Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28523 

sector agencies. As mentioned in the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this final rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this action. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on April 4, 2018 (83 FR 14379). 

A copy of the proposed rule was 

provided to the handlers by the 

Committee. Finally, the proposal was 

made available through the internet by 

USDA and the Office of the Federal 

Register. A 30-day comment period 

ending May 4, 2018, was provided for 

interested persons to respond to the 

proposal. No comments were received. 

The proposal also contained 

administrative revisions to the Order’s 

subpart headings to bring the language 

into conformance with the Office of 

Federal Register requirements. Those 

revisions are not included in this rule as 

they were included in a technical 

amendment final rule published in the 

Federal Register on April 6, 2018 (83 FR 

14736). 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Richard Lower 

at the previously-mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule will tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Marketing agreements, Olives, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 932 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 932.230 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 932.230 Assessment rate. 

On and after January 1, 2018, an 

assessment rate of $24.00 per ton is 

established for California olives. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Bruce Summers, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13271 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 981 

[Doc. No. AMS–SC–17–0084; SC18–981–1 

FR] 

Almonds Grown in California; Revision 

to the Adjusted Kernel Weight 

Computation 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements a 

recommendation from the Almond 

Board of California (Board) to revise the 

adjusted kernel weight computation 

currently prescribed under the 

Marketing Order for almonds grown in 

California. In addition, this action 

allows adjustments to the calculated 

percentages for foreign material, excess 

moisture, or inedible kernels so that the 

sum of the percentages for the specified 

measurements equals 100 percent. 

DATES: Effective July 20, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Ricci, Marketing Specialist, or 

Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or Email: 

Andrea.Ricci@ams.usda.gov or 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Richard Lower, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Richard.Lower@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends 

regulations issued to carry out a 

marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 

900.2(j). This final rule is issued under 

Marketing Order No. 981, as amended (7 

CFR part 981), regulating the handling 

of almonds grown in California. Part 981 

(referred to as the ‘‘Order’’) is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’ The Board locally 

administers the Order and is comprised 

of growers and handlers operating 

within California. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this final rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

13563 and 13175. This action falls 

within a category of regulatory actions 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive 

Order 12866 review. Additionally, 

because this final rule does not meet the 

definition of a significant regulatory 

action, it does not trigger the 

requirements contained in Executive 

Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum 

titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing 

Section 2 of the Executive Order of 

January 30, 2017, titled ‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This final rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This final rule changes the way 

adjusted kernel weight is expressed by 

requiring calculation of percentages for 

specified measurements to round the 

decimal to the nearest thousandth rather 

than the current hundredth. In addition, 

this final rule allows adjustments to the 

calculated percentages for foreign 

material, excess moisture, or inedible 

kernels so that the sum of the 

percentages for the specified 

measurements equals 100 percent. The 

Board unanimously recommended these 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
28524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

changes at its December 4, 2017, 

meeting. 

Section 981.42 provides authority for 

quality control regulations. Paragraph 

(a) of that section requires that each 

handler shall have the inspection 

agency determine the percentage of 

inedible kernels received by that 

handler and report such determination 

to the Board. 

Section 981.442(a)(1) prescribes that 

each handler shall have a representative 

sample drawn from each lot of any 

variety of incoming almonds that the 

handler receives. Section 981.442(a)(3) 

prescribes that each such sample shall 

be analyzed by or under surveillance of 

the Federal-State Inspection Service (or, 

when specifically designated, the 

Federal Inspection Service) to determine 

the kernel content and the portion of 

inedible kernels in the sample. The 

inspection agency prepares a report 

showing, among other things, the total 

adjusted kernel weight. This report is 

submitted by the inspection agency to 

the Board and the handler. 

Section 981.401(a) defines adjusted 

kernel weight. Section 981.401(b) 

provides examples of the computation 

that is used to determine adjusted 

kernel weight. This computation 

includes a calculation of percentages for 

specified measurements of edible 

kernels, inedible kernels, foreign 

material, and excess moisture. The table 

of examples contained in § 981.401(b) 

shows percentages rounded to the 

nearest tenth and the nearest hundredth 

decimal place. However, in practice, the 

calculated percentages are currently 

being rounded to the nearest hundredth 

decimal place. 

Currently, the inspection agency 

utilizes a computer-based database 

program that computes and totals the 

percentages for the specified 

measurements. As part of the program’s 

computation process, it automatically 

makes adjustments, when needed, so 

that the total of the percentages equals 

100 percent. This program has been 

used for several years, and the industry 

is accustomed to receiving reports from 

the inspection agency that show the 

100-percent summed total. 

In early 2017, the USDA inspection 

service began testing a new web-based 

program that will replace the computerbased program described above. During 

this testing, USDA discovered that, due 

to the rounding method used by the new 

program, the sum of the percentages 

occasionally did not equal 100 percent. 

It was further determined during testing 

that having the new program round the 

decimal to the nearest thousandth, 

rather than the nearest hundredth as 

currently provided in the Order, would 

produce more accurate results. 

The new program also makes 

automatic minor adjustments to the 

percentage computations for foreign 

material, excess moisture, or inedible 

kernels so that the sum of the 

percentages always equals 100 percent. 

This allowance for automatic 

adjustments of these specified 

measurements aligns with industry 

practice that has existed for many years. 

As a result of these test results, the 

Board determined that rounding the 

decimal to the nearest thousandth rather 

than the current hundredth provides a 

more accurate computed percentage. In 

addition, allowing the program to make 

adjustments to the calculated 

percentages for foreign material, excess 

moisture, or inedible kernels aligns the 

requirements under the Order with 

current industry practices, ensuring the 

continuance of longstanding reporting 

practices and transparency in the 

program. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to such actions in 

order that small businesses will not be 

unduly or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 6,800 

almond growers in the production area 

and approximately 100 almond handlers 

subject to regulation under the Order. 

Small agricultural service firms are 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) as those having 

annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, 

and small agricultural producers are 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). 

The National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) reported in its most 

recent (2012) Agricultural Census that 

there were 6,841 almond farms in the 

production area (California), of which 

6,204 had bearing acres. The following 

computation provides an estimate of the 

proportion of agricultural producers 

(farms) and agricultural service firms 

(handlers) that would be considered 

small under the SBA definitions. 

The NASS Census data indicates that 

out of the 6,204 California farms with 

bearing acres of almonds, 4,471 (72 

percent) have fewer than 100 bearing 

acres. 

For the almond industry’s most 

recently reported crop year (2016), 

NASS reported an average yield of 2,280 

pounds per acre and a season average 

grower price of $2.44 per pound. A 100- 

acre farm with an average yield of 2,280 

pounds per acre would produce about 

228,000 pounds of almonds. At $2.44 

per pound, that farm’s production 

would be valued at $556,320. The 

Census of Agriculture indicates that the 

majority of California’s almond farms 

are smaller than 100 acres; therefore, it 

could be concluded that the majority of 

growers had annual receipts from the 

sale of almonds in 2016–17 of less than 

$556,320, which is below the SBA 

threshold of $750,000. Thus, over 70 

percent of California’s almond growers 

would be classified as small growers 

according to SBA’s definition. 

To estimate the proportion of almond 

handlers that would be considered 

small businesses, it was assumed that 

the unit value per shelled pound of 

almonds exported in a particular year 

could serve as a representative almond 

price at the handler level. A unit value 

for a commodity is the value of exports 

divided by the quantity. Data from the 

Global Agricultural Trade System 

database of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural 

Service showed that the value of 

almond exports from August 2016 to 

July 2017 (combining shelled and 

inshell almonds) was $4.072 billion. 

The quantity of almond exports over 

that time period was 1.406 billion 

pounds, combining shelled exports and 

the shelled equivalent of inshell 

exports. Dividing the export value by 

the quantity yields a unit value of $2.90 

per pound. Subtracting this figure from 

the NASS 2016 estimate of season 

average grower price per pound ($2.44) 

yields $0.46 per pound as a 

representative grower-handler margin. 

Applying the $2.90 representative 

handler price per pound to 2016–17 

handler shipment quantities provided 

by the Board showed that approximately 

40 percent of California’s almond 

handlers shipped almonds valued under 

$7,500,000 during the 2016–17 crop 

year and would therefore be considered 

small handlers according to the SBA 

definition. 

This final rule revises the adjusted 

kernel weight computation in § 981.401 

by requiring calculation of the 

percentages for specified measurements 

to round the decimal to the nearest 

thousandth rather than the current 

hundredth. In addition, this action 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 28525 

allows adjustments to the calculated 

percentages for foreign material, excess 

moisture, or inedible kernels so that the 

sum of the percentages for the specified 

measurements equals 100 percent. 

Requiring rounding of the decimal to 

the nearest thousandth provides for a 

more accurate computed percentage. In 

addition, allowing adjustments to the 

foreign material, excess moisture, or 

inedible kernel measurements aligns the 

Order with current industry practices, 

ensuring the continuance of 

longstanding reporting practices and 

transparency in the program. Authority 

for this action is provided in § 981.42(a). 

The Board recommended this action at 

a meeting on December 4, 2017. 

It is not anticipated that this action 

would impose additional costs on 

handlers or growers, regardless of size. 

The changes are intended to align 

provisions of the Order with current 

industry practices. This final rule is not 

expected to change handler inspection 

costs, as handlers are currently required 

to have all lots inspected to determine 

kernel content. 

The Board considered alternatives to 

this action, including not changing the 

current computation procedures. Prior 

to this recommendation, the Board’s 

Almond Quality, Food Safety and 

Services Committee (Committee) 

reviewed the program, surveyed 

handlers, and determined that not 

changing the computation procedures to 

align with current industry practices 

would cause disruption in the industry. 

Therefore, the Committee unanimously 

recommended this action to the Board at 

a meeting on November 16, 2017. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the Order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178 

(Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No 

changes are necessary in those 

requirements as a result of this action. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This final rule imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large almond 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this final rule. 

Further, the Board’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

almond industry, and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Board 

deliberations. Like all Board meetings, 

the December 4, 2017, meeting was a 

public meeting, and all entities, both 

large and small, were able to express 

their views on this issue. 

Also, the Board has a number of 

appointed committees to review certain 

issues and make recommendations to 

the Board. The Committee met on 

November 16, 2017, and discussed this 

issue in detail. That meeting was also a 

public meeting, and both large and 

small entities were able to participate 

and express their views. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on April 20, 2018 (83 FR 

17506). Copies of the rule were made 

available to all members of the Board 

and all California almond growers and 

handlers. Finally, the rule was made 

available through the internet by USDA 

and the Office of the Federal Register. A 

30-day comment period ending May 21, 

2018, was provided to allow interested 

persons to respond to the proposal. No 

comments were received. Accordingly, 

no changes will be made to the rule as 

proposed. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Richard Lower 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matters presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Board and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981 

Almonds, Marketing agreements, 

Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 981 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 981—ALMONDS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 981 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 981.401, revise the table in 

paragraph (b) and add paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 981.401 Adjusted kernel weight. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Computation number 1 Computation number 2 

Deliveries with less than 

95 percent kernels 

Deliveries with 95 percent 

or more kernels 

Percent of 

sample 

Weight 

(pounds) 

Percent of 

sample 

Weight 

(pounds) 

1. Actual gross weight of delivery .................................................................... ........................ 10,000 ........................ 10,000 

2. Percent of edible kernel weight ................................................................... 53.000 ........................ 84.000 ........................

3. Less weight loss in processing 1 ................................................................. 1.000 ........................ 0.000 ........................

4. Less excess moisture of edible kernels (excess moisture × line 2) ........... 1.060 ........................ 1.680 ........................

5. Net percent shell out (line 2¥lines 3 and 4) .............................................. 50.940 ........................ 82.320 ........................

6. Net edible kernels (line 5 × line 1) .............................................................. ........................ 5,094 ........................ 8,232 

7. Percent of inedible kernels (from sample) .................................................. 12.000 ........................ 12.000 ........................

8. Less excess moisture of inedible kernels (excess moisture from sample × 

line 7) ........................................................................................................... 0.240 ........................ 0.240 ........................

9. Net percent inedible kernels (line 7¥line 8) ............................................... 11.760 ........................ 11.760 ........................

10. Total inedible kernels (line 9 × line 1) ....................................................... ........................ 1,176 ........................ 1,176 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
28526 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. 2 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). 

3 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

4 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) (emphasis added). 

Computation number 1 Computation number 2 

Deliveries with less than 

95 percent kernels 

Deliveries with 95 percent 

or more kernels 

Percent of 

sample 

Weight 

(pounds) 

Percent of 

sample 

Weight 

(pounds) 

11. Adjusted kernel weight (line 6 + line 10) ................................................... ........................ 6,270 ........................ 9,408 

1Only applies to deliveries with less than 95 percent kernels. 

(c) Computation adjustments. If 

applicable, adjustments shall be made 

by rounding such that the sample 

computation percentages total equals 

100 percent. Rounding adjustments 

shall be made as follows: First adjust the 

foreign material percentage; if there is 

no foreign material in the sample, then 

adjust the excess moisture percentage; 

or if there is no foreign material or 

excess moisture in the sample, adjust 

the inedible kernels percentage. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Bruce Summers, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13272 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

12 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. R–1611] 

RIN 7100–AF 07 

Regulation A: Extensions of Credit by 

Federal Reserve Banks 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (‘‘Board’’) has 

adopted final amendments to its 

Regulation A to reflect the Board’s 

approval of an increase in the rate for 

primary credit at each Federal Reserve 

Bank. The secondary credit rate at each 

Reserve Bank automatically increased 

by formula as a result of the Board’s 

primary credit rate action. 

DATES: 

Effective date: The amendments to 

part 201 (Regulation A) are effective 

June 20, 2018. 

Applicability date: The rate changes 

for primary and secondary credit were 

applicable on June 14, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sophia Allison, Special Counsel (202– 

452–3565), or Clinton Chen, Senior 

Attorney (202–452–3952), Legal 

Division, or Lyle Kumasaka, Senior 

Financial Analyst (202–452–2382), or 

Thomas Keating, Financial Analyst 

(202–973–7401), Division of Monetary 

Affairs; for the hearing impaired, 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) 202–263–4869; Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, 20th and C Streets NW, 

Washington, DC 20551. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Reserve Banks make primary 

and secondary credit available to 

depository institutions as a backup 

source of funding on a short-term basis, 

usually overnight. The primary and 

secondary credit rates are the interest 

rates that the twelve Federal Reserve 

Banks charge for extensions of credit 

under these programs. In accordance 

with the Federal Reserve Act, the 

primary and secondary credit rates are 

established by the boards of directors of 

the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to 

the review and determination of the 

Board. 

On June 13, 2018, the Board voted to 

approve a 1⁄4 percentage point increase 

in the primary credit rate in effect at 

each of the twelve Federal Reserve 

Banks, thereby increasing from 2.25 

percent to 2.50 percent the rate that 

each Reserve Bank charges for 

extensions of primary credit. In 

addition, the Board had previously 

approved the renewal of the secondary 

credit rate formula, the primary credit 

rate plus 50 basis points. Under the 

formula, the secondary credit rate in 

effect at each of the twelve Federal 

Reserve Banks increased by 1⁄4

percentage point as a result of the 

Board’s primary credit rate action, 

thereby increasing from 2.75 percent to 

3.00 percent the rate that each Reserve 

Bank charges for extensions of 

secondary credit. The amendments to 

Regulation A reflect these rate changes. 

The 1⁄4 percentage point increase in 

the primary credit rate was associated 

with an increase in the target range for 

the federal funds rate (from a target 

range of 11⁄2 to 13⁄4 percent to a target 

range of 13⁄4 to 2 percent) announced by 

the Federal Open Market Committee on 

June 13, 2018, as described in the 

Board’s amendment of its Regulation D 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

In general, the Administrative 

Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’) 1 imposes three 

principal requirements when an agency 

promulgates legislative rules (rules 

made pursuant to congressionally 

delegated authority): (1) Publication 

with adequate notice of a proposed rule; 

(2) followed by a meaningful 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on the rule’s content; and (3) 

publication of the final rule not less 

than 30 days before its effective date. 

The APA provides that notice and 

comment procedures do not apply if the 

agency for good cause finds them to be 

‘‘unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ 2 Section 553(d) 

of the APA also provides that 

publication at least 30 days prior to a 

rule’s effective date is not required for 

(1) a substantive rule which grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction; (2) interpretive rules and 

statements of policy; or (3) a rule for 

which the agency finds good cause for 

shortened notice and publishes its 

reasoning with the rule.3 The APA 

further provides that the notice, public 

comment, and delayed effective date 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not 

apply ‘‘to the extent that there is 

involved . . . a matter relating to agency 

management or personnel or to public 

property, loans, grants, benefits, or 

contracts.’’ 4

Regulation A establishes the interest 

rates that the twelve Reserve Banks 

charge for extensions of primary credit 

and secondary credit. The Board has 

determined that the notice, public 

comment, and delayed effective date 

requirements of the APA do not apply 

to these final amendments to Regulation 

A for several reasons. The amendments 

involve a matter relating to loans and 

are therefore exempt under the terms of 

the APA. In addition, the Board has 

determined that notice, public 

comment, and delayed effective date 

would be unnecessary and contrary to 

the public interest because delay in 

implementation of changes to the rates 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES