Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Notices 19631

Lee St., Oklahoma City, OK 73102,

405–272–7052

Toxicology & Drug Monitoring

Laboratory, University of Missouri

Hospital & Clinics, 2703 Clark Lane,

Suite B, Lower Level, Columbia, MO

65202, 314–882–1273

Toxicology Testing Service, Inc., 5426

N.W. 79th Ave., Miami, FL 33166,

305–593–2260

TOXWORX Laboratories, Inc., 6160

Variel Ave., Woodland Hills, CA

91367, 818–226–4373 (formerly:

Laboratory Specialists, Inc.; Abused

Drug Laboratories; MedTox BioAnalytical, a Division of MedTox

Laboratories, Inc.)

UNILAB, 18408 Oxnard St., Tarzana,

CA 91356, 800–492–0800/818–343–

8191 (formerly: MetWest-BPL

Toxicology Laboratory)

The following laboratory withdrew

from the National Laboratory

Certification Program on April 15, 1996:

PDLA, Inc. (Princeton), 100 Corporate

Court, So. Plainfield, NJ 07080, 908–

769–8500/800–237–7352

The following laboratory withdrew

from the National Laboratory

Certification Program on April 26, 1996:

Holmes Regional Medical Center

Toxicology Laboratory, 5200 Babcock

St., N.E., Suite 107, Palm Bay, FL

32905, 407–726–9920

Richard Kopanda,

Executive Officer, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–10846 Filed 5–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–20–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4051–N–01]

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner; Mortgagee Review

Board Administrative Actions

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with Section

202(c) of the National Housing Act,

notice is hereby given of the cause and

description of administrative actions

taken by HUD’s Mortgagee Review

Board against HUD-approved

mortgagees.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Heyman, Director, Office of

Lender Activities and Program

Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20410, telephone

(202) 708–1515 (this is not a toll-free

number). Hearing- or speech-impaired

individuals may access this number by

calling the Federal Information Relay

Service TTY at 1–800–877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act

(added by Section 142 of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development Reform Act of 1989

(Pub.L. 101–235), approved December

15, 1989, requires that HUD ‘‘publish in

the Federal Register a description of

and the cause for administrative action

against a HUD-approved mortgagee’’ by

the Department’s Mortgagee Review

Board. In compliance with the

requirements of Section 202(c)(5), notice

is hereby given of administrative actions

that have been taken by the Mortgagee

Review Board from October 1, 1995

through March 31, l996.

1. Associate Trust Financial Services;

Camp Springs, Maryland

Action: Proposed withdrawal of HUDFHA mortgagee approval.

Cause: Alleged submission of false

information to the Department in

connection with three HUD-FHA

insured mortgage loan transactions.

2. Directors Mortgage Loan

Corporation/Norwest Mortgage, Inc.;

Des Moines, Iowa

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes indemnification to the

Department for any claim losses in

connection with 56 improperly

originated FHA insured mortgages;

payment of a civil money penalty in the

amount of $56,000; and an independent

CPA review in the future to determine

compliance with the HUD-FHA Section

203(k) program requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD-FHA

Section 203(k) program requirements by

Directors Mortgage Loan Corporation,

which was subsequently purchased by

Norwest Mortgage, Inc. The violations

included: calculating maximum

mortgage amounts using a purchase

contract that did not reflect the true

purchase price; violating the seven unit

limitation; improperly adding mortgage

payments in the property rehabilitation

cost; failure to perform field reviews of

appraisals involving investor loans;

permitting the seller to loan the required

investment for the benefit of the

mortgagor; miscalculating maximum

mortgage amounts by failing to deduct

seller concessions from the purchase

price; and permitting loans to close that

contained alleged false statements.

3. The Money Store; Sacramento,

California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: cancellation of HUD-FHA

insurance in connection with six

improperly originated Title I loans;

payment to the Department in the

amount of $35,000; and a future review

by a CPA or other independent party to

determine compliance with HUD-FHA

Title I program requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD-FHA Title

I property improvement loan program

requirements that included: failure to

properly service Title I loans; failure to

timely submit insurance claims; and

failure to timely report the sale of Title

I notes and transfers of insurance

reserves.

4. Empire Funding Corporation; Austin,

Texas

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: cancellation of HUD-FHA

insurance in connection with seven

improperly originated Title I loans;

indemnification for the Department’s

claim loss on one improperly originated

Title I loan; payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $13,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD-FHA requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD-FHA Title

I property improvement loan program

requirements that included: accepting

falsified completion certificates; alleged

falsified lender inspection reports;

failure to resolve borrower complaints;

permitting dealers to participate without

regard to performance; and failure to

report dealer irregularities.

5. TMI Financial, Inc.; Austin, Texas

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes a voluntary exclusion from

participation in the HUD-FHA Title I

property improvement loan program for

a period of one year and a civil money

penalty of $132,000.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD-FHA Title

I property improvement loan program

requirements that included: submitting

alleged false insurance claims; accepting

falsified completion certificates; alleged

falsified lender inspection reports;

failure to resolve borrower complaints;

and failure to report dealer

irregularities.

6. New England Mortgage Brokers, Inc.;

North Andover, Massachusetts

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment to the Department of

a civil money penalty in the amount of

$3,000; corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA
19632 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Notices

requirements; and a future review by an

independent CPA to determine

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: failure to

implement an adequate Quality Control

Plan; failure to perform quality control

reviews of loan correspondents;

permitting non-exclusive employees to

originate HUD–FHA insured mortgages;

failure to conduct face-to-face

interviews with mortgagors; and paying

a referral fee to an independent

contractor.

7. State Funding, Inc.; Orange,

California

Action: Probation and a civil money

penalty in the amount of $10,000.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: failure to

implement and maintain a Quality

Control Plan for the origination of HUD–

FHA insured mortgages; failure to remit

Up-Front Mortgage Insurance Premiums

within 15 days from the date of loan

closing and to remit late charges and

interest penalties; establishing

subordinate notes in originating HUD–

FHA streamline refinances; and failure

to timely submit loans for endorsement.

8. Calcorp Finance, Inc.; Bell,

California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department in connection with three

improperly originated mortgages; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

cited violations of HUD–FHA

requirements that included: failure to

conduct face-to-face interviews with

borrowers; submitting alleged false

information to HUD–FHA; and failure to

close loans in the company’s name.

9. Pacific Inland Mortgage Corporation;

Anaheim Hills, California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department for any claim losses in

connection with two improperly

originated loans; payment of a civil

money penalty in the amount of $1,000;

and corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: failure to

implement a Quality Control Plan for

the origination of HUD–FHA insured

mortgages; submission of alleged false

information to HUD–FHA; and

permitting borrowers to sign loan

documents in blank.

l0. Western Fidelity Mortgage

Company; Salt Lake City, Utah

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: failure to

comply with reporting requirements

under the Home Mortgage Disclosure

Act (HMDA); and failure to implement

an adequate Quality Control Plan for the

origination of HUD–FHA insured

mortgages.

11. First American Mortgage Company;

Sulphur Springs, Texas

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department for claim losses in

connection with two improperly

originated loans; and corrective action

to assure compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: failure to

perform face-to-face interviews with

borrowers; permitting borrowers to

handcarry verifications of employment;

and failure to implement a Quality

Control Plan.

12. Seacoast Equities, Inc.; La Mesa,

California

Action: Probation and payment of a

civil money penalty in the amount of

$25,000.

Cause: Failure to comply with the

terms of a Settlement Agreement with

the Mortgagee Review Board with

respect to the use of false and

misleading advertising in connection

with the HUD–FHA Title I property

improvement loan program.

13. American Mortgage Professionals;

Escondido, California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

advertising in connection with the

HUD–FHA Title I program.

14. Classic Financial Corporation;

Tustin, California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

advertising in connection with the

HUD–FHA Title I program.

15. Interbank Funding Group; San

Diego, California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

advertising in connection with the

HUD–FHA Title I program.

16. Mortgage America Nationwide;

Grand Terrace, California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

information in connection with the

HUD–FHA Title I program.

17. Unifed Mortgage Corporation; San

Diego, California

Action: Settlement agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

advertising in connection with the

HUD–FHA Title I program.

18. Z and Z Funding Group; San Diego,

California

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $2,000; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

19. K Mortgage Corporation; Wall

Township, New Jersey

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: indemnification and/or

buydown of mortgage amounts of three

overinsured mortgages; indemnification

for any claim loss for one improperly

originated mortgage; refunds to

borrowers of excessive discount points;

and payment of a civil money penalty

of $500.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: originating

HUD–FHA insured mortgages prior to

obtaining the required branch office

approvals; failure to implement and

maintain an adequate Quality Control

Plan; using an identity of interest

closing agent; closing loans that exceed

HUD–FHA maximum mortgage

amounts; unallowable credits to the

borrowers for repairs; charging the

borrowers excessive discount points;
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 86 / Thursday, May 2, 1996 / Notices 19633

failure to determine the source of funds

required for closing; and failure to give

full credit for an earnest money deposit.

20. Davis-Penn Mortgage Company;

Houston, Texas

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: payment to the Department of

a civil money penalty in the amount of

$8,000; and submission of acceptable

rental use agreement with respect to two

multifamily projects.

Cause: Violation of HUD–FHA

multifamily mortgage insurance

program requirements resulting from

improperly accepting payment in full of

two multifamily project mortgages

without obtaining the prior approval of

HUD–FHA.

21. MP Inc. d/b/a Mortgage

Professionals; Irvine, California

Action: Settlement Agreement that

would include: payment of a civil

money penalty in the amount of $2,000;

and corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements.

Cause: Use of false and misleading

advertising in connection with the

HUD–FHA Title I program.

22. Mortgage America Nationwide;

Grand Terrace, California

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department for any claim losses in

connection with two improperly

originated loans; payment of a civil

money penalty in the amount of $500;

and corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: failure to

implement and maintain an adequate

Quality Control Plan; approval of an

ineligible borrower for an insured loan;

failure to properly verify the source

and/or adequacy of the funds to close;

originating a loan that exceeded HUD–

FHA maximum mortgage amount; and

failure to accurately reflect all charges to

the buyers and sellers on the HUD–1

Settlement Statement.

23. Statewide Mortgage Company;

Houston, Texas

Action: Proposed Settlement

Agreement that would include:

indemnification to the Department for

any claim losses in connection with 35

improperly originated Title I property

improvement loans; corrective action to

assure compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements; and a future review by an

independent CPA to determine

compliance by the company’s Bellevue,

Washington branch office with HUD–

FHA Title I program requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA Title

I program requirements including:

failure to conduct a face-to-face or

telephone interview with the borrowers;

approving loan applicants based on

alleged false leases; failure to present

the Title I loan proceeds directly to the

borrowers; alleged falsified property

inspection reports; failure to establish

required equity; and reporting loans for

insurance that contained inaccurate

information.

24. Alliance Mortgage Corporation;

Villa Park, Illinois

Action: Proposed Settlement

Agreement that would include:

indemnification to the Department for

any claim losses in connection with six

improperly originated loans; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: A HUD Office of Inspector

General audit report that disclosed

violations of HUD–FHA requirements

including: failure to conduct face-to-face

interviews with mortgagors; failure to

properly verify borrowers’ gift funds;

failure to properly verify borrower’s

income; understating a borrower’s

liabilities; and failure to maintain an

adequate Quality Control Plan.

25. American City Mortgage

Corporation; Carson, California

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: indemnification to the

Department for any claim losses in

connection with 10 improperly

originated loans; payment of a civil

money penalty in the amount of $7,000;

and corrective action to assure

compliance with HUD–FHA

requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: submitting

loans involving ‘‘strawbuyers’’ to HUD–

FHA for mortgage insurance; using

alleged false information in originating

HUD–FHA insured mortgages; failure to

conduct face-to-face interviews with

mortgagors; failure to document

borrower’s source of funds used for

downpayment and closing costs;

deleting a mortgagor from the title in a

Rate Reduction Refinance transaction;

submitting a defaulted loan to HUD–

FHA for mortgage insurance

endorsement; submitting loans to HUD–

FHA for insurance endorsement that

were overinsured; failure to properly

implement a Quality Control Plan;

failure to properly underwrite loans

submitted by Loan Correspondents; and

closing loans submitted by Loan

Correspondents in the company’s own

name.

26. Home Federal Savings Bank;

Cleveland, Ohio

Action: Proposed Settlement

Agreement that would include

indemnification to the Department for

any claim losses in connection with 21

improperly originated loans.

Cause: Violation of HUD–FHA

requirements by a former employee that

included failure to perform face-to-face

interviews with borrowers; and

submission of false information to the

Department.

27. Western States Mortgage

Corporation; Bellevue, Washington

Action: Settlement Agreement that

includes: payment of a civil money

penalty in the amount of $500; and

corrective action to assure compliance

with HUD–FHA requirements.

Cause: A HUD monitoring review that

disclosed violations of HUD–FHA

requirements including: failure to

implement and maintain an adequate

Quality Control Plan; failure to comply

with HUD–FHA reporting requirements

under the Home Mortgage Disclosure

Act (HMDA); sharing office space and

commingling employees with another

firm; failure to comply with disclosure

requirements under the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA);

annual audit report not in compliance;

originating a loan that exceeded the

HUD–FHA maximum mortgage amount;

failure to maintain complete mortgage

origination files; and failure to utilize

proper gift letters.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal

Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–10845 Filed 5–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV–050–1020–001]

Mojave-Southern Great Basin

Resource Advisory Council—Notice of

Meeting Locations and Times

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION: Resource Advisory Council

meeting locations and times.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act and the Federal Advisory

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5

U.S.C., the Department of the Interior,