This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

30737 

Vol. 78, No. 100 

Thursday, May 23, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 948 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–12–0044; FV12–948–2 

FR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; 

Reestablishment of Membership on the 

Colorado Potato Administrative 

Committee, Area No. 2 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule reestablishes 

the membership on the Colorado Potato 

Administrative Committee, Area No. 2 

(Committee). The Committee locally 

administers the marketing order 

regulating the handling of Irish potatoes 

grown in Colorado. This action modifies 

the Committee membership structure by 

amending the position allocated to a 

producer from Conejos County. 

Beginning with the 2013–2014 term of 

office, the designated Committee 

position will be allocated to an eligible 

producer operating in either Conejos or 

Costilla County. This action is expected 

to improve Committee representation 

for producers from this sub-region of the 

production area. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Coleman, Marketing Specialist, or Gary 

Olson, Regional Director, Northwest 

Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order 

and Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; 

Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 

326–7440, or Email: 

Sue.Coleman@ams.usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing 

Agreement No. 97 and Marketing Order 

No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 

948), regulating the handling of Irish 

potatoes grown in Colorado, hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is 

effective under the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This action is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This final rule reestablishes the 

membership structure of the Committee. 

This action modifies the current 

Committee membership structure by 

amending the position currently 

allocated to a producer from Conejos 

County. Beginning with the 2013–2014 

term of office, the designated Committee 

position will be allocated to an eligible 

producer operating in either Conejos or 

Costilla County. This action is expected 

to improve Committee representation 

for producers from this sub-region of the 

production area. This change was 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a meeting held on July 19, 

2012. 

Section 948.4 of the order divides the 

State of Colorado into three areas of 

regulation for marketing order purposes. 

These areas include: Area No. 1, 

commonly known as the Western Slope; 

Area No. 2, commonly known as San 

Luis Valley; and, Area No. 3, which 

consists of the remaining producing 

areas within the State of Colorado not 

included in the definition of Area No. 

1 or Area No. 2. Currently, the order 

only regulates the handling of potatoes 

produced in Area No. 2 and Area No. 3. 

Regulation for Area No. 1 has been 

suspended. 

Section 948.50 of the order establishes 

committees as administrative agencies 

for each of the areas set forth under 

§ 948.4. The reestablishment of areas, 

subdivisions of areas, the distribution of 

representation among the subdivision of 

areas, or among marketing organizations 

within the areas is authorized under 

§ 948.53. Such reestablishment is made 

by the Secretary upon the 

recommendation of the affected area 

committee. In recommending any such 

changes, the area committee shall 

consider, among other things, the 

relative production and the geographic 

locations of producing sections as they 

would affect the efficiency of 

administration of the order. 

Section 948.150(a) of the order’s 

administrative rules prescribes the Area 

No. 2 Committee membership, as 

reestablished under previous 

rulemaking actions, with nine producer 

members and five handler members. 

The nine producer positions are 

designated to represent various subregions of the production area. 

Currently, § 948.150(a)(3) specifically 

allocates one of those producer 

positions to a producer from Conejos 

County. 

At its meeting on July 19, 2012, the 

Committee unanimously recommended 

modifying the Committee membership 

structure by amending the position 

allocated to a producer from Conejos 

County. The Committee acknowledged 

that the position has been increasingly 

hard to fill as the number of potato 

producers located in Conejos County 

eligible to serve on the Committee has 

declined. The Committee attributed the 

decrease in the number of producers to 

a number of issues in that area, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
30738 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

including competition from alternative 

crops and industry consolidation. 

The Committee believes that 

allocating the position specified in 

§ 948.150(a)(3) to a producer from either 

Conejos or Costilla County, instead of 

just from Conejos County, will increase 

the pool of potential Committee 

participants from that general subregion of the production area. Conejos 

County and Costilla County adjoin each 

other on the southern boundary of the 

production area and share similar 

climates, soils, production resources, 

and marketing opportunities. Producers 

from either of the two counties will be 

able to adequately represent this subregion of the production area on the 

Committee. Currently, producers from 

Costilla County are represented on the 

Committee by the position allocated in 

§ 948.150(a)(5), which represents all 

other counties in Area No. 2 that do not 

have representation specified in 

§ 948.150(a)(1) through (4). This change 

is expected to increase the pool of 

potential participants eligible to serve 

on the Committee and to improve 

representation for producers from both 

Conejos and Costilla Counties. This 

action was unanimously recommended 

by the full Committee. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 

U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 80 handlers 

of Colorado Area No. 2 potatoes subject 

to regulation under the order and 

approximately 180 producers in the 

regulated production area. Small 

agricultural service firms are defined by 

the Small Business Administration (13 

CFR 121.201) as those having annual 

receipts of less than $7,000,000, and 

small agricultural producers are defined 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $750,000. 

During the 2010–2011 marketing year, 

the most recent full marketing year for 

which statistics are available, 

15,583,512 hundredweight of Colorado 

Area No. 2 potatoes were inspected 

under the order and sold into the fresh 

market. Based on an estimated average 

f.o.b. price of $12.75 per 

hundredweight, the Committee 

estimates that 71 Area No. 2 handlers, 

or about 89 percent, had annual receipts 

of less than $7,000,000. In view of the 

foregoing, the majority of Colorado Area 

No. 2 potato handlers may be classified 

as small entities. 

In addition, based on information 

provided by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, the average producer 

price for Colorado fall potatoes for 

2010–2011 was $9.37 per 

hundredweight. The average annual 

fresh potato revenue for each of the 180 

Colorado Area No. 2 potato producers is 

therefore calculated to be approximately 

$811,208. Consequently, on average, 

many of the Area No. 2 Colorado potato 

producers may not be classified as small 

entities. 

This final rule reestablishes the Area 

No. 2 Committee membership structure 

currently prescribed under § 948.150(a) 

of the order by amending the position 

allocated to a producer from Conejos 

County (§ 948.150(a)(3)). Beginning with 

the 2013–2014 term of office, the 

designated Committee position will be 

allocated to an eligible producer 

operating in either Conejos or Costilla 

County. Authority for this action is 

contained in §§ 948.50 and 948.53. 

At the meeting, the Committee 

discussed the impact of this change on 

handlers and producers. This action is 

expected to improve Committee 

representation for producers from this 

general sub-region of the production 

area. Further, the modification is not 

anticipated to have any financial or 

regulatory impact on the area’s potato 

producers or handlers. Lastly, the 

benefits resulting from this action are 

equally available to all handlers and 

producers regardless of their size. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this change including taking no 

immediate action, reviewing the issue in 

the future, and redesignating the 

Committee position to be an at-large 

position that could be filled by 

producers from across the entire 

production area. 

The Committee believes that 

representation on the Committee by 

producers from each of the sub-regions 

of the production area is important for 

the efficient administration of the order. 

The Committee also feels that the 

declining trend in the number of 

producers in Conejos County is not 

likely to be self-reversing. As such, the 

Committee determined that there would 

not be any benefit to delaying corrective 

action to resolve this Committee 

representation issue and readdressing it 

in the future. In addition, the Committee 

determined that changing the position 

designated to a producer from Conejos 

County into an at-large position could 

jeopardize the representation for 

producers from that southern subregion. As such, the Committee 

concluded that neither of the above 

options would be sufficiently 

responsive to the current situation and 

that modifying the membership 

structure as recommended is the best 

course of action to take at this time. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this action are necessary. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This final rule will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

potato handlers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. In 

addition, USDA has not identified any 

relevant Federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this final rule. 

Further, the Committee’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

Colorado potato industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations. Like all 

Committee meetings, the July 19, 2012, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on February 11, 2013 (78 FR 

9629). An internet link to the proposed 

rule was published in a monthly 

industry newsletter distributed to 

growers, handlers, and other interested 

persons. Finally, the proposed rule was 

made available through the Internet by 

USDA and the Office of the Federal 

Register. A 60-day comment period 

ending April 12, 2013, was provided to 

allow interested persons to respond to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 30739 

1 78 FR 4726 (Jan. 22, 2013). 

2The other rules include: Ability-to-Repay and 

Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in 

Lending Act (Regulation Z) (2013 ATR Final Rule), 

78 FR 6407 (Jan. 30, 2013); High-Cost Mortgages 

and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to 

the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and 

Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the 

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation 

X) (2013 HOEPA Final Rule), 78 FR 6855 (Jan. 31, 

2013); Disclosure and Delivery Requirements for 

Copies of Appraisals and Other Written Valuations 

under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation 

B) (2013 ECOA Appraisals Final Rule), 78 FR 7215 

(Jan. 31, 2013); Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the 

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation 

X) (2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule), 78 FR 10695 

(Feb. 14, 2013); Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the 

Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (2013 TILA 

Servicing Final Rule), 78 FR 10901 (Feb. 14, 2013); 

Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans 

(issued jointly with other agencies) (2013 

Interagency Appraisals Final Rule), 78 FR 10367 

(Feb. 13, 2013); and Loan Originator Compensation 

Requirements under the Truth in Lending Act 

(Regulation Z) (2013 Loan Originator Final Rule), 78 

FR 11279 (Feb. 15, 2013). On the same day that the 

Bureau issued the 2013 ATR Final Rule, it also 

issued a proposal to amend some aspects of it (2013 

ATR Concurrent Proposal), 78 FR 6621 (Jan. 30, 

2013). 

3The Bureau has received questions regarding the 

timing of the establishment of escrow accounts 

under § 1026.35. The Bureau understands that 

escrow accounts are arranged before consummation 

of a loan, and funded at consummation. Such 

procedures are in compliance with the regulation. 

In addition, the Bureau has received questions 

about loan modifications and would like to point 

out that the escrow requirement for HPMLs does 

not apply to modifications to existing loans, only 

refinances. For guidance on which changes to 

existing loans will be treated as refinances under 

Regulation Z, see 12 CFR 1026.20(a) and associated 

commentary. 

4The specific provisions that rely on the ‘‘rural’’ 

and ‘‘underserved’’ definitions are as follows: (1) 

the § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii) exemption to the 2013 

Escrows Final Rule’s escrow requirement for 

higher-priced mortgage loans; (2) the § 1026.43(f) 

allowance for balloon-payment qualified mortgages; 

(3) the § 1026.32(d)(1)(ii)(C) exemption from the 

balloon-payment prohibition on high-cost 

mortgages for balloon-payment qualified mortgages; 

and (4) the § 1026.35(c)(4)(vii)(H) exemption from 

the § 1026.35(c)(4)(i) HPML second appraisal 

requirement for credit transactions used to acquire 

property located in a rural county. 

the proposal. No comments were 

received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this action, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this final rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (5 

U.S.C. 553) because the 2013–2014 term 

of office will begin on June 1, 2013. 

Further, handlers are aware of this 

action, which was recommended at a 

public meeting. Also, a 60-day comment 

period was provided for in the proposed 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 948—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN COLORADO 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 948 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 948.150, paragraph (a)(3) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 948.150 Reestablishment of committee 

membership. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) One (1) producer from either 

Conejos or Costilla County. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 17, 2013. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12240 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1026 

[Docket No. CFPB–2013–0009] 

RIN 3170–AA37 

Amendments to the 2013 Escrows 

Final Rule under the Truth in Lending 

Act (Regulation Z) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule; official 

interpretations. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing 

clarifying and technical amendments to 

a final rule issued by the Bureau on 

January 10, 2013, which, among other 

things, lengthens the time for which a 

mandatory escrow account established 

for a higher-priced mortgage loan 

(HPML) must be maintained. The rule 

also established an exemption from the 

escrow requirement for certain creditors 

that operate predominantly in ‘‘rural’’ or 

‘‘underserved’’ areas. The amendments 

clarify the determination method for the 

‘‘rural’’ and ‘‘underserved’’ designations 

and keep in place certain existing 

protections for HPMLs until other 

similar provisions take effect in January 

2014. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 1, 

2013, except for the addition of 

§ 1026.35(e), which will be effective 

from June 1, 2013 through January 9, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Whitney Patross, Attorney; Joseph 

Devlin and Richard Arculin, Counsels; 

Office of Regulations, at (202) 435–7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Final Rule 

In January 2013, the Bureau issued 

several final rules concerning mortgage 

markets in the United States pursuant to 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank 

Act), Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 

1376 (2010) (2013 Title XIV Final 

Rules). One of these rules was Escrow 

Requirements Under the Truth in 

Lending Act (Regulation Z) (2013 

Escrows Final Rule),1 issued on January 

10.2 The rule expanded on an existing 

Regulation Z requirement that creditors 

maintain escrow accounts for HPMLs 3

and created an exemption for certain 

loans made by certain creditors that 

operate predominantly in ‘‘rural’’ or 

‘‘underserved’’ areas. Three other of the 

2013 Title XIV Final Rules also contain 

provisions affecting certain loans made 

in ‘‘rural’’ or ‘‘underserved’’ areas. 

This final rule now makes certain 

clarifying and technical amendments to 

the provisions adopted in the 2013 

Escrows Final Rule, including 

clarification of how to determine 

whether a county is considered ‘‘rural’’ 

or ‘‘underserved’’ for the application of 

the escrows requirement and the other 

Dodd-Frank Act regulations.4

Specifically, the Bureau is clarifying 

how a county’s ‘‘rural’’ and 

‘‘underserved’’ status may be 

determined based on currently 

applicable Urban Influence Codes 

(UICs) established by the United States 

Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service (USDA–ERS) (for 

‘‘rural’’) or based on Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA) data (for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES