Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17635

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

This rule relieves restrictions which

require horses imported from the UAE

to enter the United States only at the

port of New York and be quarantined at

the New York Animal Import Center in

Newburgh, NY, for at least 60 days. This

rule allows horses from the UAE to be

shipped to and quarantined at ports

designated in § 92.303, and reduces the

quarantine period to an average of three

days to meet the quarantine and testing

requirements specified in § 92.308.

Therefore, the Administrator of the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has determined that this rule

should be made effective on the date of

publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

The primary impact of this rule will

be on U.S. importers of horses from the

UAE. The horses imported from the

UAE tend to be higher-valued, purebred

horses. These horses are worth 10 to 20

times more than the average price per

horse from the rest of the world. Few,

if any, of these importers can be

considered a small entity. These

importers will no longer be required to

quarantine horses from the UAE for 60

days at the New York Animal Import

Center in Newburgh, NY. This rule will

allow horses from the UAE to be

shipped to and quarantined at ports

designated in § 92.303, and will reduce

the quarantine and testing period to an

average of three days to meet quarantine

requirements specified in § 92.308.

While no horses are reported in the

‘‘Foreign Agricultural Trade of the

United States’’ as being imported

directly from the UAE, we believe that

each year an average of 10 to 20 horses

are imported indirectly from the UAE

through Europe. Removing the

requirement for a 60-day quarantine at

the New York Animal Import Center in

Newburgh, NY, for horses from the UAE

will make the importation of these

horses less expensive and logistically

easier. We anticipate that the number of

horses imported from the UAE may

slightly increase. We estimate

approximately 50 to 100 horses may be

imported per year, though some of these

horses will only be temporarily

imported to the United States for

particular events, and then transported

back to the UAE. With the very small

number of horses imported from the

UAE, we anticipate the overall

economic impact on businesses and

individuals will be minimal.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Poultry and poultry products,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 92 is

amended as follows:

PART 92—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN

ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND

CERTAIN ANIMAL AND POULTRY

PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER

REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN

MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND

SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON

1. The authority citation for part 92

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b,

134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

§ 92.308 [Amended]

2. In § 92.308, paragraph (a)(2) is

amended by removing ‘‘the United Arab

Emirates,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of

March 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8617 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 215

[Regulation O; Docket No. R–0874]

Loans to Executive Officers, Directors,

and Principal Shareholders of Member

Banks; Loans to Holding Companies

and Affiliates

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board is revising

Regulation O to implement a recent

amendment to section 22(g) of the

Federal Reserve Act, contained in the

Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.

The revision provides that prior

approval of the board of directors is not

required before a member bank may

make a loan to an executive officer that

is secured by a first lien on the

executive officer’s residence.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordon Miller, Attorney (202/452–

2534), Legal Division, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System. For the hearing impaired only,

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD), Dorothea Thompson (202/452–

3544).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

The Riegle Community Development

and Regulatory Improvement Act of

1994 (CDR Act), Pub. L. 103–325, 108

Stat. 2160 (1994), effective September

23, 1994, amended section 22(g) of the

Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 375a, to

eliminate the requirement that prior

approval of the board of directors be

granted before a member bank may

make a loan to an executive officer of

the member bank that is secured by a

first lien on the executive officer’s

residence. Such loans remain subject to

the general requirement for prior

approval under section 22(h) of the

Federal Reserve Act. See 12 U.S.C.

375b(3); 12 CFR 215.4(b). The Board is

revising Regulation O (12 CFR Part 215),

effective April 7, 1995, to conform to the

amendment.

Need for Final Rule Without Comment

The elimination of the prior approval

requirement for loans to an executive

officer secured by a first lien on the

executive officer’s residence was

effective immediately upon enactment

of the CDR Act, and required no action

on the part of the Board to take effect.

The Board therefore finds that it is
17636 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

necessary to revise Regulation O in

order to eliminate a requirement that is

superseded by the CDR Act, and to

clarify that member banks may take

advantage of the recent amendment to

section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act.

The Board, for good cause, finds that

the notice and public comment

procedure normally required is

impractical, unnecessary, and contrary

to the public interest under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B). The Board further finds under

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) that the final rule is

a substantive rule that relieves a

restriction on lending and therefore is

making the final rule effective on April

7, 1995, without regard for the 30-day

period provided for in 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to

publish a final regulatory flexibility

analysis at the time it promulgates a

final rule. One of the requirements of a

final regulatory flexibility analysis, a

succinct statement of the need for, and

objectives of, the final rule (5 U.S.C.

604(a)(1)), is contained in the

supplementary information above. For

the reasons stated above concerning the

need for public comment, the Board has

not sought public comment on the final

rule, and the Board has not considered

any alternatives to the final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3507,

and 5 CFR 1320.130, the Board, under

authority delegated by the Office of

Management and Budget, has reviewed

its amendments to Regulation O. The

Board has determined that its final rule

imposes no additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements, and that

there are no relevant federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the

proposed rule. The final rule will apply

to all member banks, regardless of size.

The final rule should not have a

negative economic impact on small

institutions. Instead, the rule should

relieve the regulatory burden on all

member banks.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 215

Credit, Federal Reserve System,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board is amending 12

CFR Part 215, as set forth below:

PART 215—LOANS TO EXECUTIVE

OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND

PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS OF

MEMBER BANKS (REGULATION O)

1. The authority citation for part 215

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i), 375a(10),

375b(9) and (10), 1817(k)(3) and

1972(2)(G)(ii); Pub. L. 102–242, 105 Stat.

2236.

2. In § 215.5, paragraph (c)(2)

introductory text is revised to read as

follows:

§ 215.5 Additional restrictions on loans to

executive officers of member banks.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) In any amount to finance or

refinance the purchase, construction,

maintenance, or improvement of a

residence of the executive officer,

provided:

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, April 3, 1995.

William W. Wiles,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–8578 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1310

[DEA No. 122F]

RIN 1117–AA25

Contents of Records and Reports

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The interim rule published by

the Deputy Administrator of the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to

clarify what records shall be adequate to

satisfy recordkeeping requirements for

Listed Chemical transactions under

provisions of the Controlled Substances

Act (CSA) as amended by the Chemical

Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988

(CDTA) and the Domestic Chemical

Diversion Control Act of 1993 (DCDCA)

is adopted without change. Specifically,

the amendment clarifies that for

prescription drug products, prescription

and hospital records shall be adequate

to satisfy recordkeeping requirements.

In addition, this final rule clarifies that

for the distribution of these products to

hospitals, pharmacies and other entities,

normal business records shall be

considered adequate if they meet the

requirements of 21 CFR 1310.06 (a) and

(b).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard McClain Jr., Chief, Drug and

Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration, Washington, DC 20537

Telephone (202) 307–7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 11, 1994, the Acting

Administrator of the DEA published an

interim rule (59 FR 51364) which

clarified what records shall be adequate

to satisfy recordkeeping requirements

for listed chemical transactions under

provisions of the Controlled Substances

Act (CSA) as amended by the Chemical

Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988

(CDTA) and the Domestic Chemical

Diversion Control Act of 1993 (DCDCA).

Specifically, this interim rule clarified

that for prescription drug products,

prescription and hospital records kept

in the normal course of medical

treatment are adequate to meet the

recordkeeping requirements for each

record required under 21 CFR 1310.03.

However, the interim notice stated that

reports as specified in 21 CFR 1310.05

and notification requirements as set

forth in 21 CFR 1313 must still be

satisfied for these products. Interested

parties had until November 10, 1994 to

submit comments and objections.

In response to the October 11, 1994

interim rule, one comment was

submitted by Abbott Laboratories. In

this comment Abbott requested that

records for the distribution of

prescription ephedrine injectable

products, which are kept in the normal

course of business, be considered

adequate to satisfy the recordkeeping

requirements, just as prescription and

hospital records kept in the normal

course of medical treatment shall be

considered adequate. Abbott further

stated that normal business records

contain (1) the name and address of

both parties to the transaction; (2) the

date of the regulated transaction; (3) the

name and quantity of the prescription

drug product; (4) the method of transfer;

and (5) an Abbott customer

identification number.

Upon review of Abbott’s comment,

DEA has determined that no further

amendment to the regulations are

required. Existing provisions of 21 CFR

1310.06 (which detail the sufficiency of

records kept in the normal course of

business) are broad enough to enable

businesses to meet the requirements

pertaining to injectable ephedrine

products without any new burden.

Therefore, the interim rule (59 FR