Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2683

1The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

(OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and the Office

of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

(2) Price support will be available to

the cooperative for the quantity of a

farm-stored commodity that is, pursuant

to such cooperative’s marketing

agreement with a member, part of the

cooperative’s pool.

* * * * *

(5) Commodities pledged as collateral

for CCC price support loans shall be free

and clear of all liens and encumbrances

based on an approved cooperative’s

financial agreements or the cooperative

shall obtain a completed Form CCC–

679, Lien Waiver. Approved

cooperatives shall not take any action to

cause a lien or encumbrance to be

placed on a commodity after a loan is

approved.

* * * * *

13. Redesignated § 1425.18 is

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(a)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(5) to

read as follows:

§ 1425.18 Distribution of proceeds.

(a) CCC loans, purchases, and loan

deficiency payments. (1) If CCC makes

available price support loans,

purchases, or loan deficiency payments

with respect to any quantity of the

eligible commodity in a pool, the

proceeds from such loans, purchases, or

loan deficiency payments shall be

distributed to members participating in

such pool on the basis of the quantity

and quality of the commodity delivered

by each member which is included in

the pool less any authorized charges for

services performed or paid by the

cooperative which are necessary to

condition the commodity or otherwise

make the commodity eligible for price

support. Except with respect to

commodities which are pledged as

collateral for a price support loan and

which are redeemed within 15 work

days from the date the cooperative

receives the loan proceeds from CCC,

such proceeds shall be distributed

within 15 work days from such date.

Loan deficiency payments received from

CCC shall be distributed within 15 work

days of receipt from CCC.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) When notified by CCC that pool

distributions to a member of any eligible

pool must be reduced for a program

year, farm, or crop, cooperatives shall

refrain from making such pool

distributions and shall, if appropriate,

reimburse CCC for such distributions.

* * * * *

14. Redesignated § 1425.20 is revised

to read as follows:

§ 1425.20 Nondiscrimination.

The cooperative shall not, on the basis

of race, color, age, sex, religion, marital

status, national origin, physical

disability, or mental disability, deny any

producer participation in, or otherwise

subject any producer to discrimination

with respect to any benefits resulting

from its approval to obtain price support

and shall comply with the provisions of

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and the Secretary’s regulations issued

thereunder, appearing in §§ 15.1

through 15.12 of this title; section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended by the Rehabilitation

Comprehensive Services and

Developmental Disabilities

Amendments of 1978; and provisions of

the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as

amended. The cooperative shall not

discriminate against employees under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, or the Equal Pay Act of

1963 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 as administered by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission,

and shall handle employee

discrimination complaints as provided

for in 28 CFR part 42 and 29 CFR part

1691. The United States shall have the

right to enforce compliance with such

statutes and regulations by suit or by

any other action authorized by law. The

cooperative shall submit a certification

with its application that the regulations

cited in this section have been read and

understood and that the cooperative

will abide by them.

15. A new § 1425.23 is added to read

as follows:

§ 1425.23 Reports.

(a) Approved cooperatives shall

annually provide CCC with a PSL–86R

report to applicable county

Consolidated Farm Service Agency

offices. The report shall include all

eligible and ineligible commodity

receipts by Farm Service Agency farm

number for each member.

(b) Approved cooperatives shall at

least annually report by commodity and

by crop the marketing loan gains, loan

deficiency payments, and any other CCC

program payments received on behalf of

each producer member.

Signed in Washington, DC, on December

23, 1994.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–560 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Parts 614 and 618

RIN 3052–AB51

Loan Policies and Operations; General

Provisions; Collateral Evaluation

Requirements, Actions on

Applications, Review of Credit

Decisions, and Releasing Information

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice of effective date;

technical amendment.

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit

Administration (FCA) published an

interim rule with request for comments

on September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46725),

amending 12 CFR parts 614 and 618 to

change collateral evaluation

requirements for Farm Credit System

(FCS or System) institutions. The rule

also made conforming changes related

to Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve (FRB) regulations interpreting

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act

(ECOA). In accordance with 12 U.S.C.

2252, the effective date of the rule is 30

days from the date of publication in the

Federal Register during which either or

both Houses of Congress are in session.

Based on the records of the sessions of

Congress, the effective date of the

regulations is January 4, 1995.

DATES: The regulations amending 12

CFR parts 614 and 618, published on

September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46725) are

effective January 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis K. Carpenter, Senior Policy

Analyst, Office of Examination, Farm

Credit Administration, McLean, VA

22102–5090, (703) 883–4498, TDD

(703) 883–4444, or

James M. Morris, Senior Attorney,

Office of General Counsel, Farm

Credit Administration, McLean, VA

22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TDD

(703) 883–4444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General

The amendments to 12 CFR parts 614

and 618, as published (59 FR 46725),

address issues raised by recent

regulatory revisions by the other Federal

financial institutions’ regulatory

agencies (Federal regulatory agencies),1

comments received in response to the

FCA’s published request for ‘‘regulatory

burden’’ comments (58 FR 34003, June

23, 1993), and amendments made to
2684 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

2The FRB published final regulations (Regulation

B) on December 16, 1993 (58 FR 65657)

implementing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15

U.S.C. 1691–1691f, as amended by the FDIC

Improvement Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102–242, 105

Stat. 2236.

FRB regulations interpreting the Equal

Credit Opportunity Act.2

The FCA Board received six comment

letters in response to its request for

comments on the interim rule.

Comments were received from the Farm

Credit Council (FCC), two Farm Credit

Banks (FCBs), one agricultural credit

association (ACA), the American

Society of Farm Managers and Rural

Appraisers, Inc. (ASFMRA), and the

American Society of Appraisers (ASA).

Based upon a review of the comments

received, the FCA has made a technical

revision to § 614.4260(c)(5) to clarify

what constitutes a ‘‘subsequent loan

transaction.’’ However, the FCA does

not find it necessary to further amend

the regulations as published on

September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46725). The

FCA does believe the comments raise

some issues needing clarification, and

discusses those issues in the following

section-by-section analysis.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Section 614.4245—Collateral

Evaluation Policies

An FCB commented that it would be

appropriate to amend § 614.4245 to

provide that the collateral evaluation

policy adopted by an institution’s board

shall identify when a collateral

evaluation will be required for a loan

servicing transaction, but at a minimum

require a collateral evaluation when a

loan servicing transaction either

involves the advancing of new funds, or

would alter or affect the institution’s

collateral position.

The FCA’s position is that, at a

minimum, a collateral valuation will be

completed on all ‘‘subsequent loan

transactions,’’ (as specified in

§ 614.4260(c)(5), which include but are

not limited to servicing actions,

reamortizations, modifications of loan

terms, partial releases, etc.). Depending

upon the circumstances and nature of

the subsequent loan transaction and its

impact upon the adequacy of the

collateral, such collateral valuations

may take the form of an updated report

referencing previous evaluations or a

more detailed evaluation. The

explanatory language of the interim

regulation indicated that a new real

estate appraisal will be completed when

there has been an advancement of new

funds (including capitalizing interest)

and there has been a material increase

in the credit risk. If there are no new

funds advanced (other than reasonable

closing costs) or, even if new funds have

been advanced but there has been no

material increase in the risk then a

valuation may be sufficient, depending

upon the institution’s policies and

procedures and the individual

circumstances. The form and content of

the valuation may range from an update,

referencing previous evaluations and

any changes, to a more detailed

‘‘limited’’ or ‘‘complete’’ evaluation (as

defined by USPAP).

B. Section 614.4255—Independence

Requirements

The FCC requested clarification that

the internal control procedures may

provide for post-review of credit

decisions on a sampling basis. The ACA

commented that the wording in this

section implies that all credit decisions

are either prior approved or postreviewed, and requested that credit

decisions be post-reviewed on a

sampling basis.

Section 614.4255 requires the

institution to have appropriate internal

controls in place if they intend to use

officers and employees as evaluators.

The regulation refers the reader to

§ 618.8430 for guidance for the required

internal controls. Section 618.8430

requires institutions to establish

appropriate internal control policies and

procedures that provide effective

control over operations of the

institution, including standards for

collateral evaluation and scope of

review selection. The regulation

provides the institution the flexibility to

establish the scope of the collateral and

credit review (including sampling) as

part of the institution’s internal

controls. The FCA considers a sampling

of individual credit decisions to be an

acceptable internal control as long as

the scope of selection is sufficient to

adequately identify risk in the loan

portfolio.

C. Section 614.4260—Evaluation

Requirements

When an appraisal by a State licensed

or certified appraiser is not required, the

FCC and ACA believe it would be more

clear and less susceptible to

misinterpretation if, ‘‘subsequent loan

transaction’’ were defined to include

specific loan servicing actions, such as

reamortizations and partial releases.

Similarly, an FCB believes it would be

helpful if the regulation itself clearly

stated that subsequent loan transactions

include loan servicing transactions such

as reamortizations and releases.

It is the intent of the regulations that

‘‘subsequent loan transactions’’ include,

but are not limited to, transactions such

as renewals, reamortizations, partial

releases, and modifications of loan

repayment terms and maturity dates.

Therefore, the FCA has made a technical

change to the regulation

(§ 614.4260(c)(5)) to further identify

examples of ‘‘subsequent loan

transactions’’ where a real estate

appraisal may not be necessary.

Another FCB suggested that portions

of FCA’s explanatory comments

contained in the preamble seem to be in

conflict as to when an evaluation is

needed on servicing actions. The FCB

urges the FCA to clarify that a new

evaluation is required only when new

funds are advanced or there is a material

increase in credit risk. The FCB also

contends that requiring a collateral

evaluation on all subsequent loan

transactions is overly burdensome.

A similar comment has been

addressed in the discussion of

§ 614.4245. Whenever there is a

subsequent loan transaction the

institution must make a determination

as to the effect upon the adequacy of the

collateral securing the loan as well as

the impact upon the overall credit

characteristics of the loan. Depending

upon the circumstances, this can be

accomplished through the completion of

a collateral valuation or a real estate

appraisal. As stated earlier, the form and

content of the valuation may require

nothing more than a restricted report

identifying the affected collateral,

references to previous evaluations, and

recognition of any material changes.

However, depending upon the nature of

the subsequent transaction and the

effect upon the collateral and the

associated risk the institution may be

required to provide a more detailed

evaluation report ranging from a limited

report to a full USPAP appraisal.

The ASFMRA was concerned that all

of the Federal regulatory agencies had

fashioned too broad an exception for a

business loan, creating an effective ‘‘de

minimis’’ of $1,000,000, regardless of

the purpose of the loan. The ASFMRA

believes that a $250,000 limit should

apply where the purpose of the loan is

for real estate acquisition or permanent

improvement.

The FCA recognizes the concern of

the ASFMRA as it relates to the

application of the $1,000,000 business

loan exception. However, the FCA

believes that, in accordance with the

March 31, 1993 Presidential directive,

absent safety and soundness concerns,

lenders must be afforded additional

flexibility to provide credit to smalland medium-sized businesses. The

Federal regulatory agencies have

provided this flexibility with the

$1,000,000 exception provision. The
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2685

3Subsequent to the publication of the FCA’s

interim collateral evaluation regulation revisions

the other Federal financial regulatory agencies

adopted, on October 27, 1994, a set of ‘‘Interagency

Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines’’ which

provide guidance for the development and

application of prudent appraisal and evaluation

policies, procedures, practices, and standards. Such

guidelines are similar to the guidelines established

in the FCA’s collateral evaluation regulations.

FCA does not believe that the

$1,000,000 exception creates undue risk

for System institutions since the FCA’s

regulations still require full compliance

with the Uniform Standards of

Professional Appraisal Practices

(USPAP) requirements for all loans in

excess of the $250,000 de minimis level.

The FCA regulation is conservative

because it establishes minimum criteria

for all collateral evaluations, whether

completed under USPAP or not.3 These

FCA criteria provide flexibility for the

presentation of the evaluation, but

otherwise are comparable to the

‘‘departure provision’’ minimums

contained in USPAP.

The ASA strongly opposed those

portions of the Interim Rule that it felt

would ‘‘exempt the vast majority of farm

credit loan transactions from the

appraisal requirements of Title XI of the

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,

and Enforcement Act of 1989

(FIRREA).’’ The ASA believes that FCA

has underestimated the risk to safety

and soundness created by exempting 90

percent of the FCS’s real estate loan

volume and close to 80 percent of total

loan volume from professional appraisal

requirements. In addition, the ASA

contends that the cost differential

between an appraisal and a valuation of

approximately $300 per evaluation

reported by the System is overestimated

and does not take into account the

significant reduction in costs that will

occur once System institutions are

permitted to obtain limited appraisals

prepared pursuant to USPAP’s

Departure Provision. The ASA further

stated that the FCA may have

overlooked substantial opposition to the

Federal regulatory agencies’ appraisal

rule changes from Federal regional

banking and thrift regulatory officials,

and even from the thrift industry itself.

The FCA has reviewed the comments

received from the ASA and considered

those comments in the context of their

application to the operations and risk of

the FCS institutions. In addition to

reviewing ASA’s written comments, the

FCA, at the ASA’s request, met with

representatives of the ASA to discuss

the proposed final rule and their

concerns. The FCA understands the

basis for the ASA’s concerns with the

standards for state-sanctioned

appraisers and risk in residential

lending markets but believes that the

portfolio structure and associated risks

of the System are different. The FCS

institutions’ portfolios contain only a

small percentage of residential loans,

representing only 6 percent of the total

real estate mortgage loan volume and 13

percent of the total number of mortgage

loans. It should also be noted that

FIRREA does not apply to FCS

institutions. The FCA’s regulations do,

however, address similar appraisal

policies in addition to concerns and

issues specifically related to the FCS

institutions and their collateral

evaluation requirements. As indicated

by the statistics cited earlier, the large

majority of the System’s loans and

related collateral is agricultural in

nature, therefore requiring agriculturalbased knowledge and evaluation

standards. The fact that an individual is

a State licensed or certified appraiser

does not ensure that the individual

possesses the necessary training and

expertise to value a given agricultural

property. On the other hand, there are

individuals who have the training and

expertise to value such properties, but

have not obtained a State license or

certification.

FCA’s regulations require the FCS

institutions to establish criteria and

standards concerning educational and

expertise levels necessary to adequately

and competently value the types of

collateral found within the institution’s

portfolio. The FCA collateral regulations

constitute only one of a number of

statutory and regulatory controls placed

on System institutions (e.g., maximum

loan to value of 85 percent, first lien

requirements for mortgage loans, and

annual FCA examinations). These

statutory and regulatory requirements

form the framework for addressing

certain safety and soundness concerns.

In addition, the System institutions are

restricted by certain statutory eligibility

requirements which serve to limit the

outer boundaries of the FCS lending

institutions’ activities. Given the

existence of these additional statutory

and regulatory requirements, the FCA

believes that the collateral evaluation

requirements contained in the Interim

Rule adequately identify and address

System risks from a safety and

soundness standpoint.

D. Section 614.4265—Real Property

Evaluations

An FCB commented that the cost of

compliance with this section of the

regulation is unjustified considering

that other regulators do not require this

level of compliance with USPAP for real

estate collateral evaluations on

‘‘business loans’’ that are in excess of

$250,000 and not otherwise exempted

by § 614.4260(c). Therefore, the FCB

urges FCA to delete the requirement for

USPAP compliance for business loans

over $250,000 and less than $1,000,000.

Another FCB commented that most

appraisers with the training necessary to

perform a real estate evaluation in

compliance with USPAP are in fact

state-certified or state-licensed and that

this requirement therefore makes the

exemption meaningless, placing the

System at a severe competitive

disadvantage. The ACA also maintained

that the cost of compliance with this

section of the regulation is unjustified

considering that other regulators do not

require this level of compliance with

USPAP. Both FCBs and the ACA believe

that the requirement places System

institutions at a competitive

disadvantage.

On the other hand, the ASFMRA

applauded the FCA’s action to require

that all evaluations above $250,000 meet

the standards established under USPAP,

but it was troubled by the provision

allowing valuations to be completed by

persons who are not licensed or

certified. The ASFMRA urged the FCA

to consider extending the USPAP

provision to recognize that all

valuations, irrespective of the ‘‘de

minimis’’ level, be completed under

USPAP or under the Departure

provision of USPAP.

The ASA stated that by requiring all

real estate valuations to be performed by

licensed or certified appraisers in

accordance with USPAP, the FCA could

achieve all of the regulatory flexibility it

deems necessary and reduce regulatory

burden even below the level set by the

Interim Rule. The ASA contends that

instead of easing the burden of

regulatory compliance, the Interim Rule

only adds to the patchwork of confusing

exemption criteria under which the

necessity for obtaining a licensed or

certified appraisal will be dependent on

an analysis, for each loan, of a variety

of complex factors. They also contend

that because many of these factors are so

subjective in nature that they almost

invite noncompliance. Both the ASA

and ASFMRA proposed that the FCA

extend USPAP requirements to all FCS

loan transactions where collateral is

valued.

The FCA believes that financial

institutions operating in today’s

environment must engage collateral

evaluators that are cognizant of the

current appraisal industry standards,

including knowledge of and compliance

with the USPAP standards. In order for

lenders to accept appraisal reports as

support for their credit decisions there

must be an assurance that such reports
2686 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

are accurate and adequate to withstand

the legal and technical scrutiny of

borrower rights, foreclosure,

bankruptcy, and other adverse credit

actions. Therefore, the FCA also

believes that anyone valuing any form of

collateral should be familiar with, and,

when required by the regulations,

comply with USPAP.

While it might be argued that there is

some additional expense involved with

USPAP related training and compliance

(e.g., field training, USPAP compliance

training, and compliance with basic

educational course requirements), such

expenses are considered necessary to

comply with the industry standards and

current prudent lending practices. It is

FCA’s position that knowledge of

current appraisal industry practices

(including USPAP standards) is a

necessary part of any evaluator training

that is developed and provided by the

System institutions pursuant to the

requirements of § 614.4245. The FCA’s

regulations do provide flexibility to the

System relative to the use of specific

forms and the providing of necessary

training requirements. However,

whether conducted internally or

through various appraiser affiliated

educational programs, there is an

expected level of education, expertise,

and familiarity with USPAP standards.

Therefore, the FCA does not view the

requirement for USPAP on transactions

in excess of the $250,000 de minimis

level to create an unnecessary expense

burden.

The FCA regulations provide basic

criteria for collateral evaluation

practices in order to address safety and

soundness concerns. However, an

additional intent of the regulations is to

provide the FCS institutions flexibility

to administer their own programs

within the confines of state appraisal

agencies and appraisal industry

standards. It is not the intent of the FCA

to dictate the form of the evaluation

process, but rather to establish the basic

criteria. The FCA believes that adopting

full USPAP compliance for all

collateral-based loan transactions would

be unnecessary and overly burdensome.

The FCA also believes the regulations

provide a balanced approach which

addresses the concerns of both the

appraisal industry and the System.

E. Section 614.4443—Review Process

An FCB requested clarification of the

deletion of the language ‘‘or a borrower

who has applied for a restructuring’’

that is now in the existing regulation,

lest it be read as excluding borrowers

seeking restructuring.’’

By definition (§ 614.4440(b)) the term

applicant means ‘‘any person who

completes and executes a formal

application for an extension of credit

from a qualified lender, or a borrower

who completes an application for

restructuring.’’ A borrower whose

application for restructuring has been

denied has the rights specified in

§ 614.4443(c), including the right to

obtain an independent collateral

evaluation. It is not the intent of the

FCA to exclude borrowers who have

applied for restructuring.

F. Section 618.8320—Data Regarding

Borrowers and Loan Applicants

An FCB urged FCA to consider

seeking clarification of the Federal

Reserve Board’s position on redacting

confidential third-party information

from copies of appraisals provided to

applicants.

The present amendment of § 618.8320

conforms FCA regulations to reflect the

requirements of the Equal Credit

Opportunity Act. Section 618.8320 is

being amended to state that collateral

evaluation reports may be released to a

loan applicant when required by the

ECOA or related regulations. The ECOA

is interpreted by the FRB which has

amended its regulations to require

release of ‘‘appraisal reports.’’ Those

regulations define ‘‘appraisal report’’ to

mean the documents relied upon by a

creditor in evaluating the value of the

dwelling. (See 12 CFR 202.5a(c). The

FRB, in its explanatory language

concerning the published final

regulation (58 FR 65657, December 16,

1993), provided a discussion of the

appraisal report definition as follows:

The statute does not define an appraisal

report; however, the legislative history

suggests that it is the complete appraisal

report signed by the appraiser, including all

information submitted to the lender by the

appraiser for the purpose of determining the

value of residential property. The proposed

definition was based on the legislative

history, and stated that an appraisal report

referred to the documents relied upon by a

creditor in evaluating the market value of

residential property containing one-to-four

family units on which a lien will be taken as

collateral for an extension of credit,

including reports prepared by the creditor.

The proposal stated that an appraisal report

would not be limited to reports prepared by

third parties.

The final rule provides the same meaning

for an appraisal report as was proposed, but

the definition has been shortened for clarity.

A consumer who requests a copy of the

appraisal report will be entitled to receive a

copy of any third party appraisal that has

been performed. For consistency with the

rules implementing the prohibitions of the

Fair Housing Act on discrimination in

appraising residential real property, an

appraisal report includes all written

comments and other documents submitted to

the creditor in support of the appraiser’s

estimate or opinion of value. (See 24 CFR

100.135(b).)

The ‘‘appraisal report’’ does not include

copies of ‘‘review appraisals,’’ agency-issued

statements of appraised value, or any internal

documents if a third party appraisal report

was used to establish the value of the

security. Even when a third party appraisal

has been performed, however, a consumer

requesting a copy of the report also must

receive a copy of documents that reflect the

creditor’s valuation of the dwelling when

that valuation is different from that stated in

the third party appraisal report. Such

documents would include staff appraisals or

other notes indicating why the value

assigned by the third party appraiser is not

the appropriate valuation.

The right to receive a copy of an appraisal

report provided under Regulation B includes,

but is not limited to, transactions in which

appraisals by a licensed or certified appraiser

are required by federal law. If the value of the

dwelling has been determined by the creditor

and a third party appraiser has not been

used, the appraisal report would be the

report of the creditor’s staff appraiser, where

applicable, or the other documents of the

creditor which assign value to the dwelling.

The FCA believes that the

aforementioned discussion taken from

the FRB’s final rule publication

provides a reasonable and thorough

explanation of what constitutes an

‘‘appraisal report.’’ However, any

further clarification of the scope of the

Regulation B requirement should be

derived directly from the FRB.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 614

Agriculture, Banks, banking, Foreign

trade, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Rural areas.

For reasons stated in the preamble,

part 614 of chapter VI, title 12 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

to read as follows:

PART 614—LOAN POLICIES AND

OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 614

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10,

2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.15, 3.0,

3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, 4.12, 4.12A,

4.13, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 4.14D, 4.14E,

4.18, 4.19, 4.36, 4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2,

7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of the Farm

Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015,

2017, 2018, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091,

2093, 2094, 2096, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128,

2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2199,

2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d, 2202e,

2206, 2207, 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252,

2279a, 2279a–2, 2279b, 2279b–1, 2279b–2,

2279f, 2279f–1, 2279aa, 2279aa–5); sec. 413

of Pub. L. 100–233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2687

Subpart F—Collateral Evaluation

Requirements

2. Section 614.4260 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

§ 614.4260 Evaluation requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(5) Subsequent loan transactions

(which include but are not limited to

loan servicing actions, reamortizations,

modifications of loan terms, and partial

releases), provided that either:

* * * * *

Dated: January 5, 1995.

Floyd Fithian,

Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration

Board.

[FR Doc. 95–678 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 25148; Admt. No. 121–240]

Antidrug Program for Personnel

Engaged in Specified Aviation

Activities; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to a final rule, Antidrug

Program for Personnel Engaged in

Specified Aviation Activities;

Correction, published in the Federal

Register on December 28, 1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Julie B. Murdoch, (202) 366–6710.

Correction to Final Rule

In the final rule beginning on page

66672, in the issue of Wednesday,

December 28, 1994, the following

correction is being made:

1. On page 66672, second column, in

the heading, the amendment number

should be ‘‘121–240’’.

Dated: January 4, 1995.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief

Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95–596 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–94–159]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Fore River, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has changed

the regulations governing the Quincy

Weymouth SR3A Bridge over the Fore

River at mile 3.5 between Quincy Point

and North Weymouth, Massachusetts.

This final rule changes the exemption in

the regulations which had allowed any

commercial vessel to obtain a bridge

opening during the two vehicular traffic

rush hour periods. This final rule will

require the bridge to open only for selfpropelled vessels greater than 10,000

gross tons during the two rush hour

periods. This change to the regulations

is expected to alleviate some of the

traffic congestion caused when the

bridge opens during rush hour.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this preamble

are available for copying and inspection

at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge

Branch office located in the Captain

John Foster Williams Federal Building,

408 Atlantic Ave., Boston,

Massachusetts 02110–3350, room 628,

between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except federal holidays.

The telephone number is (617) 223–

8364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John W. McDonald, Project Manager,

Bridge Branch, (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this final rule are Mr. John W.

McDonald, Project Officer, Bridge

Branch, and Lieutenant Commander

Samuel R. Watkins, Project Counsel,

District Legal Office.

Regulatory History

On September 27, 1994, the Coast

Guard published a notice of proposed

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Drawbridge

Operation Regulations; Fore River,

Massachusetts’’ in the Federal Register

(59 FR 49228). The Coast Guard

received three letters commenting on

the proposal. No public hearing was

requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard received requests

from state and local officials to change

the operating regulations listed in 33

CFR 117.621 which state that the

Quincy Weymouth Bridge need not be

opened from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and

from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday. However, commercial

vessels were exempt from these two

vehicular rush hour closed periods and

could have the bridge opened on signal

at any time. Traffic delays resulted

whenever the bridge opened during the

morning and evening rush hours.

This final rule will change the

wording to allow only self-propelled

vessels greater than 10,000 gross tons to

obtain a bridge opening during the two

rush hour periods. By further limiting

the number of rush hour openings, this

change to the regulations should

provide relief from traffic delays.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Three comment letters were received

by the Coast Guard in response to the

publication of the notice of proposed

rulemaking. Two letters were in favor of

the proposed change to the regulations.

One letter urged that the existing

regulations be retained. No changes to

the proposed rule have been made.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

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

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

final rule to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This

conclusion is based on the fact that the

regulation will not prevent mariners

from passing through the Quincy

Weymouth Bridge, but will only require

mariners to plan their transits around

the two closed periods.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

considered whether this final rule will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ may include (1) small

businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not