This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

15622

Vol. 62, No. 63

Wednesday, April 2, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1435

RIN 0560–AE94

Sugar Loan Program Crop Year

Definition and Loan Availability Period

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

redefine the crop year for the sugar loan

program from the current period, July 1

through June 30, to the Federal fiscal

year, October 1 through September 30.

The proposed rule also would extend

the loan availability period to the whole

fiscal year instead of ending the

availability period on June 30. The

restriction that the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) could only make

loans in July, August, and September on

sugar processed from sugarcane or sugar

beets that are normally harvested in

those months would be removed. The

proposed rule would also eliminate

obsolete provisions governing the 1995

crop year price support program and

producer protections and revise the

information collection requirements to

reflect the simplified monthly datareporting forms and the transfer of

reporting items to new annual reporting

forms.

DATES: Comments on this rule must be

received on or before June 2, 1997 to be

assured of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Colacicco, Farm Service Agency,

United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) STOP 0516, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–

0516, telephone 202–690–0734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This rule has been determined to be

not significant and therefore was not

reviewed by OMB under Executive

Order 12866.

Federal Assistance Program

The title and number of the Federal

assistance program, as found in the

Catalogue of Federal Domestic

Assistance, to which this proposed rule

applies are Commodity Loans and

Purchases—10.051.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been determined that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not

applicable because CCC is not required

by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision

of law to publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking with respect to the subject

matter of this rule.

Environmental Evaluation

An Environmental Evaluation with

respect to the proposed rule has been

completed. It has been determined that

this action will not have significant

adverse effects on environmental factors

such as wildlife habitat, water quality,

air quality, land use, and appearance.

Therefore, neither an Environmental

Assessment nor an Environmental

Impact Statement is needed.

Executive Order 12372

This program is not subject to the

provisions of Executive Order 12372,

which requires intergovernmental

consultation with State and local

officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR

part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR

29115 (June 24, 1983).

Paperwork Reduction Act

Title: 7 CFR Part 1435, Sugar Program.

OMB Number: 0560–0138.

Date of Approval Expiration: July 31,

1998.

Type of Request: Revision of

previously approved information

collection.

Abstract: The Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

(1996 Act) requires the Department of

Agriculture to collect and publish, on a

monthly basis, information as the

Secretary may require to administer

sugar programs, including sales of

sugarcane, sugar beets, and sugar, and

production, importation, distribution,

and stock levels of sugar. The Farm

Service Agency uses these data to

estimate supply and use for the monthly

World Agricultural Supply and Demand

Estimates report; establish regional

sugar loan rates; estimate the impact of

alternative sugar policy options on the

sugar market; and publish the monthly

Sweetener Market Data report.

Estimate of Respondent Burden:

Public reporting burden for the revised

collection of information is estimated to

average 56 minutes per response.

Respondents: Domestic sugarcane

processors, sugar beet processors, and

cane sugar refiners.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

49.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 19 responses per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours on Respondents: 864 hours.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information from those

who are to respond, including the use

of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology. Comments may

be sent to the Desk Officer for

Agriculture, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington,

D.C. 20503, and to Dan Colacicco,

Economic and Policy Analysis Staff,

FSA, USDA, STOP 0516, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–0516, (202)690–

0734.

Copies of the information collection

package may be obtained from Fran

Hentz, Economic Policy Analysis Staff,

FSA, USDA, STOP 0516, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–0516, (202)720–

7794.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in these proposed regulations

between 30 and 60 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days

of publication. This does not affect the

deadline for the public to comment to

the Department of Agriculture on the

proposed regulation.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15623

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Executive Order 12998

This proposed rule has been reviewed

in accordance with Executive Order

12998. The provisions of this proposed

rule preempt State laws to the extent

such laws are inconsistent with the

provisions of this proposed rule; are not

retroactive; and are not subject to

administrative appeal remedies.

Background

Paragraph 1435.1(a), which governs

the price support loan program and

producer protections for the 1995 crop

year, is eliminated. The 1995 crop year

ended on June 30, 1996, and all 1995

crop year loans were repaid to CCC

before October 1, 1996.

Sugar Crop Year Definition

The current CCC regulations at

§ 1435.2 define the sugar crop year as

‘‘the period from July 1 through June 30,

inclusive’’. The current July-June crop

year is a carry-over from the

implementation of the Agriculture and

Food Act of 1981, which mandated a

purchase program and a subsequent

price support loan program.

Redefining the crop year to the period

October 1 through September 30 would:

(1) be consistent with the fiscal year,

thus providing a better fit for the

analysis and administration of the sugar

program, (2) reduce the reporting

burden placed on the industry, and (3)

better reflect the beginning of the

harvest, which is the basis for other

commodities’ crop years.

USDA already uses the fiscal year for

the sugar World Agricultural Supply

and Demand Estimates and baseline

budget estimates. The tariff-rate import

quota (TRQ) and marketing assessment

rates are specified in terms of fiscal

years, and the final loan maturity date

is September 30, the end of the fiscal

year.

Changing the crop year definition is

expected to reduce the industry’s

reporting burden and costs because they

will no longer have to provide separate

crop year and fiscal year data to USDA.

The 1996 Act authorizes a sugar

program through the 2002 crop year.

Under the current crop year definition,

the program would apply only to sugar

processed through June 30, 2003.

Changing the crop year definition to the

fiscal year that ends on September 30

cannot change the end of loan program

authority. Thus, the revised rule would

reaffirm that the loan program expires

on June 30, 2003.

Loan Availability Period and

Supplemental Loans

Under current regulations, the loan

availability period ends June 30, which

is consistent with the end of the current

July-June crop year and similar to the

other commodities in terms of the

number of months loans are available

after the beginning of harvest. However,

loans are made available during the

July-September period on sugar from

sugar beets and sugarcane ‘‘normally

harvested’’ during the July-September

period. Sugar pledged as collateral for a

loan during this period may be

repledged as collateral for a

supplemental loan during the following

fiscal year for up to 9 months minus the

number of months the initial loan was

in effect.

The Agricultural Act of 1949 (1949

Act), as amended by the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation, Trade Act of

1990, specified that the Secretary shall

make available to eligible processors

price support loans with respect to

sugar processed from sugar beets and

sugarcane harvested in the last 3 months

of a fiscal year, with supplemental loans

available the following fiscal year for up

to 9 months minus the length of the

initial loan. However, the 1996 Act,

which supersedes the 1949 Act,

provides only that in the case of a loan

made during the last 3 months of a fiscal

year, the collateral may be repledged for

a supplemental loan during the

following fiscal year for up to 9 months

minus the length of the initial loan.

Thus, the 1996 Act eliminates the

restriction that only sugar from sugar

beets or sugarcane harvested in the JulySeptember period is eligible for a loan

during that period.

Extending the loan availability period

through the entire fiscal year and

providing supplemental loans to all

sugar originally pledged for loans

during the July-September period

would: (1) Simplify program regulations

and administration (e.g., by eliminating

continuous harvest loan applications),

(2) increase industry flexibility by

providing loans year-round, thus

increasing its ability to store sugar in

anticipation of better prices, (3) be more

consistent with other sugar program

provisions, and (4) recognize the impact

of desugarization technology.

All loans would be made at the loan

rates in effect at the time the loans are

made. Sugar repledged for loans during

the July-September period would

continue to be ineligible for

supplemental loans.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435

Loan programs—agriculture, Pricesupport programs, Reporting and record

keeping requirements, Sugar.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1435 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1435—SUGAR

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1435 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7272 and 15 U.S.C.

714b and 714c.

2. Section 1435.1 is amended by

removing paragraph (a) and removing

the designation for paragraph (b).

3. In § 1435.2, the definition for Crop

Year is revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Crop year for the 1996 crop means the

period from July 1, 1996 through

September 30, 1997. Crop year for the

1997–2001 crops means the period from

October 1 through September 30,

inclusive, and is identified by the year

in which the crop year begins. For

example, the 1997 crop year begins on

October 1, 1997. The 1997 crop of sugar

beets, sugarcane, or sugar means

domestically-produced sugar beets,

domestically-produced sugarcane, or

sugar processed from domesticallyproduced sugar beets or sugarcane

during the 1997 crop year. Crop year for

the 2002 crop means the period from

October 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.

Sugar from desugaring molasses is

considered to be from the crop year the

desugaring took place.

* * * * *

4. In § 1435.105 paragraphs (a)(1) and

(g) are revised to read as follows:

§ 1435.105 Availability, disbursement, and

maturity of loans.

(a) * * *

(1) File a loan request, as CCC

prescribes, no earlier than July 1 and no

later than September 30 for the 1996

crop year, no earlier than October 1 and

no later than September 30 for the

1997–2001 crop years, and no earlier

than October 1 and no later than June

30 for the 2002 crop year, with the State

committee of the State where such

processor is headquartered, or with a

county committee designated by the

State committee;

* * * * *

(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other

provision of this subpart, processors

receiving loans in July, August, or

September:

(i) Must settle the loan by September

30 following disbursement; and

(ii) May repledge the sugar as

collateral for a supplemental loan.
15624 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(2) Such supplemental loan shall:

(i) Be requested by the processor

during the following October;

(ii) Be recourse or nonrecourse

depending on which type of loan is in

effect according to § 1435.102;

(iii) Be made at the loan rate in effect

at the time the supplemental loan is

made; and

(iv) Mature in 9 months minus the

number of whole months that the initial

loan was in effect.

(3) No loans will be made after June

30, 2003.

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 26,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–8413 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 226

[Regulation Z; Docket No. R–0954]

Truth in Lending

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Economic Growth and

Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of

1996 directs the Board and the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), where possible, to

simplify and improve consumer

disclosures required under the Truth in

Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and

to provide a single format satisfying the

requirements of those laws. If legislation

is necessary to accomplish these goals,

the agencies are to submit legislative

recommendations to the Congress. In

December 1996, the agencies published

for comment an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking. After

consideration of the comments and

further review, the Board has

determined that regulatory changes

alone would be inadequate to achieve

the goals of the Congress and that

legislative changes are necessary to

harmonize TILA and RESPA. Later this

year, the Board and HUD will prepare

a report to the Congress concerning

potential legislative changes. The Board

is publishing this notice to invite

additional public comment on possible

legislative action.

DATES: Comments are due June 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R–0954, and may be mailed

to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Comments also may be delivered to the

Board’s mail room between 8:45 a.m.

and 5:15 p.m. weekdays, or to the

security control room at all other times.

The mail room and the security control

room are accessible from the courtyard

entrance on 20th Street (between

Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW).

If accompanied by an original document

in paper form, comments may be

submitted on 31⁄2 inch or 51⁄4 inch

computer diskettes in any IBMcompatible DOS-based format.

Comments received will be available for

inspection and copying in Room MP–

500 of the Martin Building between 9:00

a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as

provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board’s

Rules Regarding Availability of

Information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheilah A. Goodman or Manley

Williams, Staff Attorneys, Division of

Consumer and Community Affairs,

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, at (202) 452–3667; for

the hearing impaired only, Diane

Jenkins, Telecommunications Device for

the Deaf (TDD), at (202) 452–3544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 30, 1996, the President

signed into law the Economic Growth

and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat.

3009). Section 2101 of that act directs

the Board and HUD to simplify and

improve the disclosures given in a home

mortgage transaction subject to TILA

and RESPA, and to create a single

disclosure that will satisfy the

requirements of both statutes, if

possible. If legislation is necessary to

develop a single simplified disclosure,

the Board and HUD are directed to

submit legislative recommendations to

the Congress.

The statutes impose numerous

requirements and serve various

purposes. TILA seeks to promote the

informed use of consumer credit by

requiring standardized disclosures

about credit terms and costs. The

disclosures are intended to focus

consumers’ attention on certain aspects

of their transaction and to assist them in

comparison shopping. TILA establishes

additional disclosure requirements for

home-secured loans, and in some cases

permits consumers to rescind such

loans. RESPA contains both disclosure

and price-related provisions. It requires

that certain disclosures be given at

various points in most mortgage

transactions to ensure that consumers

receive timely and useful information

about the costs associated with the

transaction. It also prohibits kickbacks

and referral fees to protect consumers

from unnecessarily high settlement

costs.

In December, the Board and HUD

jointly published for comment an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

on the issue of simplifying and

combining the disclosure requirements

of RESPA and TILA (61 FR 69055, Dec.

31, 1996). The notice requested

comment on both regulatory and

statutory changes to improve the current

disclosure scheme. The Board and HUD

received more than 80 comment letters,

primarily from creditors and their

representatives.

Public comments covered a wide

range of issues, and are discussed

below. Nearly all of the

recommendations for reconciling the

two regulations would require

legislative action, such as certain

suggested changes to the timing of

disclosures under the two statutes.

Some that would not require legislative

change have been addressed already;

where disclosures overlap the

requirements have generally been

consolidated. For example, Regulation Z

permits creditors to substitute the good

faith estimate and the settlement

statement required under RESPA for the

itemization of the ‘‘amount financed’’

under TILA. Similarly, Regulation X

permits Regulation Z’s disclosures for

home equity lines of credit to substitute

for the RESPA disclosures. Consistency

between the regulations also increased

when HUD amended Regulation X to

cover subordinate lien loans, and

through the Board’s updates to the

Regulation Z official staff commentary.

For example, the agencies’ regulations

now use similar definitions for the

terms ‘‘assumption,’’ ‘‘refinance,’’ and

‘‘business day.’’

The remainder of the

recommendations for harmonizing TILA

and RESPA generally involve small

changes that could produce minor

improvements in the disclosures, but

probably would not be worth the

corresponding compliance costs

associated with the change, such as for

retraining employees and printing new

forms. More fundamentally, some

commenters noted the importance of

addressing the disclosure scheme under

the two statutes in a comprehensive

fashion rather than by piecemeal

revisions.

Many other commenters

recommended changes solely to

Regulation Z—changes that would not

directly further the objective of creating

a single simplified disclosure, but that

could simplify compliance. For