
HUD-92466M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 58 34,800
HUD-92554M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-94000M.............................. 600 1 600 0.75 450 26 11,700
HUD-94001M.............................. 600 1 600 1 600 26 15,600
HUD-93305M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
HUD-92476M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 12,300
HUD-92420M.............................. 600 1 600 0.5 300 26 7,800
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................. 600 .............. 19,800 .............. 13,050.00 .............. 457,800.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hourly rate is an estimate based on an average annual salary of
$62,000 for developers and mortgagees.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the
proposed collection of information to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the
information collection requirements in this proposal. Comments must be
received by January 21, 2011. Comments must refer to the proposal by
name and docket number (FR-5354-N-02) and must be sent to: HUD Desk
Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: (202) 395-6947; and
Paperwork Reduction Act Program Manager, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW., Room 4178, Washington, DC 20410.
Dated: December 17, 2010.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010-32185 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P