52502 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

clear of the race course area as marked

by the sponsor provided buoys.

(3) The operator of any vessel in the

regulated area shall:

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when

directed to do so by any commissioned,

warrant, or petty officer on board a

vessel displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(ii) Proceed as directed by any

commissioned, warrant or petty officer

on board a vessel displaying a Coast

Guard ensign.

(c) Effective dates: This regulation is

effective from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on

October 11 and 12, 1997.

Dated: September 23, 1997.

J. Carmichael,

Acting Captain, U.S. Coast Guard,

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 97–26696 Filed 10–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD8–97–037]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Red

River, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule removes the

regulation for the S 8 bridge across the

Red River, mile 105.0 at Boyce, Rapides

Parish, Louisiana. The swing span was

removed and the regulation governing

its operation is no longer necessary.

DATES: This regulation becomes

effective on October 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David M. Frank, Bridge

Administration Branch. (504) 589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice

for proposed rulemaking for this

regulation has not been published, and

good cause exists for making it effective

in less than 30 days from the date of

publication. Following normal

rulemaking procedures would be

unnecessary. The draw to which this

rule applies was removed in 1985 and

replaced by a fixed span bridge.

The S 8 bridge across the Red River,

mile 105.0, at Boyce, Louisiana, was

removed and replaced in 1985 by a

fixed span bridge. The elimination of

this drawbridge necessitates the removal

of the drawbridge operation regulation

that pertained to this draw. This rule

removes the regulation for this bridge in

§ 117.491.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential cost

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects no economic

impact from this rule and a full

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

This rule will have no economic impact

because it removes a regulation that

applies to a bridge that no longer exists.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this rule, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

may include (1) small businesses and

not-for-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000. This rule will have no impact on

either vehicular or navigational traffic

because the regulation being removed

applies to a bridge that has been

removed. Because it will have no

impact, the Coast Guard certifies under

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that it will not have any

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection-ofinformation requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. The authority

to issue permits for the construction,

reconstruction, or alteration of bridges

across navigable waters of the United

States belongs to the Coast Guard by

Federal statutes.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that, under section

2.B.2.(g)(5) of Commandant Instruction

M16475 1B, this rule is categorically

excluded from further environmental

documentation. A ‘‘Categorical

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in

the docket for inspection or copying

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, part

117 of title 33, Code of Federal

Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

§ 117.491 [Amended]

2. In section 117.491, paragraph (a)(3)

is removed.

Dated: September 18, 1997.

T.W. Josiah,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 97–26698 Filed 10–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 19

RIN 2900–AI50

Appeals Regulations: Remand for

Further Development

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document adopts as a

final rule amendments to the appeals

regulations of the Board of Veterans’

Appeals (Board) of the Department of

Veterans Affairs (VA). The amendments

change the circumstances in which the

Board must remand a case to the VA

field facility with original jurisdiction in

the case. The changes help avoid

unnecessary remands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven L. Keller, Chief Counsel, Board

of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202–565–

5978).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 3,

1997, VA published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 36038) a proposed rule

which would require the Board to

remand a case to the agency of original

jurisdiction (‘‘AOJ’’) (usually one of

VA’s 58 regional offices) when
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52503

additional evidence or clarification of

the evidence or correction of a

procedural defect is essential for a

proper appellate decision, but would

specify that the Board need not remand

a case to clarify procedural matters

before the Board, such as the choice of

representative, the issues on appeal, or

requests for hearings before the Board.

The proposed rule would not apply to

requests for medical or legal opinions

under 38 CFR 20.901, nor to matters in

which the Board has original

jurisdiction under 38 CFR 20.609

(relating to representatives’ fees) and

§ 20.610 (relating to representatives’

expenses), since those cases, by their

terms, do not involve adjudications by

AOJs.

The public was given 30 days to

submit comments. VA received no

comments.

Accordingly, based on the rationale

set forth in the proposed rule document,

we are adopting without change the

provisions of the proposed rule as a

final rule.

Good cause is found for making this

final rule effective on publication. This

final rule will help avoid unnecessary

remands without causing adverse effects

to claimants.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 19

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Veterans.

Approved: September 26, 1997.

Hershel W. Gober,

Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 19 is amended as

set forth below:

PART 19—BOARD OF VETERANS’

APPEALS: APPEALS REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 19

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

2. In subpart A, § 19.9 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 19.9 Remand for further development.

(a) General. If further evidence or

clarification of the evidence or

correction of a procedural defect is

essential for a proper appellate decision,

a Member or panel of Members of the

Board shall remand the case to the

agency of original jurisdiction,

specifying the action to be undertaken.

A remand is not required to clarify

procedural matters before the Board,

including appellant’s choice of

representative before the Board, the

issues on appeal, and requests for

hearings before the Board.

(b) Scope. This section does not apply

to:

(1) The Board’s requests for opinions

under Rule 901 (§ 20.901 of this

chapter);

(2) The Board’s supplementation of

the record with recognized medical

treatises; and

(3) Matters over which the Board has

original jurisdiction described in Rules

609 and 610 (sections 20.609 and 20.610

of this chapter).

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7103(c), 7104(a))

[FR Doc. 97–26613 Filed 10–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 36

RIN 2900–AI92

Loan Guaranty: Requirements for

Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing

Loans

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

loan guaranty regulations concerning

the requirements for Interest Rate

Reduction Refinancing Loans (IRRRLs)

by generally limiting these loans to

instances where the veteran’s monthly

mortgage payment will decrease, and by

generally requiring that the loans being

refinanced be current in their payments.

This action is necessary to ensure that

these loans are made only when they

provide a real benefit to the veteran, and

to protect the financial interest of the

Government.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is

effective October 8, 1997. Comments

must be received on or before December

8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written

comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AI92.’’ All

written comments received will be

available for public inspection at the

above address, Room 1158, between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Judith Caden, Assistant Director for

Loan Policy (264), Loan Guaranty

Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–7368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

authority of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 37, VA

guarantees loans made by lenders to

eligible veterans to purchase, construct,

improve, or refinance their homes (the

term veteran as used in this document

includes any individual defined as a

veteran under 38 U.S.C. 101 and 3701

for the purpose of housing loans). This

document amends VA’s loan guaranty

regulations by revising the requirements

for VA-guaranteed Interest Rate

Reduction Refinancing Loans (IRRRLs).

IRRRLs are designed to assist veterans

by allowing them to refinance an

outstanding VA-guaranteed loan with a

new loan at a lower rate. The provisions

of 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(3) and 3710(e)(1)(C)

allow the veteran to do so without

having to pay any out-of-pocket

expenses. The veteran may include in

the new loan the outstanding balance of

the old loan plus reasonable closing

costs, including up to two discount

points. Over the years, IRRRLs have

provided nearly one million veterans an

opportunity to reduce the interest rates

and, thus, the monthly payments on

their home mortgages.

We have recently learned that a small

number of lenders have been urging

veterans to apply for loans under

conditions that increase the risk of loss

to both the veteran and the Government,

and do not provide the benefit that

IRRRLs were enacted to give. In some

cases, these loans involve exorbitant

costs in relation to the small reduction

in the interest rate. Thus, veterans

actually experience an increase in their

monthly payment notwithstanding the

lower rate. In other cases, lenders are

urging veterans to default on their

current loan, then refinance the

delinquent loan with a new loan

including the past due interest and late

charges.

In one case, a veteran obtained a 30-

year loan for a new home in Florida in

October 1991. The fixed-rate mortgage

was for $95,800 (including funding fee)

at the State bond program interest rate

of 7.99 percent with a principal and

interest payment of $702.28. In March

1995 he obtained an adjustable rate

mortgage (ARM) IRRRL with an initial

interest rate of 7.5 percent. This loan

was for $103,950 and had an initial

payment amount of $726.83. It included

$8,912.54 in closing costs, including 5.5

discount points. In January 1997, the

ARM interest rate had been adjusted to

8.25 percent, and he obtained another

IRRRL for $111,090 at a fixed interest

rate of 8.00 percent and a monthly

payment of $815.14. Thus, in a little