26350 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

year pursuant to § 998.48 of the

agreement, shall continue. That portion

of the total assessment funds accrued

from the $1.00 rate not expended on

indemnification claims payments on

1995 crop peanuts and related expenses

shall be kept in such reserve and shall

be available to pay indemnification

expenses on subsequent crops.

§ 998.407 [Amended]

3. On § 998.407, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing ‘‘$2.60’’ and

adding in its place ‘‘$2.63’’ and by

removing ‘‘$0.60’’ and adding in its

place ‘‘$0.63.’’

Dated: May 11, 1995.

Terry C. Long,

Acting Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–12146 Filed 5–16–95; 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 1980

RIN 0575–AB84

Business and Industrial Loan Program

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 Business and

Cooperative Development Service

(RBCDS), (pursuant to section 234 of the

Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L.

103–354, October 13, 1994) and the

Secretary’s decision to implement such

Authority) is the successor to the Rural

Development Administration (RDA),

which is the successor to the Farmers

Home Administration (FmHA). RBCDS

amends the Business and Industry Loan

Servicing regulations to clarify the

procedure for categorizing and

classifying loans according to payment

frequency criteria. The intended effect is

to clarify procedures for classifying and

categorizing loan payment history.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth E. Hennings, Senior Loan

Specialist, Business and Industry

Division, RBCDS (formerly RDA), U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Room 6337,

South Agriculture Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, 20250–0700,

Telephone: (202) 690–3809.

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).

Programs Affected

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance program impacted by this

action is: 10.768, Business and

Industrial Loans.

Intergovernmental Review

The Business and Industrial Loan

programs are subject to the provisions of

Executive Order 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. RBCDS has

conducted intergovernmental

consultation in the manner delineated

in FmHA Instruction 1940–J,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Farmers

Home Administration Programs and

Activities.’’

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 agency at 7 C.F.R. 1900–B or those

regulations 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 action taken under this rule

unless those regulations specifically

allow bringing suit at an earlier time.

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 0575–0029 in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980. This rule does

not revise or impose any new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirement from those approved by

OMB.

Environmental Impact Statement

This document has been reviewed in

accordance with 7 CFR Part 1940,

subpart G, ‘‘Environmental Program.’’

RBCDS has determined 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.

Background

The regulations for Business and

Industrial guaranteed loans require the

lender to classify each loan in

accordance with specific criteria set out

in the regulations. It has been

discovered that loans that are in

compliance with requirements and have

been current for more than 23 months

but still have an outstanding balance of

more than two-thirds of the original

loan amount do not fit the criteria

provided for in any classification. This

action is to revise the criteria so that

those loans will be included in the

current non-problem classification.

Comments

On June 24, 1994, FmHA published a

proposed rule with a comment period

ending on August 23, 1994 in the

Federal Register (59 FR 32660) to revise

the loan classification criteria so that

those loans that have been current for

more than 23 months but still have an

outstanding balance of more than twothirds of the original loan amount will

be included in the current non-problem

classification. There were no comments

on the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1980

Loan programs—Business and

industry, Rural development assistance,

Rural areas.

Accordingly, part 1980 of chapter

XVIII, title 7 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 1980—GENERAL

1. The authority citation for part 1980

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480;

7 U.S.C. 301; 7 CFR 2.23; 7 CFR 2.70.

Subpart E—Business and Industrial

Loan Program

2. Section 1980.469 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 1980.469 Loan servicing.

* * * * *

(c) * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26351

(3) Current Non-problem

Classification—Those loans that are

current and are in compliance with all

loan conditions and B&I regulations but

do not meet all the criteria for a

Seasoned Loan classification. All loans

not classified as Seasoned or Current

Non-problem will be reported on the

quarterly status report with

documentation of the details of the

reason(s) for the assigned classification.

* * * * *

Dated: March 28, 1995.

Michael V. Dunn,

Acting Under Secretary, Rural Economic and

Community Development.

[FR Doc. 95–12154 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–32–U

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

8 CFR Part 3

[EOIR No. 103F; AG Order No. 1966–95]

RIN 1125–AA03

Executive Office for Immigration

Review; Stipulated Requests for

Deportation or Exclusion Orders,

Telephonic, Video Electronic Media

Hearings

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 8 CFR

3.25 by codifying an Immigration

Judge’s discretion to enter an order of

deportation or exclusion without a

hearing if satisfied that the alien

voluntarily entered into a pleanegotiated or otherwise stipulated

request for an order of deportation or

exclusion. It further codifies the practice

of Immigration Judges conducting

telephonic hearings in deportation,

exclusion, or recission cases, and

codifies the authority of the Immigration

Judge to hold video electronic media

hearings.

The proposed rule also clarifies the

language in § 3.25(a) to conform with in

absentia hearing provisions under the

Immigration and Nationality Act (the

‘‘Act’’), 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1252b.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald S. Hurwitz, Counsel to the

Director, Executive Office for

Immigration Review, suite 2400, 5107

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia

22041 (703) 305–0470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Justice published a

proposed rule on May 13, 1994 (59 FR

24976). The proposed rule sought to

amend § 3.25 of title 8, CFR, to require

an Immigration Judge to enter an order

of deportation or exclusion on the

written record, without an in-person

hearing, based upon the stipulated

written request of the respondent/

applicant and the government under

certain specified circumstances. The

requirement to enter orders of

deportation or exclusion based on the

written record would arise only in

instances where the Immigration Judge

determined that the charging document

set forth a valid basis for deportability

or excludability; the stipulated request

for an order of deportation or exclusion

was voluntarily entered into by the

respondent/applicant; and the

respondent/applicant specifically

waived relief from deportation or

exclusion as well as the described

hearing rights.

The rule also proposed to establish

the authority of the Immigration Judge

to hold telephonic hearings and video

electronic media hearings. Additionally,

the proposed rule made minor technical

changes in paragraph (a) to conform

with the in absentia provisions of 8

U.S.C. 1252.

The Executive Office for Immigration

Review (‘‘EOIR’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’)

received eighteen comments concerning

the proposed rule. The comments

addressed the waiver of presence of the

parties, the requirement that an

Immigration Judge enter stipulated

orders of deportation and exclusion

under certain circumstances, and an

Immigration Judge’s discretion to

conduct telephonic and video electronic

media hearings.

1. Section 3.25(a) Waiver of Presence of

the Parties

The Agency received one comment

objecting to the proposed rule’s

provision allowing the Immigration

Judge to waive the presence of an alien

who is a child where a parent or legal

guardian is present. The commenter

argued that the rule would provide

children with less due process

protection than it provides adults.

This rule is for the convenience of the

parties. For example, if parents and

their infant child are in deportation

proceedings, this rule allows the

Immigration Judge to waive the

presence of the infant. Such a waiver

allows parents to place the child in

childcare during the hearing. The

waiver allows the parents and the

Immigration Judge to concentrate on the

substantive issues. For pragmatic

reasons, the Agency has decided to

retain this rule.

2. Section 3.25(b) Stipulated Request for

Deportation or Exclusion Orders

Numerous commenters expressed due

process concerns with the proposed

rule’s provision requiring an

Immigration Judge to enter an order of

deportation or exclusion if, based on the

written record, the Judge determines

that a represented respondent/applicant

voluntarily entered into a stipulated

request for an order of deportation or

exclusion. Conversely, other

commenters expressed approval of the

requirement and suggested that the

Agency expand the requirement to

include motions for changes of venue

and some forms of relief. Commenters

also expressed concern that the rule

requiring that a respondent/applicant

make no application for relief unjustly

limits the options of the respondent/

applicant.

The rule has been modified to

respond to the commenters’ due process

concerns. The final rule does not require

an Immigration Judge to enter an order

of deportation or exclusion based on the

parties’ written stipulation. stead, the

rule explicitly recognizes a Judge’s

discretion to enter an order of

deportation or exclusion based on the

parties’ written stipulation. The

Immigration Judge’s discretion to enter

an order by written stipulation in the

absence of the parties is limited to cases

in which the applicant or respondent is

represented at the time of the

stipulation and where the stipulation is

signed on behalf of the government and

by both the applicant or respondent and

his or her attorney or other

representative qualified under part 292

of this chapter. At this juncture, the

Agency declines to modify the scope of

the stipulation procedure, and so the

final rule does not address venue and

has not changed with respect to

application for relief.

Commenters stated that the proposed

rule did not give sufficient emphasis to

the requirement that only represented

respondents/applicants may enter into

stipulation requests. In response, the

word ‘‘represented’’ has been inserted

before each reference to respondent/

applicant in the final version of

§ 3.25(b).

Commenters stated that the proposed

rule did not give sufficient emphasis to

the requirement that the respondent/

applicant fully understand the

ramifications of a stipulation. In

ascertaining the extent of

understanding, one commenter

suggested that the Immigration Judge

should focus specifically on the

respondent/applicant’s English language

skills. The words ‘‘voluntarily,