Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29091

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the February 17,

1998, meeting was a public meeting and

all entities, both large and small, were

able to express views on this issue.

This rule imposes no additional

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

on either small or large Walla Walla

sweet onion 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on April 8, 1998 (63 FR 17125).

A copy of the proposed rule was also

sent via facsimile to the administrative

office of the Committee, which in turn

notified Committee members and

industry members. The proposal was

also made available through the Internet

by the Government Printing Office.

A 30-day comment period ending

May 8, 1998, was provided to allow

interested persons the opportunity to

respond to the request for information

and comments. No comments were

received in response to the proposal.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found

and determined that good cause exists

for not postponing the effective date of

this rule until 30 days after publication

in the Federal Register because: (1) The

Committee needs to have sufficient

funds to pay its expenses which are

incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the

Committee’s 1998–99 fiscal period

begins June 1, 1998, and the order

requires that the assessment rate apply

to all assessable sweet onions handled

during that fiscal period; (3) the 1998

sweet onion harvest is expected to begin

in early June due to unseasonably warm

temperatures experienced in early

Spring; (4) handlers are aware of this

action which was recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting; and (5)

a 30-day comment period was provided

for in the proposed rule, and no

comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 956

Sweet onions, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 956 is amended as

follows:

PART 956—SWEET ONIONS GROWN

IN THE WALLA WALLA VALLEY OF

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON AND

NORTHEAST OREGON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 956 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 956.202 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 956.202 Assessment rate.

On and after June 1, 1998, an

assessment rate of $0.21 per 50-pound

bag or equivalent is established for

Walla Walla Sweet Onions.

Dated: May 21, 1998.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–14017 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Utilities Service

Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Parts 1806, 1910, 1922, 1944,

1951, 1955, 1956, 1965, and 3550

RIN 0575–AB99

Reengineering and Reinvention of the

Direct Section 502 and 504 Single

Family Housing (SFH) Programs;

Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Rural

Business-Cooperative Service, Rural

Utilities Service, and Farm Service

Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Reopening of comment period

on interim final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service

(RHS) is reopening the comment period

on proposed revisions to the Agency’s

standards for modest housing in the

direct Single Family Housing (SFH)

program. The Agency published

proposed changes to these standards in

the Federal Register on April 8, 1996

(61 FR 15395), and subsequently

published an interim final rule on

November 22, 1996 (61 FR 59762). This

current action is being taken to solicit

additional comments from the public.

The intended effect is to ensure that the

Agency has regulations in effect which

best define modest housing, and provide

homeownership opportunities to the

maximum number of families within

allocated resources.

DATES: Written comments must be

received June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

submitted, in duplicate, to the Chief,

Regulations and Paperwork

Management Branch, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Stop 0742, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250–0742.

Comments may be submitted via the

Internet by addressing them to

‘‘comments@rus.usda.gov’’ and must

contain the word ‘‘modest’’ in the

subject. All written comments will be

available for public inspection at 300 E

Street, SW, Third Floor, Washington,

D.C. 20546 during normal working

hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Villano, Special Assistant to the

Administrator, RHS, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Room 5017–S, Stop 0701,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250–0701,

telephone (202) 720–1628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 8, 1996, the Agency

published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register (61 FR 15395) to

reinvent and reengineer the direct SFH

programs. An interim final rule was

subsequently published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 59762) on November 22,

1996. The interim final rule requested

additional comments on four sections of

the rule. One of these sections [7 CFR

3550.57(a)] dealt with the Agency’s

standards for modest housing in the

direct SFH program. In brief, the

primary factor for determining whether

a house is modest is whether the cost is

below the section 203(b) maximum loan

limits established by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development. Use

of the section 203(b) limits are not

required by statute in the direct SFH

program; however, they were adopted

by the Agency in 1995 as the primary

factor for determining whether a house

was modest. Prior to 1995, the Agency

used square footage and amenity

standards to make such a determination.

Different square footage requirements

existed for different family sizes, and

the regulations contained an extensive

list of amenities which were not

permitted in houses to be financed by

the Agency. These standards were

overly cumbersome, especially for
29092 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

families seeking to purchase an existing

home, and did not provide sufficient

flexibility. The Agency received

tremendous support when the previous

standards were eliminated.

As mentioned, the new standards for

modest housing became effective in

1995. As the Agency began the process

of reinventing and reengineering the

program in 1996, we became aware of

concerns which impacted our ability to

provide financing on modest homes for

very-low and low-income families in

rural America. For example, in some

rural areas, the section 203(b) loan limit

is higher than the cost of housing the

Agency financed under previous

standards. This is evidenced by an

increase in the average cost of a house

financed by the Agency under the

previous standards and the average cost

of a house financed under the section

203(b) standards, even when the rise in

construction costs is taken into account.

This limits our ability to provide the

maximum number of homeownership

opportunities in rural America within

allocated funds. Concomitantly, in other

areas of rural America, the section

203(b) limits are too low for the Agency

to finance the cost of constructing a

modest home. The percentage of newly

constructed homes financed by the

Agency has dropped significantly since

the Agency began utilizing the section

203(b) limits. This severely limits our

ability to provide homeownership

opportunities for families in many

growing rural communities which are in

dire need of new housing.

For these reasons, when the Agency

published the aforementioned interim

final rule comments were solicited on

alternative methods the Agency could

utilize to ensure that only modest

housing was financed. Seven comments

were received. None of the commentors

wanted the Agency to return to its

previous standards and most supported

continuing with the section 203(b)

limits. No additional criteria were

provided by the commentors. In

retrospect, the Agency believes that at

the time of publication of the interim

final rule, most of the commentors were

not fully aware of the impact of the use

of the 203(b) loan limits in the direct

SFH program. The Agency is again

seeking recommendations on alternative

methods for establishing a standard for

modest housing. The Agency is

currently considering two options.

The first option being considered is to

utilize a multiple of the median income

for the area to establish the maximum

loan amount. In this manner, the

income of the area would assist in

determining a typical modest home for

the area. RHS is considering

establishing a maximum loan amount of

2.5 times the median income for a

family of four. For example, if the

median income for a family of four was

$30,000 in a given county, the

maximum loan would be $75,000

($30,000 times 2.5). For families in

excess of four, the loan limit would be

2.5 times the median income for that

family size.

The second option being considered

is a square footage limitation. The

Agency has no intention of

reconsidering the previous standards in

which amenities were considered and

square footage maximums were set by

specific family size. The proposed

standard is simple and straightforward.

The maximum square footage allowable

would be 1300 square feet of finished

living area. This standard would apply

to existing homes and new construction.

For family sizes in excess of four, the

square footage standard may be

increased by 150 square feet for each

family member over four. The Agency

also proposes to allow the State Director

the authority to provide exceptions on

a case-by-case basis provided the

proposed housing is modest and

alternative homes within the square

footage standards are not readily

available in the market. There would be

no amenity standards except for the

existing requirements that the property

may not have an in-ground pool or be

used for income producing purposes.

Under this option, the Agency is

particularly interested in comments on

how to further satisfy our statutory

mandate to finance only modest

housing, without the need to establish

specific amenity standards. In addition,

the Agency is proposing only one square

footage standard; whereas in the past,

different square footage standards for

existing homes and new construction

existed. The Agency wants comments

on whether a single standard is

appropriate, or whether and why

separate standards should be

established. Also, if two standards are

recommended, what square footage

standards should be established for

existing homes and new construction?

And finally, how should the Agency

define ‘‘finished’’ living area?

The Agency would appreciate

comments on these two options,

together with any recommended

enhancements or changes. In addition,

the Agency is also interested in other

potential standards by which to

determine that housing is modest

provided such standards are simple,

straightforward and not overly

burdensome to our customers.

The Agency generally provides a 60-

day comment period for proposed

changes. However, since the Agency is

only requesting comments on one

standard, a 30-day comment period is

provided. It is the Agency’s objective to

publish a final rule with the proposed

change by September 1, 1998, with an

effective date of October 1, 1998. The

rule would be effective for any current

applicant who had not submitted a sales

contract for the purchase of a home to

the Agency.

Dated: May 21, 1998.

Jan E. Shadburn,

Administrator, Rural Housing Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14149 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. 98–08]

RIN 1557–AB62

Municipal Securities Dealers

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) is issuing a final

rule to revise its Municipal Securities

Dealers regulation to remove

unnecessary provisions. This change

would not have any substantive effect

on the operations of national banks, but

would simplify the OCC’s rule regarding

bank municipal securities dealers

(MSDs) by removing a redundant

restatement of rules found elsewhere.

DATES: The final rule is effective June

29, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph W. Malott, National Bank

Examiner, Treasury and Market Risk

(202) 874–5670; Donald Lamson,

Assistant Director, Securities and

Corporate Practices (202) 874–5210; or

Ursula Pfeil, Attorney, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities (202) 874–5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Discussion of Final

Rule

The OCC is issuing a final rule to

revise its Municipal Securities Dealers

regulation to remove unnecessary

provisions. The OCC had previously

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking on January 16, 1998, and at

that time requested comment on the