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

20436

Vol. 60, No. 80

Wednesday, April 26, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 94–102–2]

Importation of Fruit Trees From France

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of reopening and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: We are reopening and

extending the comment period for our

proposed rule to allow Chaenomeles

spp., Cydonia spp., Malus spp., Pyrus

spp., and certain Prunus spp. plants

(except seeds) to be imported into the

United States as restricted articles, if

grown in private nurseries in France

and certified by the French plant

protection service to be free of various

diseases. The same proposed rule also

would remove Laredo, TX, from the list

of ports equipped with plant inspection

stations. This extension will provide

interested persons with additional time

in which to prepare comments on the

proposed rule.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to written comments on Docket No. 94–

102–1 that are received on or before

May 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 94–102–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 94–102–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James Petit de Mange or Mr. Peter

Grosser, Operations Officers, Port

Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River

Road Unit 139, Riverdale, MD, 20737–

1236, (301) 734–8645.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 13, 1995, we published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 13382–

13384, Docket No. 94–102–1) a

proposed rule to amend § 319.37–5(b) of

the regulations to allow Chaenomeles

spp., Cydonia spp., Malus spp., Pyrus

spp., and certain Prunus spp. grown in

private nurseries in France to be

imported as restricted articles into the

United States under the same conditions

already applied to those same articles

when grown in government nurseries in

France. In addition, we proposed to

amend § 319.37–14(b) of the regulations

by removing the port of Laredo, TX,

from the list of ports with plant

inspection stations. Comments on the

proposed rule were required to be

received on or before April 12, 1995.

In response to a request, we are

reopening and extending the public

comment period on Docket No. 94–102–

1 until 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. During this period, other

interested persons may also submit their

comments for our consideration.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff,

151–167, and 450; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a;

7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of

April 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10243 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 202

[Regulation B; Docket No. R–0876]

Equal Credit Opportunity

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Board is publishing for

comment a proposed amendment to

Regulation B (Equal Credit

Opportunity). The proposed amendment

would eliminate the general prohibition

on collecting data relating to an

applicant’s race, color, sex, religion, and

national origin, giving creditors the

option to ask applicants to provide the

information on a voluntary basis. This

amendment would allow data collection

only; creditors still would be prohibited

from considering an applicant’s race,

color, sex, religion, and national origin

in their credit decisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. R–0876, and may be mailed

to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, 20th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Comments also may be delivered to

Room B–2222 of the Eccles Building

between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.

weekdays, or to the guard station in the

Eccles Building courtyard on 20th

Street, NW. (between Constitution

Avenue and C Street) at any time.

Comments received will be available for

inspection 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: Jane

Gell, Sheilah Goodman or Natalie

Taylor, Staff Attorneys, Division of

Consumer and Community Affairs,

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, at (202) 452–3667 or

452–2412; for the hearing impaired

only, Dorothea Thompson,

Telecommunications Device for the

Deaf, at (202) 452–3544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act

(ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691, makes it

unlawful for creditors to discriminate in

any aspect of a credit transaction on the

basis of race, color, sex, religion,

national origin, marital status, age

(provided the applicant has the capacity

to contract), because all or part of an

applicant’s income derives from any

public assistance, or because an

applicant has in good faith exercised

any right under the Consumer Credit

Protection Act. The act is implemented

by the Board’s Regulation B (12 CFR

part 202).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20437

When first passed in 1974, the ECOA

barred discrimination based on sex and

marital status only. The Board’s

regulation, issued in 1975, prohibited

creditors from noting the sex of an

applicant, or inquiring about an

applicant’s childbearing or childrearing

intentions. The regulation also limited

when creditors were allowed to inquire

about marital status or ask for

information about a spouse or former

spouse. These provisions were opposed

by creditors at the time, but received

strong support from women’s groups

and others who believed that if creditors

did not have this information, they

could not use it to discriminate.

The ECOA was amended in 1976 to

expand its coverage to the present

scope. That year, the Board proposed

amendments to Regulation B which

extended the general prohibition on

inquiries into an applicant’s sex and

marital status to most of the newly

covered categories: race, color, religion,

and national origin. The response to the

proposal was mixed. Most consumer

groups and regulatory agencies opposed

the prohibition because they believed

that it would be extremely difficult to

detect discrimination without this

information, while creditors generally

favored the prohibition. The Board

implemented the regulation as

proposed, applying the same reasoning

that supported the 1975 proposal—if

creditors could not collect this

information they would not be able to

use it to discriminate against applicants.

At the same time, several exceptions

to the general prohibition on data

collection were added to Regulation B.

The broadest exception relates to data

notation in home purchase and

refinance mortgage loan transactions

involving the applicant’s principal

dwelling. Since 1976, Regulation B has

required creditors to collect ‘‘monitoring

information’’ (age, sex, marital status,

and race or national origin) for mortgage

loan applicants. This requirement was

added to the regulation because of the

concern expressed by consumer groups

and regulatory agencies regarding the

need for the data to help detect

mortgage lending discrimination.

The regulation also allows creditors to

collect data if required by another

regulation, order, or agreement of a

court or enforcement agency to monitor

or enforce compliance with the ECOA,

Regulation B, or any other federal or

state statute or regulation. This

exception was included in the

regulation so that lenders would not

have to choose between competing

regulations or statutes. For example, the

Small Business Administration (SBA)

requires lenders participating in its 7(a),

or SBA guaranteed, loan program to

collect race and sex information from

each applicant. Under the regulatory

exception, lenders can comply with the

SBA requirements without violating

Regulation B.

Similarly, creditors can collect data

pursuant to the Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act (HMDA) without

concerns about violating Regulation B.

Since 1990, HMDA has required

creditors to collect race or national

origin and sex data from applicants for

home mortgage loans. HMDA’s data

collection requirement is broader than

Regulation B’s because it applies to

most applications for home

improvement loans, as well as

applications for home purchase and

refinance, received by lenders subject to

HMDA.

For the past several years, various

creditors, consumer groups, state and

federal agencies, and congressional

representatives have requested that the

Board amend Regulation B to allow

creditors to collect race and sex data,

primarily in connection with small

business loans but also for consumer

credit, such as installment loans. These

requests have increased with the current

focus on credit discrimination and fair

lending.

Creditors have expressed a variety of

reasons for wanting to collect these data.

Some say they would like to be able to

better audit their lending programs to

ensure that they are in compliance with

fair lending laws. Others want the data

so that they can respond more

effectively to Community Reinvestment

Act (CRA) protests. In addition, some

creditors have indicated that they want

to collect data so that they can better

evaluate their community outreach

programs and the effectiveness of their

marketing programs.

Some regulatory agencies have

expressed an interest in the data

because they believe that it may

increase their ability to detect

discrimination. Community groups have

expressed similar reasons for wanting

the data, that is, so that they can

monitor creditors’ compliance with the

CRA and fair lending laws. It should be

noted, however, that the proposed

amendment would not require creditors

either to collect data or disclose the data

that they collect to the public.

II. Proposed Regulatory Provisions

The proposed amendment to

Regulation B would eliminate the

general prohibition on collecting data

relating to an applicant’s race, color,

sex, religion, or national origin. The

Board is soliciting comment on whether

creditors should be allowed to collect

data concerning an applicant’s religion.

The Board has not received any requests

to allow creditors to collect data on

religion, and, as a general matter,

government monitoring forms do not

typically request such information. It

would be unusual, however, to permit

data collection for all protected

characteristics except religion.

The Board believes that race, color,

sex, or national origin data may be

valuable to consumers and creditors

alike, regardless of the product. The

Board recognizes that for certain credit

products the amount and quality of the

data collected may be of limited use, for

example with credit cards where most

applications are taken by mail or

telephone. Nonetheless, the Board’s

proposal would remove the prohibition

for all credit products. The Board is

concerned that removing the prohibition

for only certain credit products would

add needless complication to the

regulation, and make compliance more

burdensome for creditors. The Board is

seeking comment on this approach.

The amendment would allow data

collection only; consideration of an

applicant’s race, color, sex, religion, and

national origin in a credit decision

would still be prohibited. Consumers

could not be required to provide this

information and creditors would not be

required to collect the information

through visual observation. The

amendment would prohibit creditors

from collecting race, color, sex, religion,

or national origin information by visual

observation, surname, or otherwise, if

the consumer chooses not to supply it.

The Board is soliciting comment on this

approach.

III. Form of Comment Letters

Comment letters should refer to

Docket No. R–0876, and, when possible,

should use a standard Courier typeface

with a type size of 10 or 12 characters

per inch. This will enable the Board to

convert the text in machine-readable

form through electronic scanning, and

will facilitate automated retrieval of

comments for review. Also, 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.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Compliance with the proposed

amendment is voluntary, and therefore

the amendment does not of itself impose

cost. For those institutions that choose

to request the data, there will be some

costs associated with redesigning

application forms, developing or

adapting software programs, training
20438 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

personnel, and with developing systems

to evaluate the information. Since it is

unclear how many institutions will

adopt these procedures, it is not

possible to estimate the costs to

institutions in general.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507 of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 35; 5 CFR 1320.13), there is

no reporting or recordkeeping burden

associated with Regulation B or this

amendment.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 202

Aged, Banks, Banking, Civil rights,

Consumer protection, Credit,

Discrimination, Federal Reserve System,

Marital status discrimination, Penalties,

Religious discrimination, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sex

discrimination.

Certain conventions have been used

to highlight the proposed revisions to

the part. New language is shown inside

bold-faced arrows, while language that

would be removed is set off with boldfaced brackets.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board proposes to amend

12 CFR part 202 as set forth below:

PART 202—EQUAL CREDIT

OPPORTUNITY (REGULATION B)

1. The authority citation for part 202

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1691–1691f.

2. Section 202.5 is amended as

follows:

a. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as

paragraph (b)(5);

b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3);

c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4);

d. Revising paragraph (d)(3); and

e. Removing paragraph (d)(5).

The revisions and addition read as

follows:

§ 202.5 Rules concerning taking of

applications.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) flPermitted inquiries and

collection of information. A creditor

may request applicants to provide their

race, color, sex, religion, and national

origin as part of the application.

Applicants may not be required to

supply the requested information. If an

applicant chooses not to supply the

information, the creditor may not note

or otherwise record the race, color, sex,

religion, and national origin of the

applicant based on visual observation,

surname or other means.

(4) Residency and immigration status.

A creditor may inquire about an

applicant’s permanent residency and

immigration status.

(5)fi * * *

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(3) Sex. [A creditor shall not inquire

about the sex of an applicant.] An

applicant may be requested to designate

a title on an application form (such as

Ms., Miss, Mr., or Mrs.) if the form

discloses that the designation of a title

is optional. An application form shall

otherwise use only terms that are

neutral as to sex.

* * * * *

[(5) Race, color, religion, national

origin. A creditor shall not inquire about

the race, color, religion, or national

origin of an applicant or any other

person in connection with a credit

transaction. A creditor may inquire

about an applicant’s permanent

residency and immigration status.]

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, April 20, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–10230 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Parts 704 and 741

Corporate Credit Unions;

Requirements for Insurance

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would

strengthen the capital of corporate credit

unions, reduce the risk of their

investments, and improve asset-liability

management. It would return corporate

credit unions to their primary functions

of serving as liquidity centers and

service providers and would protect the

safety and soundness of the corporate

credit union system.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked

or posted on NCUA’s electronic bulletin

board by June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Becky

Baker, Secretary of the Board, National

Credit Union Administration, 1775

Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–

3428. Send comments to Ms. Baker via

the bulletin board by dialing 703–518–

6480.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H.

Allen Carver, Director, Office of

Corporate Credit Unions (703) 518–

6640, at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The corporate credit union system

consists of 44 corporate credit unions

serving the nation’s 13,000 natural

person credit unions, and U.S. Central

Credit Union serving the corporate

credit unions. Corporate credit unions

provide liquidity, investment, and

payment services to credit unions. Over

the years, natural person and corporate

credit unions have gradually evolved

into quite different types of institutions.

In 1977, NCUA first issued Part 704,

which dealt specifically with corporate

credit unions. However, it was not until

1992 that the agency broadened Part 704

to address a broad array of corporate

credit union matters. See 57 FR 22626

(May 28, 1992). The regulation has been

in effect for several years, during a time

of great change in the credit union

industry. The Agency has had an

opportunity to see how the regulation

has worked and to consider how it

could be improved. Last year, the Board

amended Section 704.12, governing

representation issues. See 59 FR 59357

(Nov. 17, 1994). After consulting closely

with the corporate credit union

industry, credit union trade

associations, and outside experts, the

Board is now proposing to amend most

of the remaining sections of Part 704

and to add several new sections.

Before analyzing the specific

proposed changes, the Board wishes to

draw the attention of interested parties

to a gross inequity in the corporate

credit union system. NCUA oversight

and supervision of corporate credit

unions has grown in complexity in the

past few years, resulting in additional

costs for NCUA’s corporate credit union

program. Although NCUA examines all

of the corporate credit unions, only

federally chartered corporates currently

pay an operating fee to NCUA. Federally

insured corporate credit unions

maintain a deposit of one percent of

insured shares with the NCUSIF, but

corporates have minimal insured shares,

and the income generated is not

significant. Of course, non federally

insured corporate credit unions neither

pay operating fees to NCUA nor

maintain deposits with the NCUSIF.

The Board is concerned that the

additional monetary burden on federal

credit unions puts them at a competitive

disadvantage and is considering ways to

level the playing field. One option is to

assess all corporate credit unions an

annual examination fee, to be based on

the expenses associated with the NCUA

corporate program. Alternatively, the

Board could abolish the operating fee

for federal corporate credit unions,