27286 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Notices

I agree with the OCC Chief Counsel’s

analysis on these issues and her

observations in Interpretive Letter 822

regarding the significance of an

appropriate disclosure to customers that

the interest to be charged on the loan is

governed by applicable federal law and

the law of the relevant state which will

govern the transaction.

The Non-Ministerial Functions

The OCC identified three nonministerial functions for national banks

in Interpretive Letter No. 822 based

upon the Riegle-Neal Act’s legislative

history. An inquiry is required to

determine the location where each of

the non-ministerial functions occur.

Briefly stated, the OCC determined that

‘‘approval’’ (i.e., the decision to extend

credit) occurs where the person is

located who is charged with making the

final judgment of approval or denial of

credit, and the site of the final approval

is the location where it is granted.

‘‘Disbursal’’ means actual physical

disbursal of the proceeds of a loan, as

opposed to the delivery of previously

disbursed funds to the customer.

Disbursal can occur in various ways,

including delivery to the customer in

person or crediting proceeds to the

customer’s account at a branch, but does

not include delivering the funds to an

escrow or title agent who, in turn,

disburses them to the customer or for

the customer’s benefit. ‘‘Extension of

credit’’ means the site from which the

first communication of final approval of

the loan occurs.

While the need for such inquiries as

to non-ministerial functions may not be

initially apparent, I believe that Senator

Roth’s distinction for purposes of the

‘‘disbursal’’ function between ‘‘the

actual disbursal of proceeds’’ and

‘‘delivering previously disbursed funds

to a customer’’ is indicative of the type

of inquiry Congress intended in order to

identify non-ministerial functions

which effect where a loan is made for

purposes of determining the state law to

be applied to a loan. The same

definitions should be equally applicable

to State banks under section 1831d.

Conclusion

An Interstate State Bank can be

‘‘located’’ for purposes of section 1831d

in the state in which it is chartered, as

well as the states where the bank’s outof-state branch or branches are located.

The Interstate Banking Statutes do not

affect the ability of an Interstate State

Bank to export interest rates on loans

made to out-of-state borrowers from that

bank’s home state, even if the bank

maintains a branch in the state where

the borrower resides. If an out-of-state

branch or branches of an Interstate State

Bank in a single host state performs all

the non-ministerial functions (approval

of an extension of credit, extension of

the credit, and disbursal of loan

proceeds to a customer) related to a

loan, it ‘‘makes’’ the loan to the

customer for purposes of the Interstate

Banking Statutes and the loan should be

governed by the usury provisions of the

host state. If the three non-ministerial

functions occur in different states or if

some of the non-ministerial functions

occur in an office that is not considered

to be the home office or branch of the

bank, then home state rates may be

used. Alternatively, in those situations

the interest rates permitted by the host

state where a non-ministerial function

occurs may be applied, if based on an

assessment of all of the facts and

circumstances, the loan has a clear

nexus to the host state. To avoid

uncertainty regarding which state’s

interest rates apply to a loan Interstate

State Banks should make an appropriate

disclosure to the customer that the

interest to be charged on the loan is

governed by applicable federal law and

the law of the relevant state which will

govern the transaction.

Authorized to be published in the

Federal Register by Order of the Board

of Directors dated at Washington, DC,

this 9th day of May, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13084 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

The Commission hereby gives notice

of the filing of the following

agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of

1984.

Interested parties can review or obtain

copies of agreements at the Washington,

DC offices of the Commission, 800

North Capitol Street, N.W., Room 962.

Interested parties may submit comments

on an agreement to the Secretary,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days

of the date this notice appears in the

Federal Register.

Agreement No.: 217–011317–003.

Title: PONL/BHP–IMTL Space Charter

Agreement.

Parties: P&O Nedlloyd Limited

(‘‘PONL’’) BHP–IMTL.

Synopsis: The proposed Agreement

modification (1) substitutes P&O

Nedlloyd Limited for its commonlyowned affiliate, P&O Nedlloyd B.V.

(formerly named Nedlloyd Lijnen BV) as

party to the Agreement; (2) changes the

name of the Agreement to reflect the

foregoing substitution; (3) deletes U.S.

Atlantic and Gulf ports, as well as the

ports in New Zealand, Chile, Peru, and

Panama from the scope of the

Agreement; and (4) makes other nonsubstantial changes to the Agreement.

Dated: May 12, 1998.

By Order of the Federal Maritime

Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13057 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. The application also will be

available for inspection at the offices of

the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than June 12, 1998.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

(Richard Walker, Community Affairs

Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,

Massachusetts 02106-2204:

1. Summit Bancorp, Inc., Medway,

Massachusetts; to become a bank

holding company by acquiring 100