24540 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions. They

are familiar with the Committee’s needs

and with the costs for goods and

services in their local area and are thus

in a position to formulate an appropriate

budget. The budget was formulated and

discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all

directly affected persons have had an

opportunity to participate and provide

input.

The assessment rate recommended by

the Committee was derived by dividing

anticipated expenses by expected

shipments of Idaho-Eastern Oregon

onions. Because that rate will be applied

to actual shipments, it must be

established at a rate that will provide

sufficient income to pay the

Committee’s expenses.

The Committee met on March 21,

1995, and unanimously recommended a

1995–96 budget of $1,111,447, $91,408

more than the previous year. Budget

items for 1995–96 which have increased

compared to those budgeted for 1994–95

(in parentheses) are: Manager’s salary,

$33,472 ($30,429), office salaries,

$66,222 ($62,816), payroll taxes, $9,229

($8,642), health and medical insurance,

$9,182 ($8,700), workman’s

compensation, $1,084 ($929), rent,

$11,000 ($10,000), property insurance,

$1,700 ($1,400), miscellaneous, $12,500

($9,000), promotion, $724,076

($668,500), and contingency, $75,000

($50,000). Items which have decreased

compared to those budgeted for 1994–95

(in parentheses) are: Salary and

disability insurance $1,072 ($1,099),

research, $59,340 ($60,154), and

property tax ($800) for which no

funding was recommended this year.

All other items are budgeted at last

year’s amounts.

The Committee also unanimously

recommended an assessment rate of

$0.10 per hundredweight, the same as

last season. This rate, when applied to

anticipated shipments of 8,800,000

hundredweight, will yield $880,000 in

assessment income. This, along with

$45,000 in interest income and $186,447

from the Committee’s authorized

reserve, will be adequate to cover

budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve

at the end of the 1994–95 fiscal period,

estimated at $921,500, will be within

the maximum permitted by the order of

one fiscal period’s expenses.

While this action will impose some

additional costs on handlers, the costs

are in the form of uniform assessments

on all handlers. Some of the additional

costs may be passed on to producers.

However, these costs will be offset by

the benefits derived by the operation of

the marketing order. Therefore, the

Administrator of the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

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, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined upon good cause

that it is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest to

give preliminary notice prior to putting

this rule into effect because: (1) The

Committee needs to have sufficient

funds to pay its expenses which are

incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the

fiscal period begins on July 1, 1995, and

the marketing order requires that the

rate of assessment for the fiscal period

apply to all assessable onions handled

during the fiscal period; (3) handlers are

aware of this action which was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and is

similar to other budget actions issued in

past years; and (4) this interim final rule

provides a 30-day comment period, and

all comments timely received will be

considered prior to finalization of this

action.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 958

Marketing agreements, Onions,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 958 is amended as

follows:

PART 958—ONIONS GROWN IN

CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN

IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY,

OREGON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 958 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 958.239 is added to read

as follows:

Note: This section will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.

§ 958.239 Expenses and assessment rate.

Expenses of $1,111,447 by the IdahoEastern Oregon Onion Committee are

authorized, and an assessment rate of

$0.10 per hundredweight of assessable

onions is established for the fiscal

period ending June 30, 1996.

Unexpended funds may be carried over

as a reserve.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–11306 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Rural Housing and Community

Development Service

Rural Business and Cooperative

Development Service

Rural Utilities Service

Consolidated Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Part 1924

RIN 0575–AA88

Construction and Repair

AGENCIES: Rural Housing and

Community Development Service, Rural

Business and Cooperative Development

Service, Rural Utilities Service, and

Consolidated Farm Service Agency;

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Housing and

Community Development Service

(RHCDS) is amending the regulation on

Planning and Performing Site

Development Work. RHCDS will no

longer review or approve subdivisions,

but will review and approve individual

sites for its program. This action is

consistent with similar actions being

proposed or promulgated by the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

This site approval authority will allow

RHCDS to bring into the program many

low cost homes in subdivisions that

have already been developed. Many of

these were not previously reached

because the seller would not, or could

not afford to furnish RHCDS with all the

required data for a total subdivision

approval.

To assure that eligible individuals are

afforded quality sites, subdivisions must

meet the community standards and the

sites must meet RHCDS site

underwriting criteria. Environmental

reviews will be required on a site by site

basis and cumulative impact will be

addressed when indicated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Billy Chapman, Senior Loan Specialist,

Rural Housing and Community

Development Service, USDA, Room

5334–S, South Agriculture Building,

14th and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20250, Telephone

(202) 720–1485.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24541

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Classification

This rule has been determined to be

not-significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866, and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements contained in this

regulation have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C.

chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB

control number 0575–0164, in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980. This final rule

does not impose any new information

collection requirements in addition to

those approved by OMB.

Environmental Impact Statement

This document has been reviewed in

accordance with, 7 CFR part 1940

subpart G, ‘‘Environmental Program.’’ It

is the determination of RHCDS that this

action does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment, and

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

Public Law 91–190, an Environmental

Impact Statement is not required.

Intergovernmental Consultation

For the reason set forth in the final

rule and related notice to 7 CFR part

3015, Subpart V, 48 FR 29115, June 24,

1983, this program is excluded from the

scope of Executive Order 12372 which

requires intergovernmental consultation

with state and local officials.

Program Affected

These changes affect the following

RHCDS program as listed in the Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance: 10.410,

Low Income Housing Loans.

Civil Justice Reform

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. In accordance with this

rule: (1) all state and local laws and

regulations that are in conflict with this

rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

in accordance with the regulations of

the RHCDS at 7 CFR part 1900, subpart

B as published by the Department of

Agriculture to implement the provisions

of the National Appeals Division as

mandated by the Department of

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994,

must be exhausted before bringing suit

in court challenging actions taken under

this rule unless those regulations

specifically allow bringing suit at an

earlier time.

Regulatory Reform: Less Burdensome

or More Efficient Alternatives

The Department of Agriculture is

committed to carrying out its statutory

and regulatory mandates in a manner

that best serves the public interest.

Therefore, where legal discretion

permits, the Department actively seeks

to promulgate regulations that promote

economic growth, create jobs, are

minimally burdensome and are easy for

the public to understand, use or comply

with. In short, the Department is

committed to issuing regulations that

maximize the net benefits to society and

minimize costs imposed by those

regulations. The Department has

utilized comments and suggestions from

the public to develop this regulation in

accordance with these principles.

Background

The proposed rule was published in

the Federal Register (59 FR 42778) on

August 19, 1994, providing for a 60-day

comment period. The rule proposed that

RHCDS no longer approve subdivisions

and instead approve individual lots.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this rule. Due consideration

has been given to the 47 comments

received (including four late comments).

Twenty-seven commenters issued

strong support for the rule and

requested that it be published as

written.

Nine commenters applauded RHCDS

for a step in the right direction.

However, they along with eleven other

commenters, furnished some of the

following suggestions for revisions to

individual sections of the rule:

One commenter contends this rule

goes through several paragraphs to

outline details to look for, but appears

to wind up stating that regardless of

whether or not the subdivision is

approved by a local community RHCDS

may accept the site. The commenter

recommended that RHCDS should just

allow approval officials to approve any

well located site and eliminate the rule

completely.

RHCDS does not concur with this

request. RHCDS must ensure that sites

are developed to provide decent, safe,

and sanitary living conditions for

recipients of RHCDS loans and to serve

as adequate security for these loans. In

order to effectively perform its mission,

RHCDS must have guidelines for loan

approval officials as well as applicants,

builders, and developers, that will give

some standardization to what is

expected before financing is approved

for a particular site. However, a

paragraph has been added to the rule to

make it clear that no site will be

approved unless it meets all state and

local permits and approvals in

connection with any proposed

development.

Two commenters suggested that

RHCDS should still require that

subdivisions be developed as part of a

rural community.

RHCDS does not concur with this

suggestion. When this rule is effective

RHCDS will no longer approve

subdivisions, and does not plan to deny

financing for individual sites to eligible

applicants just because they may be in

a subdivision not associated with a

town. Section 502(f) of the Housing Act

of 1949, 42 U.S.C. § 1472(f), clearly

provides that RHCDS cannot deny credit

on a site just because it is in a remote

rural area.

Four commenters stated that the

process for an environmental review of

a site is not clear and phrases like

‘‘important farmland’’ should be

clarified. One of these commenters

stated RHCDS was excluding flood

hazard areas from their loan making and

eliminating entire communities as

locations for Section 502 loans in the

West and Southwest.

RHCDS has not changed the final rule

because of these comments. Several

sections in the rule refer to 7 CFR part

1940, subpart G, which contains RHCDS

environmental requirements. RHCDS

environmental policies on individual

site reviews are not changed with the

revision of this rule. RHCDS policy on

flood hazard areas, as set forth in 7 CFR

part 1806, subpart B, has not been

changed by this regulation.

One commenter contends that the

requirements for approval of sites for

Federal Housing Administration (FHA),

VA, and RHCDS guaranteed loans are

similar and the requirements for

approval of sites for this program are

different.

RHCDS has not changed the final rule

relating to these comments. This rule is

for the RHCDS direct loan program

which is designed for low- and very

low-income applicants. RHCDS serves

not as a guarantor in this program, but

as a lender. In the guaranteed loan

programs the guaranteed lender reviews

the site for acceptability for loan

purposes. In this program RHCDS must

ensure that sites are developed to

provide decent lots for the applicants.

Three commenters stated that if

RHCDS did not approve subdivisions

and had no process to approve more

than one lot in a subdivision at a time,

it was going to be very difficult for
24542 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

developers to get financing for multiple

lot developments.

RHCDS has not changed the final rule

relating to these comments. There is no

provision in the rule to package

approvals of more than one site at a

time. However, a developer may have

more than one site approval in any time

period. The funding for RHCDS housing

programs is no longer strong enough to

support subdivisions developed for 100

percent RHCDS financing. The

requirements for approval of a site are

specified in this rule. If a developer

receives approval on one lot in a

subdivision it should be fairly simple to

receive approval on other similar sites

in the same subdivision.

One commenter suggested that with

reduced funding for RHCDS programs

RHCDS should use only the best sites,

i.e., the ‘‘cream of the crop,’’ for the

most needy low- and very low-income

applicants.

RHCDS does not concur with this

suggestion. This practice would be

discriminatory by refusing to finance

properties that applicants really wanted

and requiring them to find ‘‘better’’

sites.

One commenter advised that 7 CFR

part 1822, subpart G (FmHA Instruction

444.8), Site Loan Procedures, still

requires a subdivision approval and it

refers to this rule for further

instructions.

RHCDS agrees with the commenter

and a section is added to make it clear

that individual sites financed with

RHCDS site loans must comply with the

requirements in this regulation.

Two commenters stated that sections

1924.105(a)(1) and 1924.106(a)(1)(i)

should be deleted. If RHCDS was not

going to approve subdivisions they

should not provide developers advice

on how to develop them.

RHCDS agrees with the commenters

and the sections are revised in the final

rule.

One commenter noted section

1924.105(b)(1) referred to exhibit B as a

guide while section 1924.106(a)(1) states

individual water and sewer systems

must meet requirements of exhibit B.

This commenter along with another

recommended this rule be revised to

require that exhibit B be referenced as

a mandatory minimum instead of a

guide.

RHCDS agrees with this

recommendation, even though several

commenters disagreed and wanted all

references in the rule to refer to exhibit

B as a guide. After further review

RHCDS believes single family housing

should use exhibit B as a mandatory

minimum for all sites unless an

exception is issued by the state director.

Multiple family housing projects are

reviewed by architects and engineers

and unacceptable sites are not as likely.

This rule is revised accordingly.

Two commenters pointed out that the

requirement that ‘‘sites must...insure

long-term market demand and

acceptability.’’ in section 1924.106(b),

did not comply with the law.

RHCDS agrees with these commenters

and this phrase will be removed from

the final rule.

Four commenters suggested that

section 1924.106(c) was too restrictive.

Railroads and cemeteries should not be

restricted as surroundings for a multiple

family complex.

RHCDS partially concurs with the

commenters. RHCDS is still responsible

as a Government agency to not finance

a multiple family complex if the loan

approval official observes a problem for

the residents. RHCDS is concerned that

the long-term viability of an apartment

complex will be adversely impacted by

the non-desirable influences and more

importantly, the quality of the life of the

tenants would be diminished. RHCDS is

responsible for ensuring that the

proposed housing is located to provide

a desirable place for the tenants to

reside. The final rule will be revised to

remove proximity to cemeteries and low

activity railroads as unacceptable

locations.

Two commenters suggested that

section 1924.107(a)(1) be revised to

accept individual water systems for

financing if they meet the requirements

of the state Department of Health or

other comparable reviewing and

regulatory authority.

RHCDS partially concurs with these

commenters and the final rule will be

revised to state that individual water or

sewer systems must meet the

requirements of the state Department of

Health or other comparable reviewing

and regulatory authority. However,

because there is a vast difference in

local area requirements, RHCDS will

still require minimum requirements for

water and sewer systems serving an

individual site unless an exception is

issued by the state director.

Nine commenters thought that the

rule required nearly the same steps to

approve a site as previously required to

approve a subdivision. Several of these

commenters wrote that the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1992

(HCDA of 1992) allowed the Secretary to

accept subdivisions that had been

approved by local, county or state

agencies. They recommended that a

section be included to accept

subdivisions planned in accordance

with local requirements which generally

meet or exceed those of this subpart.

Several of these commenters

recommended that the state director be

authorized to make those

determinations.

RHCDS does not concur with the

commenters’ request. The HCDA of

1992 did allow the Secretary to accept

subdivisions that had been approved by

local, county or state agencies. This rule

does not authorize RHCDS to accept or

reject subdivisions. RHCDS approves or

rejects individual sites. Therefore, if a

subdivision had been approved by a

local, county or state agency RHCDS is

still required to approve the site.

Section 1924.115 requires information

on the site to be provided by the

appraiser and/or the site approval

official on a form provided by the

RHCDS. Currently the form that is

planned for this purpose is Form HUD–

54891, ‘‘Appraiser/Review Appraiser

Checksheet.’’ The site review official

must complete the proper

environmental review required by 7

CFR part 1940, subpart G for each site.

The applicant or builder will only be

involved in this phase if this review

exposes a problem. The other sections of

this rule describe the kind of site that is

expected, and for appropriate reasons,

the state director is authorized to waive

many of the individual site

requirements. The agency anticipates

that the site approval official and

builders will become familiar with these

requirements and it will normally only

require a very short time for a builder

to complete the required forms for

approval.

One commenter recommended that

‘‘all weather’’ streets, as referenced in

section 1924.115(b), not be allowed

except under exception authority of the

state director.

RHCDS does not concur with this

recommendation. The agency believes

that property constructed and

maintained all weather streets provide

acceptable cost effective access to

housing sites which are security for an

RHCDS loan.

‘‘All weather’’ streets are still required

to be developed in full compliance with

public body requirements, dedicated for

public use, and be maintained by a

public body or a Home Owners

Association.

One commenter stated ‘‘site access’’

as referred to in section 1924.115(b)

should be left to local governments.

RHCDS does not concur with this

request. While some local governments

have ‘‘site access’’ requirements, many

do not. In order to ensure that RHCDS

loans are adequately secured and that

borrowers have reasonable access to

their property RHCDS requires basic,

minimum site access requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24543

Three commenters thought that site

approval authority should come with

the position of county supervisor and

the state director should not approve

each one individually as required in

section 1924.120.

RHCDS does not concur with these

commenters. With the United States

Department of Agriculture’s

reorganization underway, the county

supervisor title may be changed. The

state directors will have the ability to

manage the program in their state by

deciding who has adequate experience

and training to approve sites.

One commenter suggested that the

public should be allowed to request an

exception under section 1924.122.

RHCDS does not concur with the

commenter. Section 1924.122 requires

that the state director make the

exception request to the administrator.

There is no general exception authority

in this rule. Exceptions are only granted

if the Administrator determines that

application of the requirement or

provision would adversely affect the

Government’s interest.

Several commenters questioned the

use of Form HUD–92541, ‘‘Builder’s

Certification of Plans, Specifications,

and Site’’, when the site is new

construction.

RHCDS has reviewed this form and

although parts of it apply to the review

process being used, it does not totally

apply and would be a source of

confusion. A large part of this form

applies to the construction of the house

and RHCDS has requirements in other

instructions that govern the inspection

and approval of construction.

Requirement of the use of Form HUD–

92541 has been deleted from the final

rule.

Discussion

RHCDS stands alone as the only

Federal agency that requires approval of

a complete subdivision prior to insuring

or guaranteeing a loan for a home within

the subdivision. Developers, builders,

realtors, and applicants for the programs

have frequently complained that there is

too much ‘‘red tape’’ before an eligible

applicant can receive an RHCDS loan

within a well-developed subdivision.

Most counties and communities now

have adequate subdivision reviews, and

RHCDS’s subdivision approval is not

needed to assure quality sites, but is a

duplication of efforts.

This action permits the better use of

existing developments and decreases

the environmental impact because not

as many new developments will be

needed to meet the demand for lots that

will meet RHCDS’s requirements. It fits

into existing growth patterns and places

more authority with the local

government.

RHCDS is committed to quality sites

for its programs and therefore, requires

scrutiny of the individual site. The new

site criteria incorporate many of the

prior requirements for all sites in a

subdivision and make these

requirements part of the underwriting

criteria for the individual site which

will be security for an RHCDS loan. This

action provides for better sites, without

requiring the cumbersome subdivision

review and approval process. It provides

the loan applicant with minimum

standards for a quality water supply and

waste disposal. It also requires that the

property be served by publicly owned

and maintained roads. The regulation

provides for an orderly request for

review and systematic process of

reviewing the site.

This regulation omits the detailed

internal RHCDS administrative

guidance used by the field offices to

administer the program. In the past,

RHCDS program regulations and RHCDS

Instructions have been identical.

However, RHCDS has now adopted a

policy of publishing regulations which

set forth only these matters which

confer a benefit or impose an obligation

on the public or which are necessary for

the public to understand their

responsibilities.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1924

Housing standards, Low and moderate

income housing, Rural areas.

Therefore, Chapter XVIII, Title 7,

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 1924—CONSTRUCTION AND

REPAIR

1. The authority citation for part 1924

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1480, 5 U.S.C. 301.

Subpart C—Planning and Performing

Site Development Work

2. Sections 1924.101 through

1924.150 of subpart C of part 1924 are

revised to read as follows:

§ 1924.101 Purpose.

This subpart establishes the basic

Rural Housing and Community

Development Service (RHCDS) policies

for planning and performing site

development work. It also provides the

procedures and guidelines for preparing

site development plans consistent with

Federal laws, regulations, and Executive

Orders.

§ 1924.102 General policy.

(a) Rural development. This subpart

provides for the development of

building sites and related facilities in

rural areas. It is designed to:

(1) Recognize community needs and

desires in local planning, control, and

development.

(2) Recognize standards for buildingsite design which encourage and lead to

the development of economically stable

communities, and the creation of

attractive, healthy, and permanent

living environments.

(3) Encourage improvements planned

for the site to be the most cost-effective

of the practicable alternatives.

Encourage utilities and services utilized

to be reliable, efficient, and available at

reasonable costs.

(4) Provide for a planning process that

will consider impacts on the

environment and existing development

in order to formulate actions that

protect, enhance, and restore

environmental quality.

(5) No site will be approved unless it

meets the requirements of this part and

all state and local permits and approvals

in connection with the proposed

development have been obtained.

(b) Subdivisions. RHCDS does not

review or approve subdivisions. Each

site approved by RHCDS must meet the

requirements of § 1924.115, on a site by

site basis.

(c) Development related costs. (1)

Applicant. The applicant is responsible

for all costs incurred before loan or

grant closing associated with planning,

technical services, and actual

construction. These costs may be

included in the loan or grant as

authorized by RHCDS regulations.

(2) Developer. The developer is

responsible for payment of all costs

associated with development.

§ 1924.103 Scope.

This subpart provides supplemental

requirements for Rural Rental Housing

(RRH) loans, Rural Cooperative Housing

(RCH) loans, Farm Labor Housing (LH)

loans and grants, and Rural Housing

Site (RHS) loans. It also provides a site

development standard, as indicated in

exhibit B of FmHA Instruction 1924–C

(available in any RHCDS field office),

which supplements this subpart to

provide the minimum for the

acceptability of development. All of this

subpart applies to Single Family

Housing unless otherwise noted. All of

this subpart also applies to Multiple

Family Housing except §§ 1924.115 and

1924.120, and any paragraph

specifically designated for Single

Family Housing only. In addition,

RHCDS will consult with appropriate
24544 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Federal, state, and local agencies, other

organizations, and individuals to

implement the provisions of this

subpart.

§ 1924.104 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

Applicant. Any person, partnership,

limited partnership, trust, consumer

cooperative, corporation, public body,

or association that has filed a

preapplication, or in the case of RHCDS

programs that do not require a

preapplication, an official application,

with RHCDS in anticipation of receiving

or utilizing RHCDS financial assistance.

Community. A community includes

cities, towns, boroughs, villages, and

unincorporated places which have the

characteristics of incorporated areas

with support services such as shopping,

post office, schools, central sewer and

water facilities, police and fire

protection, hospitals, medical and

pharmaceutical facilities, etc., and are

easily identifiable as established

concentrations of inhabited dwellings

and private and public buildings.

Developer. Any person, partnership,

public body, or corporation who is

involved with the development of a site

which will be financed by RHCDS.

Development. The act of building

structures and installing site

improvements on an individual

dwelling site, a subdivision, or a

multiple family tract.

Multiple Family Housing. RHCDS

RRH loans, RCH loans, LH loans and

grants, and RHS loans.

Single Family Housing. RHCDS Rural

Housing loans for individuals for

construction of, repair of, or purchase of

a dwelling to be occupied by one

household.

Site. A parcel of land proposed as a

dwelling site, with or without

development.

Site approval official. The RHCDS

making the determination that a site

meets the requirements in this subpart

to be acceptable for site loans. (See

§ 1924.120.)

Street surfaces. Streets may be hard or

all-weather surfaced.

(1) Hard surface—a street with a

portland cement concrete, asphaltic

concrete, or bituminous wearing surface

or other hard surfaces which are

acceptable and suitable to the local

public body for use with local climate,

soil, gradient, and volume and character

of traffic.

(2) All-weather—a street that can be

used year-round with a minimum of

maintenance, such as the use of a grader

and minor application of surface

material, and is acceptable and suitable

to the local public body for use with

local climate, soil, gradient, and volume

and character of traffic.

Subdivision. Five or more contiguous

(developed or undeveloped) lots or

building sites. Subdivisions may be new

or existing.

§ 1924.105 Planning/performing

development.

(a) General. Planning is an evaluation

of specific development for a specific

site. Planning must take into

consideration topography, soils, climate,

adjacent land use, environmental

impacts, energy efficiency, local

economy, aesthetic and cultural values,

public and private services, housing and

social conditions, and a degree of

flexibility to accommodate changing

demands. All planning and performing

development work is the responsibility

of the applicant or developer. All

development will be arranged and

completed according to applicable local,

state, or Federal regulations including

applicable health and safety standards,

environmental requirements, and

requirements of this subpart. When a

public authority requires inspections

prior to final acceptance, written

assurance by the responsible public

authority of compliance with local, city,

county, state or other public codes,

regulations, and ordinances is required

prior to final acceptance by RHCDS.

(1) [Reserved]

(2) Technical Services. [Reserved]

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) An applicant or developer for a

Multiple Family Housing project or a

Single Family Housing site which

requires technical services under

§ 1924.13(a), must contract for the

technical services of an architect,

engineer, land surveyor, landscape

architect, or site planner, as appropriate,

to provide complete planning, drawings,

and specifications. Such services may

be provided by the applicant’s or

developer’s ‘‘in house’’ staff subject to

RHCDS concurrence. Technical services

must be performed by professionals who

are qualified and authorized to provide

such services in the state in which the

project would be developed. All

technical services must be provided in

accordance with the requirements of

professional registration or licensing

boards. At completion of all

construction or completion of a phase or

phases of the total project, the persons

providing technical services under this

section must notify the RHCDS field

office in writing that all work has been

completed in substantial conformance

with the approved plans and

specifications.

(iii) For developments not specifically

required to have technical services

under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section,

such services may be required by the

state director when construction of

streets or installation of utilities is

involved.

(3) Drawings, specifications, contract

documents, and other documentations.

Adequate drawings and specifications

must be provided by the applicant or

developer to RHCDS in sufficient detail

to fully and accurately describe the

proposed development. Contract

documents must be prepared in

accordance with § 1924.6 or, in the case

of more complex construction,

§ 1924.13.

(b) Single Family Housing. Proposals

for development of individual dwelling

sites must meet the following

requirements:

(1) Site development design

requirements. Exhibit B (available in

any RHCDS field office) will be used as

a minimum by applicants or developers

in preparing proposals and supporting

documents for Single Family Housing

loans, in addition to specific

requirements made in this subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) Multiple Family Housing. Exhibit

C (available in any RHCDS office)

should be used as a guide by the

applicant or developer in preparing a

proposal and supporting documents for

multiple family housing projects.

§ 1924.106 Location.

(a) General. It is RHCDS’s policy to

promote compact community

development and not to approve sites

located in floodplains, on wetlands, or

on important farmlands, unless there is

no practical alternative. Furthermore,

RHCDS will not finance development

on locations that adversely affect

properties which are listed or are

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places, located

within the Coastal Barrier Resource

System, or on a barrier island.

(Environmental requirements are found

in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G.) In order

to be eligible for RHCDS participation:

(1) The site must be located in an

eligible area as defined in the program

regulations under which the

development is being funded or

approved.

(2) The site must comply with the

applicable environmental laws,

regulations, Executive Orders, and

subpart G of part 1940.

(b) Single Family Housing. In addition

to the general requirements in paragraph

(a) of this section, sites must provide a

desirable, safe, functional, convenient,

and attractive living environment for the

residents.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24545

(c) Multiple Family Housing. Multiple

family housing projects shall be located

in accordance with the requirements in

paragraph (r) of § 1944.215. Locating

sites in less than desirable locations of

the community because they are in close

proximity to undesirable influences

such as high activity railroad tracks;

adjacent to or behind industrial sites;

bordering sites or structures which are

not decent, safe, or sanitary; or

bordering sites which have potential

environmental concerns such as

processing plants, etc., is not acceptable.

Screening such sites does not make

them acceptable. Sites which are not an

integral part of a residential community

and do not have a reasonable access,

either by location or terrain, to essential

community facilities such as water,

sewerage, schools, shopping,

employment opportunities, medical

facilities, etc., are not acceptable.

§ 1924.107 Utilities.

All development under this subpart

must have adequate, economic, safe,

energy efficient, dependable utilities

with sufficient easements for

installation and maintenance.

(a) Water and wastewater disposal

systems—(1) Single Family Housing. If

sites are served by central water or

sewer systems, the systems must meet

the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) (i)

and (ii) of this section. If sites have

individual water or sewer systems, they

must meet the requirements of the state

department of health or other

comparable reviewing and regulatory

authority and the minimum

requirements of exhibit B (available in

any RHCDS field office), paragraphs V

and VI. Sites in subdivisions of more

than 25 dwelling units on individual

systems, or sites that do not meet the

requirements of exhibit B, paragraphs V

and VI, must have state director

concurrence.

(2) Multiple Family Housing.

Proposals processed under this

paragraph shall be served by centrally

owned and operated water and

wastewater disposal systems unless this

is determined by RHCDS to be

economically or environmentally not

feasible. All central systems, whether

they are public, community, or private,

shall meet the design requirements of

the state department of health or other

comparable reviewing and regulatory

authority. The regulatory authority will

verify in writing that the water and

wastewater systems are in compliance

with the current provisions of the Safe

Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water

Act, respectively.

(i) Sites which are not presently

served by a central system, but are

scheduled for tie-in to the central

system within 2 years, should have all

lines installed during the initial

construction. Such sites must have an

approved interim water supply or

wastewater disposal system installed

capable of satisfactory service until the

scheduled tie-in occurs.

(ii) In addition to written assurance of

compliance with state and local

requirements, there must be assurance

of continuous service at reasonable rates

for central water and wastewater

disposal systems. Public ownership is

preferred whenever possible. In cases

where interim facilities are installed

pending extension or construction of

permanent public services, the

developer must assume responsibility

for the operation and maintenance of

the interim facility or establish an entity

for its operation and maintenance which

is acceptable to the local governing

body. If a system is not or will not be

publicly owned and operated, it must

comply with one of the following:

(A) Be an organization that meets the

ownership and operating requirements

for a water or wastewater disposal

system that RHCDS could finance under

7 CFR part 1942, subpart A or be

dedicated to and accepted by such an

organization.

(B) Be an organization or individual

that meets other acceptable methods of

ownership and operation as outlined in

HUD Handbook 4075.12, ‘‘Ownership

and Organization of Central Water and

Sewerage Systems.’’ RHCDS should be

assured that the organization has the

right, in its sole discretion, to enforce

the obligation of the operator of the

water and sewerage systems to provide

satisfactory continuous service at

reasonable rates.

(C) Be adequately controlled as to

rates and services by a public body (unit

of Government or public services

commission).

(iii) Multiple family developments of

more than 25 units with individual

system must have national office

concurrence.

(A) [Reserved]

(B) Supporting information for the

proposed individual water systems,

covering the following points:

(1) In areas where difficulty is

anticipated in developing an acceptable

water supply, the availability of a water

supply will be determined before

closing the loan.

(2) Documentation must be provided

that the quality of the supply meets the

chemical, physical, and bacteriological

standards of the regulatory authority

having jurisdiction. The maximum

contaminant levels of U.S. EPA shall

apply. Individual water systems must be

tested for quantity and bacteriological

quality. Where problems are anticipated

with chemical quality, chemical tests

may be required. Chemical tests would

be limited to analysis for the defects

common to the area such as iron and

manganese, hardness, nitrates, pH,

turbidity, color, or other undesirable

elements. Polluted or contaminated

water supplies are unacceptable. In all

cases, assurance of a potable water

supply before loan closing is required.

(C) Supporting information for

individual wastewater disposal systems

with subsurface discharge provided by a

soil scientist, geologist, soils engineer,

or other person recognized by the local

regulatory authority. This data must

include the following:

(1) Assurance of nonpollution of

ground water. The local regulatory

authority having jurisdiction must be

consulted to ensure that installation of

individual wastewater systems will not

pollute ground water sources or create

other health hazards or otherwise

violate State water quality standards.

(2) Records of percolation tests.

Guidance for performing these tests is

included in the EPA design manual,

‘‘Onsite Wastewater Treatment and

Disposal Systems’’ and the minimum

RHCDS requirements are in exhibit B,

paragraph VI. (These may be waived by

the state director when the state has

established other acceptable means for

allowing onsite disposal.)

(3) Determination of soil types and

description. The assistance of the SCS

or other qualified persons should be

obtained for soil type determination and

a copy of its recommendations included

in the documentation.

(4) Description of ground water

elevations, showing seasonal variations.

(5) Confirmation of space allowances.

An accurate drawing to indicate that

there is adequate space available to

satisfactorily locate the individual water

and wastewater disposal systems;

likewise, documented assurance of

compliance with all local requirements.

Structures served by wastewater

disposal systems with subsurface

discharge require larger sites than those

structures served by another type

system.

(6) Description of exploratory pit

observations, if available.

(D) Supporting information for

individual wastewater disposal systems

with surface discharge covering the

following points:

(1) Effluent standards issued by the

appropriate regulatory agency that

controls the discharge of the proposed

individual systems. Assurance from this

regulatory agency that the effluent

standards will not be exceeded by the
24546 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

individual systems being proposed must

be included.

(2) Program of maintenance, parts,

and service available to the systemowner for upkeep of the system.

(3) A plan for local inspection of the

system by a responsible agency with the

authority to ensure compliance with

health and safety standards.

(b) Electric service. The power

supplier will be consulted by the

applicant to assure that there is

adequate service available to meet the

needs of the proposed site.

Underground service is preferred.

(c) Gas service. Gas distribution

facilities, if provided, will be installed

according to local requirements where

adequate and dependable gas service is

available.

(d) Other utilities. Other utilities, if

available, will be installed according to

local requirements.

§ 1924.108 Grading and drainage.

(a) General. Soil and geologic

conditions must be suitable for the type

of construction proposed. In

questionable or unsurveyed areas, the

applicant or developer will provide an

engineering report with supporting data

sufficient to identify all pertinent

subsurface conditions which could

adversely affect the structure and show

proposed solutions. Grading will

promote drainage of surface water away

from buildings and foundations,

minimize earth settlement and erosion,

and assure that drainage from adjacent

properties onto the development or from

the development to adjacent properties

does not create a health hazard or other

undesirable conditions. Grading and

drainage will comply with exhibit B,

paragraphs III and IV, of this subpart.

(b) Cuts and fills. Development

requiring extensive earthwork, cuts and

fills of 4 feet or more shall be designed

by a professional engineer. Where

topography requires fills or extensive

earthwork that must support structures

and building foundations, these must be

controlled fills designed, supervised,

and tested by a qualified soils engineer.

(c) Slope protection. All slopes must

be protected from erosion by planting or

other means. Slopes may require

temporary cover if exposed for long

periods during construction.

(d) Storm water systems. The design

of storm water systems must consider

convenience and property protection

both at the individual site level and the

drainage basin level. Storm water

systems should be compatible with the

natural features of the site. In areas with

inadequate drainage systems, permanent

or temporary storm water storage shall

be an integral part of the overall

development plan. Design of these

facilities shall consider safety,

appearance, and economical

maintenance operations.

§§ 1924.109–1924.114 [Reserved]

§ 1924.115 Single Family Housing site

evaluation.

(a) Site review. The site approval

official will evaluate each site

(developed or undeveloped) to

determine acceptance for the program.

Information on the site will be provided

by the appraiser or site approval official

on a form provided by RHCDS and

available in any RHCDS field office.

(b) Site access. Each site must be

contiguous to and have direct access

from:

(1) A hard surfaced or all weather

road which is developed in full

compliance with public body

requirements, is dedicated for public

use, and is being maintained by a public

body or a home owners association that

has demonstrated its ability or can

clearly demonstrate its ability to

maintain the street; or

(2) An all weather extended driveway

which can serve no more than two sites

connecting to a hard surface or all

weather street or road that meets the

requirements of paragraph(b)(1); or

(3) A hard surfaced street in a

condominium or townhouse complex

which:

(i) Is owned in common by the

members or a member association and is

maintained by a member association

that has demonstrated its ability or can

clearly demonstrate its ability to

maintain the street; and

(ii) Connects to a publicly owned and

dedicated street or road.

(c) Exceptions to street requirements.

A site not meeting the conditions in

paragraph (b) of this section will be

acceptable if:

(1) The applicant is a builder for a

conditional commitment (a loan will not

be approved until the site meets the

conditions in paragraph (b) of this

section), or the builder posts an

irrevocable performance and payment

bond (or similar acceptable assurance)

that assures the site approval official

that the site will be developed to meet

the conditions in paragraph (b) of this

section; or

(2) The site is recommended by the

site approval official and approved by

the state director. A request for state

director approval must justify that it is

in the best interest of both the

government and the applicant to

approve the site.

(d) Site layout. (1) Sites shall be

surveyed and platted. Permanent

markers shall be placed at all corners.

(2) Sites shall meet all requirements of

state and local entities and RHCDS.

(e) Covenants, conditions and

restrictions. Sites in subdivisions shall

be protected by covenants, conditions,

and restrictions (CC&Rs) to preserve the

character, value, and amenities of the

residential community and to avoid or

mitigate potential environmental

impacts unless, an exception is granted

by RHCDS after considering the

suitability of local ordinances, zoning,

and other land use controls.

(1) CC&Rs shall be recorded in the

public land records and specifically

referenced in each deed.

(2) The intent of the CC&Rs is to

assure the developers that the

purchasers will use the land in

conformance with the planned

objectives for the community. In

addition, the CC&Rs should assure the

purchasers that the land covered by the

CC&Rs will be used as planned and that

other purchasers will use and maintain

the land as planned to prevent changes

in the character of the neighborhood

that would adversely impact values or

create a nuisance.

§§ 1924.116–1924.118 [Reserved]

§ 1924.119 Site Loans.

Subdivisions approved under subpart

G of part 1822 (FmHA Instruction 444.8)

or exhibit F of subpart I of part 1944

(available in any RHCDS field office),

will meet the general requirements of

this subpart to insure lots in the

subdivision will meet the requirements

of § 1924.115.

§§ 1924.120–1924.121 [Reserved]

§ 1924.122 Exception authority.

The Administrator of RHCDS may in

individual cases, make an exception to

any requirement or provision of this

subpart or address any omission of this

subpart which is not inconsistent with

the authorizing statute or other

applicable law if the Administrator

determines that application of the

requirement or provision would

adversely affect the Government’s

interest. The Administrator will exercise

this authority upon the written request

of the state director or the appropriate

program assistant administrator.

Requests for exceptions must be

supported with documentation to

explain the adverse effect on the

Government, proposed alternative

courses of action, and show how the

adverse effect will be eliminated or

minimized if the exception is granted.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24547

§§ 1924.123–1924.149 [Reserved]

§ 1924.150 OMB Control Number.

The reporting requirements contained

in this subpart have been approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and have been assigned OMB

control number 0575–0164. Public

reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to vary from 5

minutes to 10 minutes per response,

with an average of .13 hours per

response, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden to

the Department of Agriculture,

Clearance Officer, OIRM, Ag Box 7630,

Washington, D.C. 20250; and to the

Office of Management and Budget,

Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB

#0575–0164), Washington, D.C. 20503.

Exhibit A of Subpart C [Removed and

Reserved]

3. Exhibit A of subpart C is removed

and reserved.

Dated: April 14, 1995.

Michael V. Dunn,

Acting Under Secretary for Rural Economic

and Community Development.

[FR Doc. 95–11309 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–07–U

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 94–134–2]

Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area

Classifications; Colorado

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as

final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, without change, an interim rule

that amended the brucellosis regulations

concerning the interstate movement of

cattle by changing the classification of

Colorado from Class A to Class Free. We

have determined that Colorado meets

the standards for Class Free status. The

interim rule was necessary to relieve

certain restrictions on the interstate

movement of cattle from Colorado.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Michael J. Gilsdorf, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Cattle Diseases and

Surveillance Staff, VS, APHIS, USDA,

Suite 3B08, 4700 River Road Unit 36,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

4918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In an interim rule effective and

published in the Federal Register on

January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4371–4372,

Docket No. 94–134–1), we amended the

brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78

by removing Colorado from the list of

Class A States in § 78.41(b) and adding

it to the list of Class Free States in

§ 78.1(a).

Comments on the interim rule were

required to be received on or before

March 24, 1995. We did not receive any

comments. The facts presented in the

interim rule still provide a basis for the

rule.

This action also affirms the

information contained in the interim

rule concerning Executive Order 12866

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

Executive Orders 12372 and 12778, and

the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, for this action, the Office of

Management and Budget has waived the

review process required by Executive

Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS

Accordingly, we are adopting as a

final rule, without change, the interim

rule that amended 9 CFR 78.41 and that

was published at 60 FR 4371–4372 on

January 23, 1995.

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–114a–1, 114g,

115, 117, 120, 121, 123–126, 134b, and 134f;

7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of

April 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11373 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

9 CFR Part 113

[Docket No. 93–071–2]

Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and

Analogous Products; Detection of

Extraneous Agents by the Fluorescent

Antibody Technique

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations concerning testing by the

fluorescent antibody technique for

extraneous agents (viruses) in cells of

animal origin that are used in the

manufacture of veterinary biologics. The

amendment allows the use of alternative

fluorochromes that may be conjugated

to an antibody, revises the list of

extraneous agents to be tested for, and

includes extraneous agents for which

equine cells are to be tested. In addition,

the word ‘‘agent’’ is replaced with the

word ‘‘virus’’ since this is the agent

being tested for. The amendment is

necessary to update the requirements

related to the testing for extraneous

viruses.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. David A. Espeseth, Deputy Director,

Veterinary Biologics, BBEP, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1237, (301) 734–8245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In accordance with the regulations

contained in 9 CFR part 113, standard

requirements are prescribed for the

preparation of veterinary biological

products. A standard requirement

consists of specifications, procedures,

and test methods which define the

standards of purity, safety, potency, and

efficacy for a given type of veterinary

biological product. Microorganisms,

animal cells, and ingredients of animal

origin used in production are required

to be tested for extraneous viruses. In

part, this involves testing for the

presence of extraneous viruses by the

fluorescent antibody technique

described in § 113.47. When the current

standard requirement was established,

fluorescent antibodies were constructed

by conjugating antibodies to one of the

fluorochromes, fluorescein.

Fluorochromes are any of a variety of

chemicals used in cytochemistry to

produce a secondary fluorescence in the

specimen. In the intervening years,

additional fluorochromes have been

developed for use as cytochemical

markers or stains.

Standard requirements included in

the regulations specify that cells, master

seed virus, and most ingredients of

animal origin used in the production of

biological products be tested for

contaminating bacteria, fungi,

mycoplasma, cytopathogenic organisms,

viruses, hemadsorbing agents, and

extraneous agents (viruses) detectable

by the fluorescent antibody technique.

The presence of specific fluorescence

associated with the use of certain

antibodies, in comparison with the