45432 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Proposed Project: Protection and

Advocacy for Individuals with Mental

Illness (PAIMI) Final Rule—Information

collection requirements in the Final

Rule for the protection and advocacy

programs serving individuals with

mental illness. The development of

regulations and issuance of the Final

Rule meets the directive under Public

Law 102–173, ‘‘Protection and

Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals

Amendments Act of 1991’’ (PAIMI Act),

42 U.S.C. 10826(b), requiring the

Secretary to promulgate final

regulations to carry out the Act. 45 CFR

Subchapter 51 of the Final Rule

contains information collection

requirements.

The PAIMI Act (Pub. L. 99–319)

authorized funds to support activities

on behalf of individuals with mental

illness. Recipients of this formula grant

program are required by law to annually

report their activities and

accomplishments to include the number

of individuals served, types of facilities

involved, types of activities undertaken

and accomplishments resulting from

such activities. This summary must also

include a separate report prepared by

the PAIMI Advisory Council descriptive

of its activities and assessment of the

operations of the protection and

advocacy system. The annual burden

estimate is as follows:

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden:

Annual

number of

respondents

Annual frequency

Average

burden per

response

(hours)

Annual burden hours

Section 51.8(a)(2)

Program Performance Report .......................................................................................... 56 1 35.0 1 1,960

Part I .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 33.0 ....................

Part II ......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 2.0 ....................

Section 51.8(a)(8)

Advisory Council Report ................................................................................................... 56 1 10.0 1 560

Section 51.10

Remedial Actions:

Corrective Action Plan ............................................................................................... 6 1 8.0 48

Implementation Status Report ................................................................................... 6 3 2.0 36

Section 51.23(c)

Reports, materials and fiscal data to Advisory Council ................................................... 56 1 1.0 56

Section 51.25(b)(2)

Grievance Procedure ........................................................................................................ 56 1 0.5 28

Total ........................................................................................................................... 124 .................... .................... 2,688

1Burden hours associated with the Annual Performance Report and Advisory Council Report are approved under OMB Control No. 0930–

0169.

Individuals or organizations wishing

to submit comments on the information

collection requirements, estimated

burden, or any other aspect of this

collection of information should send

their comments to: Beatrice A. Rouse,

Reports Clearance Officer, SAMHSA,

16–105 Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers

Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

Written comments should be received

within 60 days of this notice.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Richard Kopanda,

Executive Officer, SAMHSA.

[FR Doc. 97–22726 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4162–20–M

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4209–N–03]

Mortgagee Review Board;

Administrative Actions

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with Section

202(c) of the National Housing Act,

notice is hereby given of the cause and

description of administrative actions

taken by HUD’s Mortgagee Review

Board against HUD-approved

mortgagees.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morris E. Carter, Director, Office of

Lender Activities and Program

Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20410, telephone: (202)

708–1515. (This is not a toll-free

number). A Telecommunications Device

for Hearing and Speech-Impaired

Individuals (TTY) is available at 1–800–

877–8339 (Federal Information Relay

Service).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act

(added by Section 142 of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development Reform Act of 1989, Pub.

L. 101–235), approved December 15,

1989, requires that HUD ‘‘publish a

description of and the cause for

administrative action against a HUDapproved mortgagee’’ by the

Department’s Mortgagee Review Board.

In compliance with the requirements of

Section 202(c)(5), notice is hereby given

of administrative actions that have been

taken by the Mortgagee Review Board

from April 12, 1997 through July 17,

1997.

1. First Choice Mortgage LLC, Burr

Ridge, Illinois

Action: Withdrawal of HUD–FHA

mortgagee approval and a proposed civil

money penalty of $200,000.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices 45433

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: failure to

remit to HUD–FHA One-Time Mortgage

Insurance Premiums (OTMIPs) within

15 days after loan closing, and, to timely

remit late charges and interest; and

failure to implement a Quality Control

Plan.

2. InterAmerican Mortgage Corp.,

Rosedale, New York

Action: Withdrawal of HUD–FHA

mortgagee approval and a proposed civil

money penalty of $100,000.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

cited violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: use of

alleged false documentation or

conflicting information to approve

mortgagors; failure to report fraudulent

activity to HUD–FHA; closing loans that

exceeded HUD–FHA maximum

mortgage amounts; closing an

unauthorized loan to an investor; failure

to properly verify the source and/or

adequacy of mortgagors’ funds for the

downpayment and/or funds to close;

employing a loan officer that was not an

exclusive employee; failure to maintain

a Quality Control Plan in compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements; failure to

reflect all charges to the buyers and

sellers on the HUD–l Settlement

Statements; charging borrowers fees that

are not in compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements; and loan pricing based on

loan amounts.

3. AFI Mortgage Corporation, Shawnee,

Kansas

Action: Withdrawal of HUD–FHA

mortgagee approval.

Cause: Violations of the Department’s

requirements that included: failure to

remit payments to Government National

Mortgage Association (GNMA)

securities’ holders in connection with

liquidated mortgages in GNMA

mortgage-backed securities pools; and

failure to meet HUD–FHA net worth

requirements for approval as a

mortgagee.

4. LIDD Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a

Southern California Funding,

Pasadena, California

Action: Withdrawal of HUD–FHA

Title I lender approval.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

advertising in the Title I Property

Improvement Home Loan Program.

5. Carlton Mortgage Services, Inc.,

Palatine, Illinois

Action: Proposed Settlement

Agreement that would include: payment

to the Department of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $15,000;

indemnification for any claim losses in

connection with three improperly

originated HUD–FHA insured

mortgages; a refund of the mortgage

insurance premium to a borrower in

connection with an uninsured loan; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: failure to

timely remit One-Time Mortgage

Insurance Premiums (OTMIPs); failure

to properly calculate mortgagors’

income and/or debt ratios; permitting

‘‘sweat equity’’ to be escrowed; and

failure to implement an adequate

Quality Control Plan.

6. Mortgage Capital Resource

Corporation, Santa Ana, California

Action: Proposed Settlement

Agreement that would include: a

payment to the Department in the

amount of $35,000; indemnification for

any claim loss in connection with one

HUD–FHA insured mortgage; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: Violations of the Department’s

requirements that included: failure to

perform quality control reviews of

branch offices; failure to perform timely

quality control reviews; and failure to

disclose in the company’s annual

audited financial statement that the

Department was considering

administrative action against the

company.

7. Consumer Home Mortgage, Inc.,

Melville, New York

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department for claim losses in

connection with 27 improperly

originated HUD–FHA insured

mortgages; corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements; and payment to the

Department of a civil money penalty in

the amount of $75,000.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

cited violations of HUD–FHA home

mortgage insurance program violations

that included: using alleged false

information in originating HUD–FHA

insured mortgages; failure to ensure that

mortgagors met their minimum required

investment; failure to verify the source

of funds for mortgagors’ downpayment

and/or closing costs; permitting

mortgagors to sign documents in blank;

and, adding non-occupant comortgagors to loans for the purpose of

qualifying the mortgagors.

8. Madison Home Equities, Inc., Lake

Success, New York

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department for claim losses in

connection with 31 improperly

originated HUD–FHA insured

mortgages; corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements; and payment to the

Department of a civil money penalty in

the amount of $51,000.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

cited violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: failure to

properly verify and document the

source of mortgagors’ funds used for

downpayment and closing costs; using

unsubstantiated credit given to

mortgagors in determining the

mortgagors’ investment; using alleged

false information to originate HUD–FHA

insured mortgages; submitting an

alleged false property inspection report;

miscalculating a mortgagor’s required

investment; failure to accurately reflect

disbursements on HUD–l Settlement

Statements; and failure to establish,

maintain, and implement a Quality

Control Plan in compliance with HUD–

FHA requirements.

9. Mortgagees and Title I Lenders That

Failed To Comply With HUD–FHA

Requirements for the Submission of an

Audited Annual Financial Statement

and/or Payment of the Annual

Recertification Fee

Action: Withdrawal of HUD–FHA

mortgagee approval and Title I lender

approval.

Cause: Failure to submit to the

Department the required annual audited

financial statement and/or remit the

required annual recertification fee.

Mortgagees withdrawn: Associated

Funding Services, Inc., Hickory Hills,

IL; first Mecklenburg Mortgage Corp.,

Charlotte, NC; Tower Mortgage Corp.,

Austin, TX; Home Loans of America,

Downey, CA; National Guaranty

Mortgage Corp., Atlanta, GA; Chase

Federal Bank FSB, Miami, FL; Citizens

Mortgage Corp., Atlanta, GA; American

Financial Mortgage, Decatur, GA; First

Federal Savings Bank, Leitchfield, KY;

First Liberty Bank, Macon, GA;

Weymouth Savings Bank, Weymouth,

MA; Bankunited, Coral Gables, FL;

Home Owners Funding Corp. of

America, Dallas, TX; Mortgages

Unlimited Inc., Fair Oaks, CA;

Community Mortgage Investment,

Blythewood, SC; Great Five Percent Real

Estate Company, Covina, CA; Puget

Sound Mortgage Escrow Inc., Poulsbo,

WA; First Intercity Mortgage, Campbell,

CA; Hartford Bancorp, Lancaster, CA;
45434 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Notices

Wogo, Inc., Palmdale, CA; Citi Lites

Realty Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA;

Peninsula Bank of San Diego, San Diego,

CA; First American Savings Bank,

Bedford, TX; Smith Solomon, Temple

City, CA. Title I lenders withdrawn:

Home Loans of America, Downey, CA;

Kinsley Bank, Kinsley, KS; First

Mecklenburg Mortgage Company,

Charlotte, NC; Coop Ahorry Credito

Maunabo, Maunabo, PR; SD Mortgage

Associates, Inc., San Diego, CA; All

American Funding Inc., Santa Monica,

CA; Conduit Acceptance Corp., Dallas,

TX; Homeland Savings Bank, Waterloo,

IA; Antelope Financial Inc., Lancaster,

CA; Eggie Mortgage Inc., d/b/a Rockland

Financial, Sherman Oaks, CA; Great

Five Percent Real Estate Company,

Covina, CA; Wogo Inc d/b/a Regency

Financial, Palmdale, CA; Platinum USA

Home Loan Inc., Las Vegas, NV;

Community Mortgage Investment,

Blythewood, SC; New York Central

Mortgage Inc., Tarzana, CA; Mortgage

America Nationwide, Grand Terrace,

CA.

Dated: August 21, 1997.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal

Housing, Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 97–22722 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4264–N–01]

Public Housing Lease and Grievance

Procedures; Notice of HUD Due

Process Determinations

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of HUD due process

determinations.

SUMMARY: Under section 6(k) of the

United States Housing Act of 1937, a

housing agency (HA) is generally

required to provide a public housing

tenant with the opportunity for an

administrative hearing before

commencement of eviction proceedings

in court. The statute provides that the

HA may bypass the administrative

hearing for evictions involving any

activity that threatens the health, safety

or right to peaceful enjoyment of the

premises of other tenants or employees

of the HA or any drug-related criminal

activity on or of such premises.

However, HUD must first make a

determination that local law requires a

pre-eviction court hearing that provides

the basic elements of due process (a

‘‘due process determination’’). This

notice lists the judicial eviction

procedures in the States of Louisiana

and North Carolina for which HUD has

recently issued a due process

determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of General Counsel, Assisted

Housing Division, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 451

7th Street, SW., Room 8166,

Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202)

708–0470 (This is not a toll free

number). Hearing or speech-impaired

individuals may access this number via

TTY by calling the toll-free Federal

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339.

Individuals may arrange to inspect

and copy the documents detailing the

legal analysis on which the due process

determination is based by contacting the

Assisted Housing Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13272),

HUD published a final rule in the

Federal Register amending its

regulations governing public notice and

comment rulemaking requirements (24

CFR part 10) and public housing lease

and grievance procedures (24 CFR part

966). The final rule added a new

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to § 966.51 which

states that ‘‘[f]or guidance to the public,

HUD will publish in the Federal

Register a notice listing the judicial

eviction procedures for which HUD has

issued a due process determination.’’

Also on March 26, 1996 (61 FR

13276), HUD published a notice in the

Federal Register implementing 24 CFR

966.51(a)(2)(iii). The notice provided a

State-by-State listing of the due process

determinations issued by HUD. Each

listing provided a brief description of

the judicial eviction procedures

required by local law which HUD has

determined are consistent with the basic

elements of due process, as further

defined in 24 CFR 966.53(c).

Subsequent to the publication of the

March 26, 1996 notice, HUD issued due

process determinations covering the

States of Mississippi and Connecticut.

Additionally, HUD expanded the

coverage of its previously issued

determination for the State of

Massachusetts to account for a recent

change in State law. On September 11,

1996 (61 FR 47953), HUD published a

notice in the Federal Register which

described the judicial eviction

procedures in the States of Connecticut,

Massachusetts and Mississippi for

which it had issued a due process

determination.

Since the publication of the March 26,

1996 and September 11, 1996 Federal

Register notices, HUD has issued two

new due process determinations, which

cover the States of North Carolina and

Louisiana. This notice supplements the

March 26, 1996 and September 11, 1996

notices by providing a brief description

of the judicial eviction procedures in

these two States for which

determinations have been issued.

II. Listing of Judicial Eviction

Procedures in the States of Louisiana

and North Carolina for Which HUD Has

Issued a Due Process Determination

Louisiana

A summary action for eviction in the

district courts and in the courts of

limited jurisdiction under Book VII,

Title XI of the Louisiana Code of Civil

Procedure.

North Carolina

A summary ejectment action in

district court (including a summary

ejectment action before a magistrate in

district court) and in superior court

under Chapter 42, Article 3 of the

General Statutes of North Carolina.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number for Public Housing is 14.850.

Dated: August 21, 1997.

Kevin Emanuel Marchman,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and

Indian Housing.

[FR Doc. 97–22719 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Western Water Policy Review Advisory

Commission Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: As required by the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, notice is

hereby given that the Western Water

Policy Review Advisory Commission

(Commission), established by the

Secretary of the Interior under the

Reclamation Projects Authorization and

Adjustment Act of 1992, will meet to

hear testimony, to discuss final language

of the draft Commission Report, and to

address other Commission business.

The purpose of this meeting is to adopt

the draft final Commission report. The

draft will be sent to everyone on the

Commission’s mailing list and other

interested parties for a 60 day public

review period, beginning approximately

October 10, 1997.