Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
28,247 words·~128 min read·
/register/2007/05/31/07-2693A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 104 Thursday, May 31, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25239; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-23-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Aircraft Engine Group
(GEAE)CF6-45A Series, CF6-50A, CF6-50C Series and CF6-50E Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for GEAE CF6-45A, 45A2, -50A, -50C, -50CA, -50C1, -50C2, -50C2B, -50C2D, -50C2F, -50C2R, -50E, -50E1, -50E2, and -50E2B turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require replacing the compressor discharge pressure
(CDP)restoring spring assembly on certain main engine controls
(MECs)or re-marking MECs that already incorporate GEAE Service Bulletin
(SB)No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, dated March 21, 2005. This proposed AD results from reports of five events involving fractured CDP restoring spring assemblies. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of engine thrust control that could lead to loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from General Electric Company via GE-Aviation, Attn: Distributions, 111 Merchant St., Room 230, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246; telephone
(513)552-3272; fax
(513)552-3329. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
(781)238-7773; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25239; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-23-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DOT Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and, any final disposition in person at the DOT Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion We received reports of five field events since 2002, which involved fractured CDP restoring spring assemblies. Four events resulted in in-flight shutdowns, and one event occurred during ground operation and resulted in an engine shutdown. Before 1996, the manufacturer of the spring assemblies welded some spring assemblies such that the gap between the spring and the curved spring seat exceeded 0.002 inch. Analysis shows that spring assemblies with gaps greater than 0.002 inch have high stresses in the spring and can fatigue in the heat affected zone of the weld. Fracture of the spring assembly could cause excessive fuel flow from the MEC, which could result in an uncommanded increase in engine thrust with loss of throttle control. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of engine thrust control that could lead to loss of control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GEAE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007, that describes procedures for replacing the CDP restoring spring assembly and re-marking the MEC data plate, and GEAE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0120, dated March 21, 2007 that describes procedures for replacing the CDP restoring spring assembly. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require replacing the CDP restoring spring assembly on certain MECs and re-marking MECs that already incorporate GEAE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, dated March 21, 2005 or GEAE SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 01, dated May 26, 2006. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 756 GEAE CF6-45A, -50C, and -50E series turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 40 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,787 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $3,770,172. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Electric Company:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25239; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-23-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by July 30, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to General Electric Company Aircraft Engine Group
(GEAE)CF6-45A, 45A2, -50A, -50C, -50CA, -50C1, -50C2, -50C2B, -50C2D -50C2F, -50C2R, -50E, -50E1, -50E2, and -50E2B turbofan engines that have a main engine control
(MEC)with a part number (P/N) specified in Table 1 of this AD installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300 series airplanes, McDonnell Douglas DC-10, KC-10, and MD-10 series airplanes, and Boeing 747 series airplanes. Table 1.—Affected Woodward and GEAE P/Ns for MECs by Engine Model Series Engine model series Woodward P/N GEAE P/N CF6-50A, -50C, -50CA, -50C1, -50C2, -50C2B, -50C2D, -50C2F, -50C2R 8062-275 8062-279 8062-287 9070M55P42 9070M55P44 9070M55P49 8062-289 9070M55P51 8062-819 9070M55P101 8062-822 9070M55P102 8062-824 9070M55P103 8062-823 9070M55P104 8062-826 9070M55P105 8062-827 9070M55P106 8062-828 9070M55P107 8062-829 9070M55P108 CF6-45A, -45A2, -50E, -50E1, -50E2, -50E2B 8062-276 8062-280 8062-290 9187M29P10 9187M29P11 9187M29P14 8062-291 9187M29P15 8062-817 9187M29P100 8062-820 9187M29P101 8062-896 9187M29P22 8062-897 9187M29P23 8062-898 9187M29P20 8062-899 9187M29P21
(d)This AD results from reports of five events involving fractured compressor discharge pressure
(CDP)restoring spring assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine thrust control that could lead to loss of control of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Replacing the CDP Restoring Spring Assembly on CF6-50A Engines and -50C Series Engines
(f)For CF6-50A model engines and -50C series engines that have an MEC that has a P/N listed in Table 1 of this AD, replace the CDP restoring spring assembly as follows in Table 2 of this AD: Table 2.—Compliance Schedule for CF6-50A and -50C Engines If the CDP restoring spring assembly in your MEC Then By Use
(1)Was already replaced using GEAE CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, dated March 21, 2005 Re-mark the MEC The next time the MEC is routed for repair such as the next MEC shop visit Paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007.
(2)Was already replaced within 10,000 or fewer hours time-in-service
(TIS)before the effective date of this AD, and the replacement spring assembly (P/N 3018-248) had zero hours TIS Replace the spring assembly and re-mark the MEC The first MEC shop visit or engine shop visit after the MEC exceeds 10,000 hours TIS, but do not exceed 20,000 hours TIS Paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007.
(3)Has more then 10,000 hours TIS Replace the spring assembly and re-mark the MEC The next MEC shop visit or engine shop visit whichever occurs first Paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007. Replacing the CDP Restoring Spring Assembly on CF6-45A and -50E Series Engines
(g)For CF6-45A series and -50E series engines that have an MEC that has a P/N listed in Table 1 of this AD, replace the CDP restoring spring assembly as follows in Table 3 of this AD: Table 3.—Compliance Schedule for CF6-45A and -50E Engines If the CDP restoring spring assembly in your MEC Then By Use
(1)Was already replaced within 10,000 or fewer hours time-in-service
(TIS)before the effective date of this AD, and the replacement spring assembly (P/N 3018-248) had zero hours TIS Replace the spring assembly and re-mark the MEC The first MEC shop visit or engine shop visit after the MEC exceeds 10,000 hours TIS, but do not exceed 20,000 hours TIS Paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0120, dated March 21, 2007.
(2)Has more then 10,000 hours TIS Replace the spring assembly and re-mark the MEC The next MEC shop visit or engine shop visit whichever occurs first Paragraph 3.A. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0120, dated March 21, 2007. Definition
(h)For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is induction of the engine or MEC into the shop for any cause. Installation Prohibition
(i)After the effective date of the AD, do not install an MEC that:
(1)Has not complied with SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0119, Revision 02, dated March 9, 2007 or earlier revision, or SB No. CF6-50 S/B 73-0120, dated March 21, 2007, or,
(2)Has not had the CDP restoring spring replaced with a spring assembly, P/N 3018-248, or FAA-approved equivalent spring assembly, within the previous 10,000 hours of MEC operation. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(j)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(k)None. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 23, 2007. Fran A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10512 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 62 RIN: 1400-AC29 [Public Notice 5819] Exchange Visitor Program—Sanctions and Terminations AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of State (Department) is proposing to revise its regulations presently set forth at 22 CFR Part 62, Subpart D (Sanctions) and 22 CFR Part 62, Subpart E (Termination and Revocation of Programs). The revised § 62.50 will retain many, but not all, of the provisions of the current regulations, and modifies the reasons for which sanctions may be imposed. One difference in the proposed regulation is the substitution of a panel of three Review Officers to conduct a “paper review” in lieu of a trial-type hearing. This streamlined review process will continue to provide full procedural due process rights. Subpart E, § 62.60 proposes to amend existing regulations to provide for program termination in the case of failure to file an annual management audit, in program categories requiring such audits. A new § 62.62 will provide for termination or denial of redesignation for an entire class of designated programs, if the Department determines that they compromise the national security of the United States, or no longer further the public diplomacy mission of the Department. DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from May 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods: • *Persons with access to the internet may also view this notice and provide comments by going to the regulations.gov Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm* • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* U.S. Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547 • *E-mail: jexchanges@state.gov.* You must include the RIN (1400-AC29) in the subject line of your message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547,
(202)203-7415; or e-mail at *jexchanges@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State is authorized to facilitate and direct educational and cultural exchange activities in order to develop and promote mutual understanding between the people of the United States and other countries of the world, and thus directly impact the relationships between the United States and foreign governments. Educational and cultural exchange is the cornerstone of United States public diplomacy, an integral component of the foreign affairs function of the Department. As set forth in the Regulations, educational and cultural exchanges assist the Department in furthering the foreign policy objectives of the United States. (22 CFR 62.1) The Department designates U.S. government, academic, and private sector entities to conduct educational and cultural exchange programs pursuant to a broad grant of authority provided by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C. 2451 *et seq.* ; the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J); the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277; as well as other statutory enactments, Reorganization Plans and Executive Orders. Under those authorities, designated program sponsors facilitate the entry into the United States of more than 300,000 exchange participants each year. The former United States Information Agency
(USIA)and, as of October 1, 1999, its successor, the U.S. Department of State, have promulgated regulations governing the Exchange Visitor Program. Those regulations now appear at 22 CFR Part 62. Regulations governing sanctions appear at 22 CFR 62.50, and regulations governing termination of a sponsor's designation, at 22 CFR 62.60 through 62.62. The ultimate goals of the sanctions regulations are to further the foreign policy interests of the United States, including protecting the health, safety and welfare of Exchange Visitor Program participants. These regulations largely have remained unchanged since 1993, when USIA undertook a major regulatory reform of the Exchange Visitor Program. The Fulbright-Hays Act is the organic legislation underpinning the entire Exchange Visitor Program. Section 101 of that Act sets forth its purpose: “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange. * * *” The Act authorizes the President to provide for such exchanges if it would strengthen international cooperative relations. The language of the Act and its legislative history make it clear that the Congress considered international educational and cultural exchanges to be a significant part of the public diplomacy efforts of the President in connection with Constitutional prerogatives in conducting foreign affairs. Thus, exchange visitor programs that do not further the public diplomacy goals of the United States should not be designated initially, or retain their designation. Accordingly, it is imperative that the Department have the power to revoke program designations or deny applications for program redesignation when it determines that such programs do not serve the country's public diplomacy goals. The overwhelming majority of designated exchange visitor programs have been a credit to this country's public diplomacy efforts. They adhere to the Department's regulations and clearly further the goals of the Fulbright-Hays Act. Indeed, since 1993, when the Exchange Visitor Program regulations were substantially revised, there have been only five programs whose designations have been revoked. Several programs facing the threat of revocation voluntarily surrendered their designation. However, the Department's Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation (the Office) has imposed lesser sanctions pursuant to current § 62.50 on more than 100 exchange visitor programs since 1993 for various regulatory violations. The experience of the last 12 years has demonstrated that the current sanction regulations, particularly those governing lesser sanctions, have been useful in deterring bad acts and rehabilitating otherwise productive public diplomacy programs. Nevertheless, after 12 years of service, the sanction regulations need clarification and fine-tuning. The proposed regulations slightly modify two of the existing reasons for which the Department may sanction a sponsor, by eliminating the requirement that violations, or patterns of violations, of Part 62 be willful or negligent. Sponsors are required to demonstrate thorough knowledge of Part 62's requirements, and thus any violation or pattern of violation would, arguably, be willful or negligent. Moreover, given the critical role the Exchange Visitor Program plays in the Department's public diplomacy mission, the Department must have the discretion to sanction a sponsor when appropriate, whether or not willfulness or negligence is shown. In addition, under the proposed regulation the Department may sanction a sponsor for two new reasons. The Department may sanction a sponsor for conducting its program in such a way as to undermine the foreign policy objectives of the United States, or compromise the national security interests of the United States. The existing provision for “lesser sanctions” is incorporated in the proposed regulation, with minor modification. As the term implies, such sanctions are imposed for less serious violations of 22 CFR Part 62. The Office will continue to impose lesser sanctions on designated program sponsors that the Office believes have inherent merit, but which have indulged in troublesome practices that threaten their continued designation. Lesser sanctions may include up to a 15 percent (15%) initial reduction in the authorized number of exchange visitors in the sponsor's program or in its geographic area of recruiting or activity, with the imposition of subsequent additional reductions in ten percent (10%) increments if violations continue. The proposed regulation provides that recipients of lesser sanctions will have an opportunity to plead their cases in opposition to or mitigation of the sanctions, in a written submission to the Office, which may lead to the Office's modification or withdrawal of the sanction. The decision of the Office is the final agency decision with regard to lesser sanctions. The proposed regulation provides for four major sanctions: suspension of a program designation, revocation of a program designation, denial of an application for program redesignation, and suspension or revocation of the appointment of a Responsible or Alternate Responsible Officer. The procedures for the major sanctions are essentially the same, with the major difference being that the Office may impose suspension with immediate effectiveness, and a sponsor's initial opposition, submitted to the PDAS, or subsequent request for review by the Review Officer panel does not stay the effective date of that sanction. In addition, the procedure for imposing a suspension, opposition by the sponsor, and decision by the PDAS to confirm, modify or withdraw the suspension, are substantially expedited. This allows the Department to respond quickly when it appears that a sponsor has endangered the health, safety, or welfare of an exchange visitor, or damaged the national security interests of the United States, and also assures the sponsor of a speedy decision by the PDAS. The process for reviewing the decision of the PDAS is essentially the same for all major sanctions. The PDAS must serve on the sponsor a written notice confirming, modifying or withdrawing the sanction, setting out the grounds of the decision, specifying the effective date, and explaining the procedures for requesting review. A timely request by the sponsor for review stays the effective date of the sanction except, as noted above, in the case of suspension. Upon receipt of a request for review, the Department must constitute a panel of three Review Officers, one each designated by the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, and the Legal Adviser. After the panel notifies the parties that it has been constituted, the sponsor files a written submission setting out its arguments for reversal or modification of the sanction, with supporting documentary evidence; the PDAS then files a written submission in response. Additional submissions are allowed only at the request of the Review Officers. The Review Officers may determine, in their discretion, to schedule a short meeting whose purpose is limited to clarification of the written submissions. There will be no transcript of such meeting, and no one may submit evidence. Within 30 days after the meeting, or if none is scheduled, after the last written submission, the panel issues a signed, written decision. 22 CFR 62.50 currently contemplates a trial-type hearing for review of sanction decisions by the PDAS. These trial-type procedures are not required by any applicable statute. The Department has found them to be unwieldy, burdensome and time-consuming, both for itself and for sponsors. The sanction process, including a paper review, set out in this proposed rule would ensure sponsors of adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned decision made upon a clear, manageable record. The Department believes that these provisions protect sponsors from the possibility of any sanction that might be deemed to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and thus satisfy the requirements of procedural due process. The proposed regulation also modifies Subpart E. Current § 62.60 lists circumstances in which a program designation terminates automatically, not as a result of the imposition of a sanction. These circumstances currently are: voluntary termination; inactivity for a specified period; failure to file annual reports for two consecutive years; change of ownership or control; failure to remain in compliance with local, state, federal or professional requirements necessary to carry out the program activity, including loss of accreditation or licensure; and failure to apply for redesignation prior to the conclusion of the current designation period. These provisions are continued, with minor revisions, in the proposed rule. In addition, § 62.60 is amended to include termination of program designation for failure to submit a management audit, in any program category requiring such an audit. Currently this is a requirement only for sponsors of Au Pair programs, but the Department is in the process of revising Subpart A to include the requirement of an annual management audit for additional categories. Finally, a new § 62.62 is proposed, providing for instances in which the Department determines that an entire program category compromises the national security of the United States, or no longer furthers the public diplomacy mission of the Department. Such a determination is inherently within the discretion of the Department, and the proposed rule makes this explicit. Under the proposed rule, if the Department makes such a determination it may either revoke the designations of all programs within the affected class, or deny applications for redesignation within that class, as current designation periods expire. Regulatory Analysis Administrative Procedure Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 The Department has determined that this Proposed Rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is consequently exempt from the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Nonetheless, because of its importance to the public, the Department has elected to solicit comments during a 60-day comment period. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small businesses. The Proposed Rule has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It will not have a substantial effect on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it has been determined that the Proposed Rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of the consultation provisions of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business Since this rulemaking is exempt from 5 U.S.C 553, and no other law requires the Department to give notice of proposed rulemaking, this rulemaking also is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) or Executive Order 13272, section 3(b). [Nonetheless, the Department has analyzed the provisions of the Proposed Rule and certifies that they will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Executive Order 12866, as Amended The Department does not consider this Proposed Rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended, § 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the Proposed Rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order. Executive Order 12988 The Department has reviewed this Proposed Rule in light of §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation. Paperwork Reduction Act This Proposed Rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62 Cultural Exchange Programs. Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM 1. The Authority citation for part 62 is proposed to be amended as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C. 1431-1442, 2451-2460; Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277, Div. G, 112 Stat. 2681-761 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 200; E.O. 12048 of March 27, 1978; 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. p. 168; the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, as amended; Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT) (Pub. L. 107-56), Sec. 416, 115 Stat. 354; and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543. 2. Section 62.50 is revised to read as follows: § 62.50 Sanctions.
(a)*Reasons for sanctions.* The Department of State (Department) may impose sanctions against a sponsor upon a finding by its Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation (the Office) that the sponsor has:
(1)Violated one or more provisions of this part;
(2)Evidenced a pattern of failure to comply with one or more provisions of this Part;
(3)Committed an act of omission or commission, which has or could have the effect of endangering the health, safety, or welfare of an exchange visitor; or
(4)Otherwise conducted its program in such a way as to undermine the foreign policy objectives of the United States, compromise the national security interests of the United States, or bring the Department or the Exchange Visitor Program into notoriety or disrepute.
(b)*Lesser sanctions.*
(1)In order to ensure full compliance with the regulations in this Part, the Department, in its discretion and depending on the nature and seriousness of the violation, may impose any or all of the following sanctions (“lesser sanctions”) on a sponsor upon a finding that the sponsor engaged in any of the acts or omissions set forth in paragraph (a)of this section:
(i)A written reprimand to the sponsor, with a warning that repeated or persistent violations of the regulations in this Part may result in suspension or revocation of the sponsor's Exchange Visitor Program designation, or other sanctions as set forth herein;
(ii)A declaration placing the exchange visitor sponsor's program on probation, for a period of time determined by the Department in its discretion, signifying a pattern of violation of regulations such that further violations could lead to suspension or revocation of the sponsor's Exchange Visitor Program designation, or other sanctions as set forth herein;
(iii)A corrective action plan designed to cure the sponsor's violations; or
(iv)Up to a 15 percent (15%) reduction in the authorized number of exchange visitors in the sponsor's program or in the geographic area of its recruitment or activity. If the sponsor continues to violate the regulations in this Part, the Department may impose subsequent additional reductions, in ten percent (10%) increments, in the authorized number of exchange visitors in the sponsor's program or in the geographic area of its recruitment or activity.
(2)Within ten
(10)days after service of the written notice to the sponsor imposing any of the sanctions set forth in this paragraph, the sponsor may submit to the Office a statement in opposition to or mitigation of the sanction. Such statement shall not exceed 20 pages in length, double-spaced and, if appropriate, may include additional documentary material. Sponsors shall include with all documentary material an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of each document presented. Upon review and consideration of such submission, the Office may, in its discretion, modify, withdraw, or confirm such sanction. All materials the sponsor submits shall become a part of the sponsor's file with the Office.
(3)The decision of the Office is the final Department decision with regard to lesser sanctions in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through
(iv)of this section.
(c)*Suspension.*
(1)Upon a finding that a sponsor has committed a serious act of omission or commission which has or could have the effect of endangering the health, safety, or welfare of an exchange visitor, or of damaging the national security interests of the United States, the Office may serve the sponsor with written notice of its decision to suspend the designation of the sponsor's program for a period not to exceed 120 days. Such notice shall specify the grounds for the sanction and the effective date thereof, advise the sponsor of its right to oppose the suspension, and identify the procedures for submitting a statement of opposition thereto. Suspension under this paragraph need not be preceded by the imposition of any other sanction or notice (2)(i) Within five
(5)days after service of such notice, the sponsor may submit to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs a statement in opposition to the Office's decision. Such statement shall not exceed 20 pages in length, double-spaced, and if appropriate, may include additional documentary material. Sponsors shall include with all documentary material an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of each document presented. The submission of a statement in opposition to the Office's decision shall not serve to stay the effective date of the suspension.
(ii)Within five
(5)days after receipt of, and upon consideration of, such opposition, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall confirm, modify or withdraw the suspension by serving the sponsor with a written decision. Such decision shall specify the grounds therefor, and advise the sponsor of the procedures for requesting review of the decision.
(iii)All materials the sponsor submits shall become a part of the sponsor's file with the Office.
(3)The procedures for review of the decision of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary are set forth in paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4),
(g)and
(h)in this section, except that the submission of a request for review shall not serve to stay the suspension.
(d)*Revocation of designation.*
(1)Upon a finding of any act or omission set forth at paragraph
(a)of this section, the Office may serve a sponsor with not less than 30 days' written notice of its intent to revoke the sponsor's Exchange Visitor Program designation. Such notice shall specify the grounds for the proposed sanction and its effective date, advise the sponsor of its right to oppose the proposed sanction, and identify the procedures for submitting a statement of opposition thereto. Revocation of designation under this paragraph need not be preceded by the imposition of any other sanction or notice.
(i)Within ten
(10)days after service of such written notice of intent to revoke designation, the sponsor may submit to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs a statement in opposition to or mitigation of the proposed sanction, which may include a request for a meeting.
(ii)The submission of such statement shall serve to stay the effective date of the proposed sanction pending the decision of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.
(iii)The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall provide a copy of the statement in opposition to or mitigation of the proposed sanction to the Office. The Office shall submit a statement in response, and shall provide the sponsor with a copy thereof.
(iv)A statement in opposition to or mitigation of the proposed sanction, or statement in response thereto, shall not exceed 25 pages in length, double-spaced and, if appropriate, may include additional documentary material. Any additional documentary material shall include an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of each document presented.
(v)Upon consideration of such statements, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall modify, withdraw, or confirm the proposed sanction by serving the sponsor with a written decision. Such decision shall specify the grounds therefore, identify its effective date, advise the sponsor of its right to request review, and identify the procedures for requesting such review.
(vi)All materials the sponsor submits shall become a part of the sponsor's file with the Office.
(3)Within ten
(10)days after service of such written notice of the decision of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, the sponsor may submit a request for review with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. The submission of such request for review shall serve to stay the effective date of the decision pending the outcome of the review.
(4)Within ten
(10)days after receipt of such request for review, the Department shall designate a panel of three Review Officers pursuant to paragraphs of this section, and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall forward to them all notices, statements, and decisions submitted or provided pursuant to the preceding sections of this paragraph. Thereafter, the review shall be conducted pursuant to paragraph
(h)of this section.
(e)*Denial of application for redesignation.* Upon a finding of any act or omission set forth at § 62.50(a), the Office may serve a sponsor with not less than 30 days' written notice of its intent to deny the sponsor's application for redesignation. Such notice shall specify the grounds for the proposed sanction and its effective date, advise the sponsor of its right to oppose the proposed sanction, and identify the procedures for submitting a statement of opposition thereto. Denial of redesignation under this paragraph need not be preceded by the imposition of any other sanction or notice. The procedures for opposing a proposed denial of redesignation are set forth in paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(4),
(g)and
(h)of this section
(f)*Responsible officers.* The Office may direct a sponsor to suspend or revoke the appointment of a Responsible Officer or Alternate Responsible Officer for any of the reasons set forth in § 62.50(a). The procedures for suspending or revoking a Responsible Officer or Alternate Responsible Officer are set forth at paragraphs (d), (g), and
(h)of this section.
(g)*Review officers.* A panel of three Review Officers shall hear sponsors' requests for review pursuant to § 62.50(c), (d), (e), and (f). The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs shall designate one senior official from an office reporting to him/her, other than the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, as a member of the Panel. The Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs and the Legal Adviser shall each designate one senior official from their bureaus as members of the panel
(h)*Review.* The review Officers may affirm, modify, or reverse the sanction imposed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. The following procedures shall apply to the review:
(1)Upon its designation, the panel of Review Officers shall promptly notify the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the sponsor in writing of the identity of the Review Officers and the address to which all communications with the Review Officers shall be directed.
(2)Within 15 days after service of such notice, the sponsor may submit to the Review Officers four
(4)copies of a statement identifying the grounds on which the sponsor asserts that the decision of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary should be reversed or modified. Any such statement shall not exceed 25 pages in length, double-spaced; and any attachments thereto shall not exceed 50 pages. Sponsors shall include with all attachments an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of each document presented. The Review Officers shall transmit one copy of any such statement to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, who shall, within 15 days after receipt of such statement, submit four
(4)copies of a statement in response. Any such statement shall not exceed 25 pages in length, double-spaced; and any attachments thereto shall not exceed 50 pages. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary shall include with all attachments an index of the documents and a summary of the relevance of each document presented. The Review Officers shall transmit one copy of any such statement to the sponsor. No other submissions shall be made unless specifically authorized by the Review Officers
(3)If the Review Officers determine, in their sole discretion, that a meeting for the purpose of clarification of the written submissions should be held, they shall schedule a meeting to be held within twenty
(20)days after the receipt of the last written submission. The meeting shall be limited to no more than two hours. The purpose of the meeting shall be limited to the clarification of the written submissions. No transcript shall be taken and no evidence, either through documents or by witnesses, shall be received. The sponsor and the representative of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary may attend the meeting on their own behalf and may be accompanied by counsel.
(4)Following the conclusion of the meeting, or the submission of the last written submission if no meeting is held, the Review Officers shall promptly review the submissions of the sponsor and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, and shall issue a signed written decision within thirty
(30)days, stating the basis for their decision. A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the sponsor.
(5)If the Review Officers decide to affirm or modify the sanction, a copy of their decision shall also be delivered to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and to the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State. The Office, at its discretion, may further distribute the decision.
(6)Unless otherwise indicated, the sanction, if affirmed or modified, shall be effective as of the date of the Review Officers' written decision, except in the case of suspension of program designation, which shall be effective as of the date specified pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section.
(i)*Effect of suspension, revocation, or denial of redesignation.* A sponsor against which an order of suspension, revocation, or denial of redesignation has become effective shall not thereafter issue any Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status (form DS-2019) or advertise, recruit for, or otherwise promote its program. Under no circumstances shall the sponsor facilitate the entry of an exchange visitor into the United States. An order of suspension, revocation, or denial of redesignation shall not in any way diminish or restrict the sponsor's legal or financial responsibilities to existing program applicants or participants.
(j)*Miscellaneous.*
(1)*Computation of time.* In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these regulations, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The last day of the period so computed is included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a federal legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is fewer than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, or federal legal holidays are excluded in the computation.
(2)*Service of notice on sponsor.* Service of notice on a sponsor pursuant to this section may be accomplished through written notice by mail, delivery, or facsimile, upon the president, managing director, General Counsel, responsible officer, or alternate responsible officer of the sponsor. 3. Subpart E is revised to read as follows: Subpart E—Termination and Revocation of Programs Sec. 62.60 Termination of designation. 62.61 Revocation. 62.62 Termination of, or denial of redesignation for, a class of designated programs. 62.63 Responsibilites of the sponsor upon termination or revocation. § 62.60 Termination of designation. Designation shall be terminated automatically upon the occurrence of any of the circumstances set forth in this section.
(a)*Voluntary termination.* A sponsor notifies the Department of its intent to terminate its designation voluntarily and withdraws its program in SEVIS. The sponsor's designation shall terminate upon receipt of such notification. Such sponsor may reapply for program designation.
(b)*Inactivity.* A sponsor fails to comply with the minimum program size or duration requirements, as specified in § 62.8
(a)and (b), in any 12-month period. Such sponsor may reapply for program designation.
(c)*Failure to file annual reports.* A sponsor fails to file annual reports for two
(2)consecutive years. Such sponsor is eligible to reapply for program designation upon the filing of the past due annual reports.
(d)*Failure to file an annual management audit.* A sponsor fails to file an annual management audit, if such audits are required in the relevant program category. Such sponsor is eligible to reapply for program designation upon the filing of the past due management audit.
(e)*Change in ownership or control.* A major change in ownership or control occurs. An exchange visitor program designation is not assignable or transferable. However, the successor sponsor may apply to the Department for redesignation, and it may continue the exchange visitor activities while approval of the application for redesignation is pending.
(1)With respect to a for-profit corporation, a major change in ownership or control shall be deemed to have occurred when thirty-three and one-third percent or more of its stock is sold or otherwise transferred within a 12-month period;
(2)With respect to a not-for-profit corporation, a major change of control shall be deemed to have occurred when fifty-one percent or more of the board of trustees or other like body, vested with its management, is replaced within a 12-month period.
(f)*Non-compliance with other requirements.* A sponsor fails to remain in compliance with local, state, federal, or professional requirements necessary to carry out the activity for which it is designated, including loss of accreditation or licensure.
(g)*Failure to apply for redesignation.* A sponsor fails to apply for redesignation pursuant to the terms and conditions of § 62.7, prior to the conclusion of its current designation period. If so terminated, the former sponsor may apply for a new designation, but the program activity shall be suspended during the pendency of the application. § 62.61 Revocation. The Department may terminate a sponsor's program designation by revocation for cause as specified in § 62.50. Such sponsor may not apply for a new designation for five years following the effective date of the revocation. § 62.62 Termination of, or denial of redesignation for, a class of designated programs. The Department may, in its sole discretion, determine that a class of designated programs compromises the national security of the United States, or no longer furthers the public diplomacy mission of the Department of State. Upon such a determination, the Office shall:
(a)Give all sponsors of such programs not less than 30 days' written notice of the revocation of Exchange Visitor Program designations for such programs, specifying therein the grounds and effective date for such revocations; or
(b)Give any sponsor of such programs not less than 30 days' written notice of its denial of the sponsor's application for redesignation, specifying therein the grounds for such denial and effective date of such denial. Revocation of designation or denial of redesignation on the above-specified grounds for a class of designated programs is the final decision of the Department. § 62.63 Responsibilities of the sponsor upon termination or revocation. Upon termination or revocation of its program designation, a sponsor must:
(a)Fulfill its responsibilities to all exchange visitors who are in the United States at the time of the termination or revocation; and
(b)Notify exchange visitors who have not entered the United States that the program has been terminated unless a transfer to another designated program can be obtained. Dated: 23, 2007. Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-10505 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4006 and 4007 RIN 1212-AB11 Premium Rates; Payment of Premiums; Variable-Rate Premium; Pension Protection Act of 2006 AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This is a proposed rule to amend PBGC's regulations on Premium Rates and Payment of Premiums. The amendments would implement provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280) that change the variable-rate premium for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2008, and make other changes to the regulations. (Other provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 that deal with PBGC premiums are the subject of separate rulemaking proceedings.) DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)1212-AB11, may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: reg.comments@pbgc.gov.* • *Fax:* 202-326-4224. • *Mail or Hand Delivery:* Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026. All submissions must include the Regulatory Information Number for this rulemaking (RIN 1212-AB11). Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to *http://www.pbgc.gov* . Copies of comments may also be obtained by writing to Disclosure Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Department; or Catherine B. Klion, Manager, or Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC)administers the pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Pension plans covered by Title IV must pay premiums to PBGC. The flat-rate premium applies to all covered plans; the variable-rate premium applies only to single-employer plans. Section 4006 of ERISA deals with premium rates, including the computation of premiums. Section 4007 of ERISA deals with the payment of premiums, including premium due dates and interest and penalties on premiums not timely paid, and with recordkeeping and audits. On August 17, 2006, the President signed into law the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280 (PPA 2006). PPA 2006 makes changes to the funding rules in Title I of ERISA and in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(Code)on which the variable-rate premium is based. Section 401(a) of PPA 2006 amends the variable-rate premium provisions of section 4006 of ERISA to conform to those changes in the funding rules and to eliminate the full-funding limit exemption from the variable-rate premium. This proposed rule would amend PBGC's regulations on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) and Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007) to implement the amendment to ERISA section 4006 made by PPA 2006. (PPA 2006 also includes other provisions affecting PBGC premiums that are not addressed in this rule, including provisions that cap the variable-rate premium for certain plans of small employers, make permanent the new “termination premium” (created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) that is payable in connection with certain distress and involuntary plan terminations, and authorize PBGC's payment of interest on refunds of overpaid premiums. Those provisions are or will be the subject of other rulemaking actions.) Overview of Proposed Regulatory Changes For purposes of determining a plan's variable-rate premium
(VRP)for a premium payment year beginning after 2007, the proposed rule would require unfunded vested benefits
(UVBs)to be measured as of the funding valuation date for the premium payment year. The asset measure underlying the UVB calculation would be determined for premium purposes the same way it is determined for funding purposes, except that any averaging method adopted for funding purposes would be disregarded. The liability measure underlying the UVB calculation would be determined for premium purposes the same way it is determined for funding purposes, except that only vested benefits would be included and a special premium discount rate structure would be used. Filers would be able to make an election (irrevocable for five years) to use funding discount rates for premium purposes instead of the special premium discount rates. The proposed rule would revise the premium due date and penalty structure to give some plans more time to file and others the ability to make estimated VRP filings and then follow up with adjusted final filings without penalty. Three special relief rules for VRP filers would be eliminated as no longer appropriate or necessary, and two new relief rules would be added. The proposed rule would also explain when certain benefits are considered “vested” and would make some other changes unrelated to PPA 2006. For example, the proposed regulation would provide explicitly that (in the absence of an exemption) a premium filing made on paper or in any other manner other than the prescribed electronic filing method (applicable to all plans for plan years beginning after 2006) does not satisfy the requirement to file. It would also clarify and strengthen recordkeeping and audit provisions. A more detailed discussion follows. Variable-Rate Premium Determination Dates Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(i) and (ii), a plan's per-participant VRP for a plan year is generally— $9.00 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) of unfunded vested benefits [“UVBs”] under the plan as of the close of the preceding plan year divided by the plan's participant count as of the close of the preceding plan year. (Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(H), added by section 405 of PPA 2006, the per-participant VRP is capped at $5 times the participant count as of the close of the prior plan year for certain plans of small employers. The cap provision is the subject of another rulemaking.) Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(A)(i), the per-participant VRP is multiplied by the number of participants “in [the] plan during the plan year” to yield the total VRP. The existing premium rates regulation treats all of these provisions as referring to a single determination date. In most cases, this is the last day of the prior plan year; it is the first day of the premium payment year (the plan year for which the premium is being paid) for two categories of plans: new and newly covered plans (which are not in existence as covered plans on the last day of the prior plan year) and certain plans involved in plan spinoffs and mergers as of the beginning of the premium payment year (which otherwise would double-count or not count certain participants and UVBs for premium purposes). The term “unfunded vested benefits” (“UVBs”) is defined in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii). In pre-PPA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii), “UVBs” is defined as unfunded current liability (a term found in the funding provisions of the Code and Title I of ERISA) determined by counting only vested benefits and using a special interest rate and (under certain circumstances) a special measure of plan assets. PPA 2006 changes the funding rules for single-employer plans, eliminating the concept of current liability for plan years beginning after 2007. (As discussed below, certain plans will not use the new funding rules until a later date.) To conform to this change, PPA 2006 changes the definition of UVBs in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii). As amended by PPA 2006, for plan years beginning after 2007, section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) provides that “UVBs”— Means, for a plan year, the excess (if any) of * * * the funding target of the plan as determined under [ERISA] section 303(d) [corresponding to Code section 430(d)] for the plan year by only taking into account vested benefits and by using the interest rate described in [ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv)], over * * * the fair market value of plan assets for the plan year which are held by the plan on the valuation date. New ERISA section 303(g) says that with certain exceptions not relevant here, “all determinations under this section [which includes the definition of “funding target” in section 303(d)(1)] for a plan year shall be made as of the valuation date of the plan for such plan year.” Thus PBGC concludes that the “valuation date” for plan assets referred to in new section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) is the valuation date determined under section 303(g)(2). In general (under section 303(g)(2)(A)), the valuation date for a plan year is the first day of the plan year, but certain small plans may designate a different valuation date (under section 303(g)(2)(B)), which may be any day in the plan year. The change in the definition of UVBs thus creates ambiguity about the date as of which UVBs are to be measured. Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(ii), which was not changed by PPA 2006, refers to two plan years—the “plan year” for which the VRP is being paid (the premium payment year) and the “preceding plan year,” at the close of which UVBs are to be measured. New section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) refers only to the “plan year” in defining UVBs. And a plan's funding target and assets—the elements of UVBs—are to be measured as of the valuation date, which need not be the close of the plan year and which for many plans (those not small enough to elect otherwise) must be the beginning of the plan year. Accordingly, PBGC must resolve the statutory ambiguity by adopting a rule regarding the date as of which UVBs are to be measured. In view of the following considerations, PBGC proposes to require that UVBs be measured as of the valuation date in the premium payment year rather than a date in the prior plan year. Historical data indicate that most premium filers use beginning-of-the-plan-year valuation dates for funding purposes; under PPA 2006 many of them will be required to do so. Although funding valuations don't themselves produce UVB numbers that can be used for VRP purposes, they involve the gathering of the same basic data for analysis, and the valuations are done in the same way, simply using different assumptions. It would be burdensome and impractical to require plans that must do funding valuations as of the first day of a plan year to do separate valuations as of the last day for VRP purposes. Requiring that a funding valuation done as of the first day of the prior plan year be “rolled forward” to the last day of the prior plan year is likewise burdensome and impractical. Instructions for “roll-forwards” would necessarily be complex, especially in light of the new “segment rate” interest assumption under section 303(h)(2)(C) of PPA 2006 and section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv) of ERISA. And “rolled-forward” valuations would tend to be inaccurate because correcting for the many changes in circumstances that can occur during the course of a year involves a significant element of estimation. Furthermore, basing the VRP on a valuation done in the premium payment year reflects a plan's current funding status much better than basing it on a valuation done in the prior year, especially a valuation done as of the first day of the prior year. And with some changes in PBGC's premium due date and penalty rules, there will be adequate time for plans to compute premiums based on a premium payment year valuation. Accordingly, this proposed rule requires that UVBs be measured as of the valuation date for the premium payment year (referred to as the “UVB valuation date”) and adjusts premium due dates and penalty rules to accommodate the fact that this UVB valuation date is later (by at least a day and in some cases perhaps as much as a year) than “the close of the preceding plan year,” the date used under pre-PPA section 4006(a)(3)(E). (No change is proposed in the date as of which participants are counted, which the revised regulations refer to as the “participant count date.”) Variable-Rate Premium Computation As noted above, UVBs under PPA 2006 are based on a plan's funding target and the market value of its assets. Under new ERISA section 303(d)(1), as set forth in section 102 of PPA 2006, “the funding target of a plan for a plan year is the present value of all benefits accrued or earned under the plan as of the beginning of the plan year.” But new ERISA section 303(g) makes clear that the funding target is to be determined as of the valuation date, which for small plans may not be the beginning of the plan year. PBGC thus believes that what ERISA section 303(d)(1) requires is that the benefits to be valued as of the valuation date are those accrued as of the beginning of the plan year. If the valuation date is later than the first day of the plan year, accruals after the beginning of the plan year are to be ignored. The situation regarding assets is similar. New ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) refers to “the fair market value of plan assets for the plan year which are held by the plan on the valuation date.” Under new ERISA section 303(g)(4)(B), however, plan assets as of a valuation date later than the first day of the plan year do not include contributions for the plan year made during the plan year but before the valuation date or interest thereon. PBGC interprets section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) as incorporating this rule, as well as the corresponding rule for prior-year contributions in section 303(g)(4)(A). Thus for a valuation date later than the first day of the plan year, UVBs would reflect neither accruals nor contributions for the plan year. In general, a plan's funding target and the value of its assets would be determined for premium purposes the same way they are for funding purposes except as new ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) and
(iv)provides otherwise. In order to distinguish the funding target used for premium purposes from that used for funding purposes, the proposed regulation introduces the term “premium funding target.” In general, this means the funding target determined by taking only vested benefits into account and by using the special segment rates described in new ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv) (the “standard premium funding target”). Those special segment rates are “spot rates” (based on bond yields for a single recent month), as opposed to the 24-month average segment rates used for funding purposes. But in certain circumstances (described below), PBGC proposes to permit filers to use an “alternative premium funding target” that may be less burdensome to use than the standard premium funding target. A plan's alternative premium funding target would be the vested portion of the plan's funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1) that is used to determine the plan's minimum contribution under ERISA section 303 for the premium payment year—that is, an amount calculated using the same assumptions as are used to calculate the plan's funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1), but based only on vested benefits, rather than all benefits. Although instructions for post-PPA annual reports on Form 5500 series are not final, PBGC expects plans to be required to compute the vested portion of the funding target (broken down by participant category) for Form 5500 filings. PBGC also expects that the final instructions will permit or require benefits to be categorized as vested or non-vested in a manner consistent with the provisions of the proposed rule (discussed below) that explain when certain benefits are considered vested for premium purposes. The advantage to a filer of using the alternative premium funding target would be that, if the plan determined the vested portion of its funding target for purposes of the annual report (Form 5500 series) in a manner consistent with PBGC's rules, it could use the same number for premium purposes and thus avoid having to do a second calculation for premium purposes alone. Under the proposal, the alternative premium funding target could be used where the plan made an election to do so that would be irrevocable for a period of five years. As financial markets fluctuate, the averaged rates used for the alternative premium funding target will fluctuate above and below the spot rates used for the standard premium funding target. Locking in the election for five years will keep plans from calculating the premium funding target both ways each year and using the smaller number; the reason for permitting use of the alternative premium funding target is to reduce not premiums but the burden of computing premiums. PBGC expects that normal interest rate fluctuations will make premiums computed with the alternative premium funding target—on average, over time—approximately equal to premiums calculated with the standard premium funding target. Requiring a five-year commitment to use of the alternative premium funding target will give this averaging process time to work. Since new ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) speaks explicitly of the “fair market value” of assets, PBGC concludes that it would be inconsistent with the statute to permit or require the use of the averaging process described in new ERISA section 303(g)(3)(B) or the reduction of assets by the prefunding and funding standard carryover balances described in new ERISA section 303(f)(4). (The existing premium rates regulation also provides that credit balances do not reduce assets for premium purposes.) As noted above, however, PBGC believes that adjustments must be made for contributions as described in new ERISA section 303(g)(4). Similar adjustments are required under the current premium rates regulation. For simplicity, PBGC proposes that the adjustments be made using the effective interest rates determined for funding purposes, rather than effective interest rates computed on the basis of the premium segment rates. This will mean that the adjustments do not have to be calculated twice (once for funding purposes and again for premium purposes), and plans can use for premium purposes a figure for the value of assets that they are expected to be entering in the annual report (Form 5500 series). PBGC anticipates that the differences between funding and premium rates and the periods of time over which these rates are applied for this purpose will be small enough to justify this simplification. And as funding rates fluctuate above and below premium rates, the differences in each direction should cancel out over time. PBGC's proposal does not include an “alternative calculation method” for rolling forward prior year values to the current year. The alternative calculation method
(ACM)in § 4006.4(c) of the current premium rates regulation was instituted when much actuarial valuation work was done using hand calculators and tables of factors. High-speed, high-memory computers are now the norm for handling both data and mathematical computations. Actuarial valuations are thus much faster now. Furthermore, the segment rate methodology for valuing benefits does not lend itself to the kind of formulaic transformation process exemplified by the existing ACM. PBGC accordingly believes that an alternative calculation method is both unnecessary and impracticable under PPA 2006. Due Dates and Penalty Rules PBGC expects that most plans that are required (or choose) to do funding valuations as of the beginning of the plan year (and whose UVB valuation date is thus the first day of the premium payment year) will be able to determine their UVBs by the VRP due date currently provided for in PBGC's premium payment regulation (generally, ten and a half months after the beginning of the plan year). But there are some circumstances that can make timely determination of the VRP difficult or impossible: For example, use of a valuation date after the beginning of the plan year (applicable to small plans only) or difficulty in collecting data (e.g., because of the occurrence of unusual events during the preceding year). To deal with such circumstances, PBGC proposes to revise its due date and penalty structure to give smaller plans more time to file and larger plans the ability to make estimated VRP filings and then correct them without penalty. The following detailed discussion of the proposed due date and penalty structure is followed by a summary table. PBGC's current due date structure for flat- and variable-rate premiums is based on two categories of plans: those that owed premiums for 500 or more participants for the plan year preceding the premium payment year (“large” plans) and those that did not. The new structure is based on three categories. The large-plan category remains the same. A new “mid-size” category will consist of plans that owed premiums for 100 or more, but fewer than 500, participants for the plan year preceding the premium payment year. A category of “small” plans will include all other plans. The participant count for this purpose will continue to be the prior year's count; the proposed rule provides uniform language for determining both single- and multiemployer plans' participant counts for determining due dates, eliminating a slight language difference in the existing regulation. The 100-participant break-point between the small and mid-size categories approximates the break-point in the PPA 2006 funding rules between plans that are required to use beginning-of-the-year valuation dates under ERISA section 303(g)(2)(A) and those permitted to use another date under ERISA section 303(g)(2)(B). The correspondence with the valuation date provision is only approximate. Under the valuation date provision, PPA 2006 counts participants on each day of a plan year and aggregates plans within controlled groups; under its premium due date rules, PBGC counts participants in one plan on one day. Furthermore, PPA 2006 funding rules look back to the plan year preceding the valuation year; the PBGC participant count for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is typically as of the last day of the plan year before that. Accordingly, there may be plans that are eligible to elect valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year but that do not fall into PBGC's new small-plan category. But most plans that use valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year are expected to be “small” under the new due date structure, and there is enough flexibility in the due date rules for large and mid-size plans to make premium filing manageable in most cases even for plans with valuation dates after the beginning of the plan year. In unusual cases, where a plan with a valuation date late in the year finds itself in the large or mid-size category, PBGC has authority to waive late premium penalties. Small Plans For plans in the “small” category, PBGC proposes to make all premiums due on the last day of the sixteenth month that begins on or after the first day of the premium payment year (for calendar-year plans, April 30 of the year following the premium payment year). This will give any small plan at least four months to determine UVBs. The same due date will apply to both variable- and flat-rate premiums. While there is no reason these small plans cannot determine the flat-rate premium by the current due date (the 15th day of the tenth month that begins on or after the first day of the premium payment year), PBGC wants to avoid requiring them to make two filings per year. And for simplicity, PBGC is making no distinction for due date purposes between single-employer plans that pay the VRP and single-employer (and multiemployer) plans that do not. Small single-employer plans that qualify for an exemption from the VRP and small multiemployer plans (which are not subject to the VRP) will have the same deferred due date as small single-employer plans that owe a VRP. Mid-Size Plans For mid-size plans, PBGC proposes to retain the current premium due date—the 15th day of the tenth month that begins on or after the first day of the premium payment year (October 15th for calendar-year plans)—for both flat- and variable-rate premiums. With rare exceptions, these plans will perform valuations as of the first day of the premium payment year, and in most cases should be able to calculate UVBs by the current due date. However, in recognition of the possibility that circumstances might make a final UVB determination by the due date difficult or impossible, PBGC proposes to permit estimated VRP filings and to provide a penalty-free “true-up” period to correct an erroneous VRP estimate. Under this provision, the VRP penalty would be waived for a period of time after the VRP due date if, by the VRP due date, the plan administrator submits an estimate of the VRP that meets certain requirements and pays the estimated amount. The waiver of the penalty would cover the period from the VRP due date until the small-plan due date or, if earlier, the filing of the final VRP. Interest would not be suspended; if the VRP estimate fell short of the correct amount, interest would accrue on the amount of the underpayment from the date when the payment was due to the date the shortfall was paid, just as with the existing “safe harbor” rule for large plans” flat-rate premium payments. The requirements for the VRP estimate would be that it be based on
(1)a final determination of the market value of the plan's assets and
(2)a reasonable estimate of the plan's premium funding target for the premium payment year that takes into account the most current data available to the plan's enrolled actuary and is determined in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. The estimate of the premium funding target would have to be certified by the enrolled actuary and, like other premium information filed with PBGC, would be subject to audit. PBGC needs a good estimate of its VRP income for inclusion in its annual report, which is prepared during October (because its fiscal year ends September 30), when most plans (those with calendar plan years) submit VRP filings. Thus, it is important to have assurance that the estimate of the premium funding target has been prepared in good faith. Since this penalty relief is based on the plan's reporting a final figure for the value of assets by the VRP due date, the relief would be lost if there were a mistake in the assets figure so reported, whether the mistaken figure was lower or higher than the true figure. PBGC would consider a request for an appropriate penalty waiver in such a situation and in acting on the request would consider such facts and circumstances as the reason for the mistake, whether assets were over- or understated, and, if assets were overstated, the extent of the overstatement. Large Plans The due date and penalty structure for “large” plans would be the same as for “mid-size” plans except that the early due date for the flat-rate premium under the existing regulation would be retained, along with the related “safe harbor” penalty rules. However, there would be a change in the “safe harbor” rules to accommodate the unlikely event that a plan might be in the small-plan category for one year but in the large-plan category for the next year. Under §§ 4007.8(f) and (g)(2)(ii) of the existing premium payment regulation, a plan may be entitled to safe harbor relief if its flat-rate filing is consistent with its reported participant count for the prior plan year, even if the reported count is later determined to be wrong. But under the new rules, a plan that is small for one year and large for the next year would not have to report its participant count for the first year until after the flat-rate due date for the second year. Thus, to get the benefit of these special safe-harbor rules, a plan in such circumstances would have to make its final filing for the first year two months before it was due. To alleviate this problem, PBGC proposes to provide safe-harbor relief for any plan whose flat-rate due date for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is later than the large-plan flat-rate due date for the premium payment year. Due Date Table The following table shows the relevant premium due dates for small, mid-size, and large calendar year plans (as described above) for the 2008 premium payment year: Small plans (under 100 participants) Mid-size plans (100-499 participants) Large plans (500 or more participants) Flat-rate premium due April 30, 2009 October 15, 2008 February 29, 2008 See flat-rate premium safe harbor rules. Flat-rate premium reconciliation due N/A N/A October 15, 2008. Variable-rate premium due April 30, 2009 October 15, 2008 Estimate may be filed and paid. See rules on correcting VRP without penalty October 15, 2008 Estimate may be filed and paid. See rules on correcting VRP without penalty. Latest VRP penalty starting date. If certain conditions are met, penalty is waived until this date or, if earlier, the date the final VRP is filed N/A April 30, 2009 April 30, 2009. Special Variable-Rate Premium Rules The existing premium rates regulation includes a number of special “exemption” or “relief” rules for VRP filers. One of these—the full-funding limit exemption, which was created by statute—has been eliminated by PPA 2006. Three others—created by PBGC regulation in 1988—have lost their justification, as explained below, and PBGC proposes to eliminate them as well. PBGC is also introducing two new “relief” rules. The three regulatory special rules to be eliminated are
(1)the rule that a plan with fewer than 500 participants for the premium payment year is exempt from reporting its VRP information if the plan has no UVBs (the “small well-funded plan rule”),
(2)the rule that a plan with 500 or more participants may report (and compute its VRP on the basis of) accrued rather than vested benefits (the “large plan accrued benefit rule”), and
(3)the rule that a plan may value benefits using the funding interest rate rather than the variable-rate premium interest rate if the funding rate is less than the premium rate (the “funding interest rate rule”). All three represent compromises between the need for accuracy in the determination of the VRP and the reporting of VRP data on the one hand and the need to reduce the burden of compliance on the other. PBGC needs accurate data about UVBs and assets—now as in 1988—to verify the correctness of the reported VRP and for financial projections. But whereas the cost of determining this information 20 years ago could be very significant, because much actuarial valuation work was done using hand calculators and tables of factors, valuations are now computerized and thus cost less. PBGC's need for accurate data now outweighs the burden of determining and reporting the data. The elimination of these three special rules reflects that change in the balance between need and burden. Furthermore, both the “large plan accrued benefit rule” and the “funding interest rate rule” overstate UVBs and are used by very few plans—fewer than three dozen plans used each of these two special rules for the 2004 filing year (the last year for which data are available). In addition, one of the two new “relief” rules that PBGC is introducing—the new alternative premium funding target provision discussed above—would provide relief for filers that might otherwise have used any of these three special rules. The alternative premium funding target provision permits the use of funding rates for premium purposes (like the “funding interest rate rule”) without the need for a comparison of rates (albeit with a requirement for a five-year commitment). And by using the alternative premium funding target provision, plans that might have used the “large plan accrued benefit rule” or the “small well-funded plan rule” may be able to base premium reporting on figures that are computed for and included in the annual report (Form 5500 series). PBGC's second new “relief” rule—in addition to the alternative premium funding target provision—is a reporting relief provision for certain small-employer plans. Section 405 of PPA 2006 caps the VRP for certain plans of small employers, a provision that is the subject of another PBGC rulemaking proceeding. This proposed rule would exempt plans that qualify for the VRP cap and pay the full amount of the cap from determining or reporting UVBs. Meaning of “Vested” As discussed above, the determination of UVBs—under pre-PPA law as well as under PPA 2006—requires that only vested benefits be taken into account. PBGC believes that there is some uncertainty among pension practitioners as to the meaning of the term “vested” as used in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E). With a view to reducing uncertainty and promoting consistency in the VRP determination process, PBGC proposes to explain—for premium purposes only—when certain benefits are considered vested. The proposal would specify two circumstances that do not prevent a benefit of a participant from being vested for premium purposes. One circumstance is that the benefit is not protected under Code section 411(d)(6) and thus may be eliminated or reduced by the adoption of a plan amendment or by the occurrence of a condition or event (such as a change in marital status). PBGC considers such a benefit to be vested (if the other conditions of entitlement have been met) so long as the benefit has not actually been eliminated or reduced. The other circumstance—applicable to certain benefits payable upon a participant's death—is that the participant is living. The benefits to which this would apply are
(1)a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity,
(2)a post-retirement survivor annuity such as the annuity paid after a participant's death under a joint and survivor or certain and continuous option, and
(3)a benefit that returns a participant's accumulated mandatory employee contributions. PBGC considers such benefits to be vested (if the other conditions of entitlement have been met) notwithstanding that the participant is alive. Recordkeeping and Audits PBGC proposes to clarify and strengthen its rules on recordkeeping and audits. Most of the changes simply reflect existing recordkeeping and audit practices. In describing the premium records to be kept, the current premium payment regulation mentions explicitly only those prepared by enrolled actuaries and insurance carriers. The proposal broadens this to include plan sponsors and employers required to contribute to a plan for their employees and clarifies, with a list of examples of relevant records, that PBGC interprets the term “records” broadly. Similarly, the proposal refers explicitly to records supporting the amount of premiums that were *required* to be paid and the premium-related information that was *required* to be reported (rather than just what was actually paid or reported). Where a premium or premium-related information is determined through the use of a manual or automated system, the proposal allows PBGC to require that the operation of the system be demonstrated so that its effectiveness, and the reliability of the results produced, can be assessed. In addition, in situations where plan records are deficient, the proposal broadens the categories of data on which PBGC may rely to establish the amount of premiums due to include not just participant count data but UVB data. The proposal also makes clear that the 45 days permitted for producing records under § 4007.10(c) applies to records sent to PBGC, not to records audited on-site (which PBGC expects to be produced much more promptly). And PBGC proposes to broaden the circumstances in which it can require faster submission of records. The existing regulation limits such circumstances to those where collection of money may be jeopardized. This would be changed to authorize shorter response times where the interests of PBGC may be prejudiced by delay—such as where PBGC has reason to fear that records might be destroyed or manipulated. Miscellaneous Provisions Plans Not Immediately Subject to New Funding Rules Sections 104, 105, and 106 of PPA 2006 defer the effective date of the funding amendments for certain plans described in those sections, which in general deal with plans of cooperatives, plans affected by settlement agreements with PBGC, and plans of government contractors. Section 402 of PPA 2006 applies special funding rules to certain plans of commercial passenger airlines and airline caterers. None of these provisions affects the applicability of the amendments to ERISA section 4006 regarding the determination of the VRP. The proposed rule provides explicitly that plans in this small group must determine UVBs in the same manner as all other plans. New and Newly Covered Plans The proposed rule would eliminate confusing language in the existing regulations that raised questions about the determination of due dates, participant count dates, and premium proration for new and newly covered plans in certain circumstances. The new language would make clear that the first day of a new plan's first plan year for premium purposes is the effective date of the plan. This change will obviate the need for plan administrators to choose between the effective date and the adoption date as the first day of the plan year for premium filing. Electronic Filing Requirement Effective July 1, 2006, PBGC amended its regulations to require that annual premium filings be made electronically (71 FR 31077, June 1, 2006). (Exemptions from the e-filing requirement may be granted for good cause in appropriate circumstances.) In order for PBGC's premium processing systems to work effectively and efficiently, information must be received in an electronic format compatible with those systems; the burden of reformatting information received on paper or in other incompatible formats is significant, and the reformatting process gives rise to data errors. PBGC therefore proposes to provide explicitly in the premium payment regulation that, in the absence of an exemption, premium filing on paper or in any other manner other than the prescribed electronic filing method does not satisfy the requirement to file. Thus, a penalty under ERISA section 4071 could be assessed for the period from the due date of the premium filing until it was made electronically, even if a timely paper filing was made. Billing “Grace Period” for Interest PBGC proposes to consolidate paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of § 4007.7, both of which deal with the “grace period” for interest on premium underpayments where a bill is paid within 30 days. No substantive change is intended. VRP Rate ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(ii) sets the variable-rate premium at $9 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) of UVBs. Section 4006.3(b) of the existing premium rates regulation omits the phrase “(or fraction thereof).” The requirement is made clear in PBGC's premium instructions, but PBGC proposes to add this phrase to the regulatory text. Pre-1996 Penalty Accrual Rules PBGC proposes to eliminate the pre-1996 penalty accrual rules as anachronistic. Other Changes The proposal includes a number of clarifying and editorial changes. Applicability The regulatory changes made by this rule would apply to plan years beginning after 2007. Compliance With Rulemaking Guidelines E.O. 12866 The PBGC has determined, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has therefore reviewed this notice under E.O. 12866. Pursuant to section 1(b)(1) of E.O. 12866 (as amended by E.O. 13422), PBGC identifies the following specific problems that warrant this agency • There is ambiguity in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E) regarding the date as of which UVBs are to be measured. This problem is significant because, unless the statutory ambiguity is resolved, it will be unclear what date UVBs are to be measured as of. • The statute lacks clarity and specificity in describing how UVBs are calculated. This problem is significant because, unless clarity and specificity are provided, it will be unclear how to compute UVBs. • The statute does not expressly provide for an alternative premium funding target as described above. This problem is significant because the standard premium funding target provided for in the statute is more burdensome to use than the alternative premium funding target described above without generating significantly different premium revenue than the less burdensome alternative premium funding target. • PBGC's existing premium due date and penalty rules do not accord well with the new rules for the date as of which and manner in which UVBs are to be determined. This problem is significant because, without changes in the due date and penalty rules, some plans may experience difficulties in paying premiums timely and without late payment penalties. • Some existing PBGC VRP relief rules are anachronistic and some new relief provisions are warranted by statutory changes. This problem is significant because the outmoded relief rules detract from accuracy in determining the VRP and deprive PBGC of VRP data without significantly reducing burden, while statutory changes have made it possible to grant new relief without significant adverse consequences for the PBGC insurance program. • There is uncertainty as to the meaning of the term “vested” that is used in the statute to describe benefits taken into account in determining the VRP. This problem is significant because, without improved clarity in the meaning of “vested” as applied to VRP determinations, those determinations may be inconsistent. • PBGC's current recordkeeping and audit rules do not match current recordkeeping and audit practices in scope and specificity, and provide relatively narrow circumstances in which PBGC may require expedited submission of records. This problem is significant because inadequate recordkeeping and audit rules could compromise PBGC's ability to enforce the premium rules in the statute and PBGC's regulations thereunder. • PBGC's existing premium payment regulation does not provide explicitly that, in the absence of an exemption, premium filing on paper or in any other manner other than the prescribed electronic filing method does not satisfy the requirement to file. This problem is significant because, in the absence of an explicit statement, filers might believe they had a basis for taking the position that penalties for late filing would not apply if they timely filed on paper or in some other non-approved manner. Regulatory Flexibility Act PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) that the amendments in this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), sections 603 and 604 do not apply. Most of the amendments would implement statutory changes made by Congress. They would provide procedures for calculating, substantiating, and paying the premiums prescribed by statute and impose no significant burden beyond the burden imposed by statute. To the extent that this rule would make changes that are outside the explicit scope of the statute, they would affect primarily the requirement to perform and manner of performing VRP calculations. When the VRP provisions were added to PBGC's regulations nearly 20 years ago, these calculations were mostly done using actuarial tables and hand calculators. Today they are almost universally done using high-memory, high-speed computers. The VRP calculations parallel funding calculations that must be done independently of PBGC premium requirements. Thus, the VRP calculations can be done for the most part by plugging in different parameters (such as interest rates) to computer programs that are used for funding purposes. The incremental cost of such calculations for entities of any size is insignificant. Not including a computation option like the existing alternative computation method
(ACM)in the new rules would not significantly affect compliance costs because such an option would itself be complex and thus burdensome to use and because a simplified computation method is no longer needed in the current environment of computerized actuarial computations. Changes that would tend to increase compliance costs ( *e.g.* , elimination of the VRP exemption for well-funded small plans) would be offset by changes tending to reduce compliance costs ( *e.g.* , the introduction of the reporting exemption for plans of small employers paying the maximum capped VRP). The shift from prior-year to current-year data and the deferral of the due date for small plans (those with fewer than 100 participants) should not affect the cost of compliance. Under existing rules, UVBs are determined as of the end of the prior year (or in some cases the beginning of the current year) and the VRP is due 9 1/2 months later. Under the new rules, UVBs would be determined as of the UVB valuation date, which for most small plans may be any day in the current year. For plans that choose a valuation date at the beginning of the year, the VRP would now be due 16 months later. For those that choose a valuation date at the end of the year, the VRP would now be due 4 months later. For a plan that chooses a mid-year valuation date, the VRP would be due 10 months later, providing about the same time for data-gathering and computations as under the existing rules. But even a 4-month period between the valuation date and the due date should be adequate for the data-gathering and UVB computations of small plans, and the change in timing should not affect the cost of compliance. PBGC believes that the changes to the recordkeeping requirements in general simply codify existing practices. The changes to the audit rules will not affect a significant number of plans of any size. Paperwork Reduction Act PBGC is submitting the information requirements under this proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1212-0009. Copies of PBGC's request may be obtained free of charge by contacting the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4040. PBGC is proposing the following changes to the information requirements under the premium rates and premium payment regulations (except for 2008 estimated flat-rate premium filings, as noted below): • Filers will be required to include in the addresses of the plan sponsor and plan administrator the countries where the addresses are located (if other than the United States). • Filers will no longer be required to report coverage status. • Filers will be required to provide an e-mail address for the plan contact. • Filers will no longer be required to provide information on participant notices under ERISA section 4011 (that requirement having been eliminated by PPA 2006). • Filers will be required to report if they qualify for premium proration (for a short plan year) and if so, to report the number of months in the proration period. Proration will be reported separately from credits. (This change will not apply to 2008 estimated flat-rate premium filings.) • Filers will be required to report plan size (small, mid-size, or large) based on the prior year's participant count (or report that the plan is new). • Filers will have an opportunity to make alternative premium funding target elections as part of the premium filing. • Filers will be required to report the participant count date. • Most existing VRP information items will be eliminated in connection with the implementation of the new VRP rules. Items retained will be the identification of any applicable VRP exemption and the amount of UVBs. • New VRP data required will be qualification for the VRP cap for certain plans of small employers, the UVB valuation date, the premium funding target as of the UVB valuation date, the premium funding target method (standard or alternative), whether the reported premium funding target is an estimate, the segment rates used to compute the premium funding target (or indication that the full yield curve was used), the market value of assets as of the UVB valuation date, the (unprorated) VRP cap (for plans eligible for the cap), and the (unprorated) uncapped VRP (for plans not eligible for the cap). • For a final filing, filers will be required to report the date and type of event that results in the cessation of the filing obligation. • The existing item on transfers from disappearing plans will be replaced by two new items: Information about transfers from other plans (whether disappearing or not) and information about transfers to other plans. (This change will not apply to 2008 estimated flat-rate premium filings.) • For frozen plans, filers will be required to identify the type of freeze and its effective date. • For amended filings, filers will be required to report any change in the beginning and ending dates of the plan year being reported and any change in the plan identifying numbers being reported from those in the original filing. PBGC needs this information to identify the plan for which premiums are paid to PBGC, to verify the determination of the premium, and to help the PBGC determine the magnitude of its exposure in the event of plan termination. PBGC estimates that it will receive annual premium filings from about 28,409 plan administrators each year and that the total annual burden of the collection of information will be about 9,002 hours and $47,037,645. Comments on the paperwork provisions under this proposed rule should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Although comments may be submitted through July 30, 2007, the Office of Management and Budget requests that comments be received on or before July 2, 2007 to ensure their consideration. Comments may address (among other things)— • Whether the proposed collection of information is needed for the proper performance of PBGC's functions and will have practical utility; • The accuracy of PBGC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhancement of the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4006 Pension insurance, Pensions. 29 CFR Part 4007 Penalties, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons given above, PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 4006 and 4007 as follows. PART 4006—PREMIUM RATES 1. The authority citation for part 4006 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1306, 1307. 2. In § 4006.2, the definition of “short plan year” is revised, and four new definitions are added, to read as follows: § 4006.2 Definitions. *Participant count* of a plan for a plan year means the number of participants in the plan on the participant count date of the plan for the plan year. *Participant count date* of a plan for a plan year means the date provided for in § 4006.5(c), (d), or
(e)as applicable. *Premium funding target* has the meaning described in § 4006.4(b)(1). *Short plan year* means a plan year of coverage that is shorter than a normal plan year. *UVB valuation date* of a plan for a plan year means the plan's funding valuation date for the plan year determined in accordance with ERISA section 303(g)(2). 3. In § 4006.3: a. Paragraph
(a)introductory text is amended by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year,” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”. b. Paragraph
(b)is amended by removing the words “$1,000 of a single-employer plan's unfunded vested benefits” and adding in their place the words “$1,000 (or fraction thereof) of a single-employer plan's unfunded vested benefits for the premium payment year”. 4. Section 4006.4 is revised to read as follows: § 4006.4 Determination of unfunded vested benefits.
(a)*In general.* Except as provided in the exemptions and special rules under § 4006.5, the amount of a plan's unfunded vested benefits for the premium payment year is the excess (if any) of the plan's premium funding target for the premium payment year (determined under paragraph
(b)of this section) over the fair market value of the plan's assets for the premium payment year (determined under paragraph
(c)of this section). Unfunded vested benefits for the premium payment year must be determined as of the plan's UVB valuation date for the premium payment year, based on the plan provisions and the plan's population as of that date. The determination must be made in a manner consistent with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices.
(b)*Premium funding target* —(1) In general. A plan's premium funding target is its standard premium funding target under paragraph (b)(2) of this section or, if an election to use the alternative premium funding target under § 4006.5(g) is in effect, its alternative premium funding target.
(2)*Standard premium funding target.* A plan's standard premium funding target under this section is the plan's funding target as determined under ERISA section 303(d) (or 303(i), if applicable) for the premium payment year using the same assumptions that are used for funding purposes, except that—
(i)Only vested benefits are taken into account, and
(ii)The interest rates to be used are the segment rates for the month preceding the month in which the premium payment year begins that are determined in accordance with ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv). These are the rates that would be determined under ERISA section 303(h)(2)(C) if ERISA section 303(h)(2)(D) were applied by using the monthly yields for the month preceding the month in which the premium payment year begins on investment grade corporate bonds with varying maturities and in the top 3 quality levels rather than the average of such yields for a 24-month period.
(c)*Value of assets.* The fair market value of a plan's assets under this section is determined in the same manner as for funding purposes under ERISA section 303(g)(3) and (4), except that averaging as described in ERISA section 303(g)(3)(B) must not be used and prior year contributions are included only to the extent received by the plan by the date of a premium filing. Contribution receipts must be accounted for as described in ERISA section 303(g)(4), using effective interest rates determined under ERISA section 303(h)(2)(A) (not rates that could be determined based on the segment rates described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section).
(d)*“Vested.”* For purposes of ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E), this part, and part 4007 of this chapter, a benefit otherwise vested does not fail to be vested merely because of the following circumstances:
(1)The circumstance that the participant is living, in the case of the following death benefits:
(i)A qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity (as described in ERISA section 205(e)),
(ii)A post-retirement survivor annuity that pays some or all of the participant's benefit amount for a fixed or contingent period (such as a joint and survivor annuity or a certain and continuous annuity), and
(iii)A benefit that returns the participant's accumulated mandatory employee contributions (as described in ERISA section 204(c)(2)(C)).
(2)The circumstance that the benefit may be eliminated or reduced by the adoption of a plan amendment or by the occurrence of a condition or event (such as a change in marital status).
(e)*Plans for which new funding rules are not immediately effective.* In the case of a plan to which the funding rules as amended by subtitles A and B of Title I of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 do not apply for a plan year, unfunded vested benefits must be determined for that plan year as if those funding rules did apply. 5. In § 4006.5: a. Paragraph
(a)introductory text is amended by removing the words “paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(5)” and adding in their place the words “paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(3)”; and by removing the words “determine its unfunded vested benefits” and adding in their place the words “determine or report its unfunded vested benefits”. b. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(5) are removed. c. Paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) respectively. d. Redesignated paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the words “ *benefit liabilities* ” from the heading and adding in their place the word “participants”; by removing the word “did” and adding in its place the word “does”; and by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “UVB valuation date”. e. Redesignated paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the figures “412(i)” where they appear once in the heading and once in the body of the paragraph and adding in their place the figures “412(e)(3)”; by removing the word “was” and adding in its place the word “is”; and by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “UVB valuation date”. f. Redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(ii) is amended by removing the words “last day of the plan year preceding the premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “UVB valuation date”. g. The heading of paragraph
(e)is amended by removing the words “ *Special determination date rule for* ” and adding in their place the words “ *Participant count date;* ”. h. Paragraph (e)(2) is amended by removing the words “paragraph (e)(2) if” and adding in their place the words “paragraph (e)(2) for a plan year if”. i. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) is amended by removing the words “on the first day of the plan's premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “at the beginning of the plan year”. j. Paragraph
(f)introductory text is amended by removing the words “year as described” and adding in their place the words “year described”. k. Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e)(1), and (f)(1) are revised, and paragraph
(g)is added, to read as follows: § 4006.5 Exemptions and special rules.
(b)*Reporting exemption for plans paying capped variable-rate premium* . A plan that qualifies for the variable-rate premium cap described in ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(H) is not required to determine or report its unfunded vested benefits under § 4006.4 if it reports that it qualifies for the cap and pays a variable-rate premium equal to the amount of the cap.
(c)*Participant count date; in general* . Except as provided in paragraphs
(d)and
(e)of this section, the participant count date of a plan for a plan year is the last day of the prior plan year.
(d)*Participant count date; new and newly-covered plans* . The participant count date of a new plan or a newly-covered plan for a plan year is the first day of the plan year. For this purpose, a new plan's first plan year begins on the plan's effective date.
(e)*Participant count date; certain mergers and spinoffs* .
(1)The participant count date of a plan described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section for a plan year is the first day of the plan year.
(f)*Proration for certain short plan years* . * * *
(1)*New or newly covered plan* . A new plan becomes effective less than one full year before the beginning of its second plan year, or a newly-covered plan becomes covered on a date other than the first day of its plan year. (Cessation of coverage before the end of a plan year does not give rise to proration under this section.)
(g)*Alternative premium funding target* . A plan's alternative premium funding target is the vested portion of the plan's funding target under ERISA section 303(d)(1) that is used to determine the plan's minimum contribution under ERISA section 303 for the premium payment year, that is, the amount that would be determined under ERISA section 303(d)(1) if only vested benefits were taken into account. A plan may elect to compute unfunded vested benefits using the alternative premium funding target instead of the standard premium funding target described in § 4006.4(b)(2), and may revoke such an election, in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (g). A plan must compute its unfunded vested benefits using the alternative premium funding target instead of the standard premium funding target described in § 4006.4(b)(2) if an election under this paragraph
(g)to use the alternative premium funding target is in effect for the premium payment year.
(1)An election under this paragraph
(g)to use the alternative premium funding target must specify the first plan year to which it applies and must be filed before the end of that plan year. The first plan year to which the election applies must begin at least five years after the first plan year to which a revocation of a prior election applied. The election will be effective—
(i)For the plan year for which made and for all plan years that begin less than five years thereafter, and
(ii)For all succeeding plan years until the first plan year to which a revocation of the election applies.
(2)A revocation of an election under this paragraph
(g)to use the alternative premium funding target must specify the first plan year to which it applies and must be filed before the end of that plan year. The first plan year to which the revocation applies must begin at least five years after the first plan year to which the election applied. 6. In paragraph
(c)of § 4006.6: a. Example 1 is amended by removing the words “July 1, 2000” and adding in their place the words “July 1, 2008”; by removing the words “December 31, 2000” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2008”; by removing the words “snapshot date” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”; and by removing the words “2001 premium” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “2009 premium”. b. Example 2 is amended by removing the words “February 1, 2002” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “February 1, 2010”; by removing the words “July 1, 2000” and adding in their place the words “July 1, 2008”; by removing the words “July 1, 2001” and adding in their place the words “July 1, 2009”; by removing the words “December 31, 2002” and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2010”; by removing the words “snapshot date” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”; and by removing the words “2003 premium” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “2011 premium”. c. Example 3 is amended by removing the words “January 1, 2004” and adding in their place the words “January 1, 2012”; by removing the words “December 30, 2005” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “December 30, 2013”; by removing the words “January 9, 2006” and adding in their place the words “January 9, 2014”; by removing the words “December 31, 2005” and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2013”; by removing the words “snapshot date” and adding in their place the words “participant count date”; and by removing the words “2006 premium” where they appear twice and adding in their place the words “2014 premium”. d. Example 4 is amended by removing the words “January 1, 2006” and adding in their place the words “January 1, 2014”; by removing the words “December 31, 2005” and adding in their place the words “December 31, 2013”; and by removing the words “2006 premium” and adding in their place the words “2014 premium”. PART 4007—PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS 7. The authority citation for part 4007 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1303(a), 1306, 1307. 8. In § 4007.2: a. Paragraph
(a)is amended by removing the word “insurer,”; and by removing the words “multiemployer plan,”. b. Paragraph
(b)is amended by removing the words “participant, premium payment year” and adding in their place the words “participant, participant count, premium funding target, premium payment year”. 9. In § 4007.3: a. The first three sentences (ending with the words “prescribed in the instructions.”) of the text of § 4007.3 are designated as paragraph (a), and the remainder of the text (beginning with the words “Information must be filed electronically”) is designated as paragraph (b). b. Newly designated paragraph
(a)is amended by adding the heading “In general.”; and by removing the words “estimation, declaration, reconciliation, and payment” and adding in their place the words “estimation, determination, declaration, and payment”. c. Newly designated paragraph
(b)is amended by adding the heading “Electronic filing.”; by removing the words “requirement to file electronically does not apply” and adding in their place the words “requirement to file electronically applies to all estimated and final flat-rate and variable-rate premium filings (including amended filings) but does not apply”; and by adding two new sentences to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 4007.3 Filing requirement; method of filing.
(b)*Electronic filing* . * * * Unless an exemption applies, filing on paper or in any other manner other than by a prescribed electronic filing method does not satisfy the requirement to file. Failure to file electronically as required is subject to penalty under ERISA section 4071. 10. In § 4007.7, paragraph
(c)is removed, and paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 4007.7 Late payment interest charges.
(b)With respect to any PBGC bill for a premium underpayment and/or interest thereon, interest will accrue only until the date of the bill, provided the premium underpayment and interest billed are paid within 30 days after the date of the bill. 11. In § 4007.8: a. Paragraph
(a)introductory text is amended by adding at the end of the paragraph the words “The penalty rate is—”. b. Paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraph (a)(2) are removed, and paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) respectively. c. Paragraph
(f)is amended by removing the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(2)(iii)” and adding in their place the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(3)(iii)”; by removing the words “filing is due if fewer” and adding in their place the words “filing is due if either—Fewer”; by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(f)and adding in its place “, or”; and by designating as paragraph (f)(1) the portion of the text of paragraph
(f)that begins with the words “Fewer than 500”. d. Paragraph
(i)is amended by removing the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(2)(iii)” and adding in their place the figures “§ 4007.11(a)(3)(iii)”. e. New paragraphs (f)(2) and
(j)are added to read as follows: § 4007.8 Late payment penalty charges.
(f)Safe-harbor relief for certain large plans. * * *
(2)The due date for paying the flat-rate premium for the plan year preceding the premium payment year is later than the due date for paying the flat-rate premium for the premium payment year.
(j)*Variable-rate premium penalty relief* . This waiver applies in the case of a plan for which a reconciliation filing is required under § 4007.11(a)(2)(ii) or (a)(3)(iv). PBGC will waive the penalty on any underpayment of the variable-rate premium for the period that ends on the earlier of the date the reconciliation filing is due or the date the reconciliation filing is made if, by the date the variable-rate premium for the premium payment year is due under § 4007.11(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(ii)—
(1)The plan administrator reports—
(i)The fair market value of the plan's assets for the premium payment year, and
(ii)An estimate of the plan's premium funding target for the premium payment year that is certified by an enrolled actuary to be a reasonable estimate that takes into account the most current data available to the enrolled actuary and that has been determined in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices; and
(2)The plan administrator pays at least the amount of variable-rate premium determined from the value of assets and estimated premium funding target so reported. 12. In § 4007.10: a. Paragraph (c)(3) is amended by removing the words “that collection of unpaid premiums (or any associated interest or penalties) would otherwise be jeopardized” and adding in their place the words “that the interests of PBGC may be prejudiced by a delay in the receipt of the information ( *e.g.* , where collection of unpaid premiums (or any associated interest or penalties) would otherwise be jeopardized)”. b. Paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c)(1) are revised, and paragraph (a)(3) is added, to read as follows: § 4007.10 Recordkeeping; audits; disclosure of information.
(a)*Retention of records to support premium payments* —(1) *In general* . The plan administrator must retain, for a period of six years after the premium due date, all plan records that are necessary to establish, support, and validate the amount of any premium required to be paid and any information required to be reported (“premium-related information”) under this part and part 4006 of this chapter and under PBGC's premium filing instructions. Records that must be retained pursuant to this paragraph include, but are not limited to, records that establish the number of plan participants and that support and demonstrate the calculation of unfunded vested benefits.
(3)*Records*
(i)Records that must be retained pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section include, but are not limited to, records prepared by the plan administrator, a plan sponsor, an employer required to contribute to the plan with respect to its employees, an enrolled actuary performing services for the plan, or an insurance carrier issuing any contract to pay benefits under the plan.
(ii)For purposes of this section, “records” include, but are not limited to, plan documents; participant data records; personnel and payroll records; actuarial tables, worksheets, and reports; records of computations, projections, and estimates; benefit statements, disclosures, and applications; financial and tax records; insurance contracts; records of plan procedures and practices; and any other records, whether in written, electronic, or other format, that are relevant to the determination of the amount of any premium required to be paid or any premium-related information required to be reported.
(iii)When a record to be produced for PBGC inspection and copying exists in more than one format, it must be produced in the format specified by PBGC.
(b)*PBGC audit* —(1) *In general* . In order to determine the correctness of any premium paid or premium-related information reported or to determine the amount of any premium required to be paid or any premium-related information required to be reported, PBGC may—
(i)Audit any premium filing,
(ii)Inspect and copy any records that are relevant to the determination of the amount of any premium required to be paid and any premium-related information required to be reported, including (without limitation) the records described in paragraph
(a)of this section, and
(iii)Require disclosure of any manual or automated system used to determine any premium paid or premium-related information reported, and demonstration of its operation in order to permit PBGC to determine the effectiveness of the system and the reliability of information produced by the system.
(2)*Deficiencies found on audit* . If, upon audit, the PBGC determines that a premium due under this part was underpaid, late payment interest and penalty charges will apply as provided for in this part. If, upon audit, PBGC determines that required information was not timely and accurately reported, a penalty may be assessed under ERISA section 4071.
(3)*Insufficient records* . In determining the premium due, if, in the judgment of the PBGC, the plan's records fail to establish the participant count or (for a single-employer plan) the plan's unfunded vested benefits for any premium payment year, the PBGC may rely on data it obtains from other sources (including the IRS and the Department of Labor) for presumptively establishing the participant count and/or unfunded vested benefits for premium computation purposes.
(c)*Providing record information* —(1) *In general* . The plan administrator shall make the records retained pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section available to the PBGC promptly upon request for inspection and photocopying (or, for electronic records, inspection, electronic copying, and printout) at the location where they are kept (or another, mutually agreeable, location). If PBGC requests in writing that records retained pursuant to paragraph
(a)of this section, or information in such records, be submitted to PBGC, the plan administrator must submit the requested materials to PBGC either electronically or by hand, mail, or commercial delivery service within 45 days of the date of PBGC's request therefor, or by a different time specified in the request. 13. In § 4007.11, paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 4007.11 Due dates.
(a)*In general* . The premium filing due date for small plans is prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the premium filing due date for mid-size plans is prescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the premium filing due dates for large plans are prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(1)*Small plans* . If the plan had fewer than 100 participants for whom premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the premium payment year, the due date is the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.
(2)*Mid-size plans* . If the plan had 100 or more but fewer than 500 participants for whom premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the premium payment year:
(i)The due date is the fifteenth day of the tenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.
(ii)If the premium funding target is not known by the date specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a reconciliation filing and any required premium payment must be made by the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.
(3)*Large plans* . If the plan had 500 or more participants for whom premiums were payable for the plan year preceding the premium payment year:
(i)The due date for the flat-rate premium required by § 4006.3(a) of this chapter is the last day of the second full calendar month following the close of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.
(ii)The due date for the variable-rate premium required by § 4006.3(b) of this chapter for single-employer plans is the fifteenth day of the tenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.
(iii)If the participant count is not known by the date specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, a reconciliation filing and any required premium payment must be made by the date specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(iv)If the premium funding target is not known by the date specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, a reconciliation filing and any required premium payment must be made by the last day of the sixteenth full calendar month following the end of the plan year preceding the premium payment year.
(b)*Due dates for plans that change plan years* . For any plan that changes its plan year, the due date or due dates for the short plan year are as specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or
(c)of this section (whichever applies). For the plan year that follows a short plan year, each due date is the later of—
(i)The applicable due date specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, or
(ii)30 days after the date on which the amendment changing the plan year was adopted.
(c)*Due dates for new and newly covered plans* . Notwithstanding paragraph
(a)of this section, the due date for the first plan year of coverage of any new plan or newly covered plan is the latest of—
(1)The last day of the sixteenth full calendar month that began on or after the first day of the premium payment year (the effective date, in the case of a new plan),
(2)90 days after the date of the plan's adoption, or
(3)90 days after the date on which the plan became covered by title IV of ERISA. Issued in Washington, DC, this 24th day of May, 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-10412 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0383; FRL-8318-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a request to amend the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP)to include the base year inventory for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area and a demonstration of Missouri's emissions statement authority. The Missouri portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area consists of the City of St. Louis and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis Counties. The nonattainment area also includes four counties in Illinois. This amendment would fulfill Missouri's obligation, as a moderate nonattainment area, to submit a base year inventory for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to demonstrate adequate authority to address the emissions statement requirement under Section 182(a)(1) and Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), respectively. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0383 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: rios.shelly@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Shelly Rios-LaLuz, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to: Shelly Rios-LaLuz, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Rios-LaLuz at
(913)551-7296, or by e-mail at *rios.shelly@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: May 14, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-10233 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0124; FRL-8320-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Iowa for the purpose of revising the general emission rate for particulate matter. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0124 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at
(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A description of the rule and a detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: May 14, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-10493 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 55 [OAR-2004-0091; FRL-8320-6] Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for California AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). ACTION: Proposed rule—Consistency Update. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (“COA”), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (“the Act”). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Ventura County APCD). The intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the Ventura County APCD is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements onshore. The change to the existing requirements discussed below is proposed to be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and is listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations. DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number OAR-2004-0091, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location ( *e.g.* , copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location ( *e.g.* , CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, Air Division (Air-4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background Information Why is EPA taking this action? II. EPA's Evaluation A. What criteria were used to evaluate rules submitted to update 40 CFR part 55? B. What requirements were submitted to update 40 CFR part 55? III. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Government G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background Information Why is EPA taking this action? On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55, 1 which established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in order to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25 miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. Because the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that EPA update the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore requirements. 1 The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and the preamble to the final rule promulgated September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background and information on the OCS regulations. Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will occur
(1)at least annually;
(2)upon receipt of a Notice of Intent under § 55.4; or
(3)when a state or local agency submits a rule to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55. This proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of requirements submitted by the Ventura County APCD July 31, 2006, November 16, 2006, and January 8, 2007. Public comments received in writing within 30 days of publication of this document will be considered by EPA before publishing a final rule. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan
(SIP)guidance or certain requirements of the Act. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP. II. EPA's Evaluation A. What criteria were used to evaluate rules submitted to update 40 CFR part 55? In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA reviewed the rules submitted for inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12 (e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural rules, 2 and requirements that regulate toxics which are not related to the attainment and maintenance of Federal and State ambient air quality standards. 2 Each COA which has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce part 55, will use its administrative and procedural rules as onshore. However, in those instances where EPA has not delegated authority to implement and enforce part 55, EPA will use its own administrative and procedural requirements to implement the substantive requirements. 40 CFR 55.14(c)(4). B. What requirements were submitted to update 40 CFR part 55? 1. After review of the requirements submitted by the Ventura County APCD against the criteria set forth above and in 40 CFR part 55, EPA is proposing to make the following District requirements applicable to OCS sources: Rule # Name Adoption or amended Date 23 Exemptions From Permit 09/12/06 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions 11/14/06 26.12 Federal Major Modifications 06/27/06 33 Part 70 Permits—General 09/12/06 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions 09/12/06 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit Content 09/12/06 42 Permits Fees 04/11/06 74.30 Wood Product Coatings 06/27/06 III. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB Review. These rules implement requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 55, and by extension this update to the rules, under the provisions of the *Paperwork Reduction Act* , 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0249. Notice of OMB's approval of EPA Information Collection Request (“ICR”) No. 1601.06 was published in the **Federal Register** on March 1, 2006 (71 FR 10499-10500). The approval expires January 31, 2009. As EPA previously indicated (70 FR 65897-65898 (November 1, 2005)), the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collection of information under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to average 549 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. In addition, EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for the information requirements contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. These rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These rules implement requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have had a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million of more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's proposed rules contain no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. These rules implement requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Orders 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These rules implement requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. These rules do not amend the existing provisions within 40 CFR part 55 enabling delegation of OCS regulations to a COA, and this rule does not require the COA to implement the OCS rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes and thus does not have “tribal implications,” within the meaning of Executive Order 13175. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. In addition, this rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Consultation with Indian tribes is therefore not required under Executive Order 13175. Nonetheless, in the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribes, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)), applies to any rule that:
(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportional risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable laws or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decided not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. As discussed above, these rules implement requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA requirements. In the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards and in light of the fact that EPA is required to make the OCS rules consistent with current COA requirements, it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in this action. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: May 10, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Title 40 Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 55—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ) as amended by Public Law 101-549. 2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)
(H)to read as follows: § 55.14 Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.
(e)* * *
(3)* * *
(ii)* * *
(H)*Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources* . Appendix to Part 55—[Amended] 3. Appendix A to Part 55 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) under the heading “California” to read as follows: Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 55—Listing of State and Local Requirements Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State California
(b)* * *
(8)The following requirements are contained in Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources: Rule 2 Definitions (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 5 Effective Date (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 6 Severability (Adopted 11/21/78) Rule 7 Zone Boundaries (Adopted 6/14/77) Rule 10 Permits Required (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 11 Definition for Regulation II (Adopted 3/14/06) Rule 12 Application for Permits (Adopted 6/13/95) Rule 13 Action on Applications for an Authority to Construct (Adopted 6/13/95) Rule 14 Action on Applications for a Permit to Operate (Adopted 6/13/95) Rule 15.1 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 16 BACT Certification (Adopted 6/13/95) Rule 19 Posting of Permits (Adopted 5/23/72) Rule 20 Transfer of Permit (Adopted 5/23/72) Rule 23 Exemptions from Permits (Revised 9/12/06) Rule 24 Source Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Emission Statements (Adopted 9/15/92) Rule 26 New Source Review (Adopted 3/14/06) Rule 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions (Adopted 11/14/06) Rule 26.2 New Source Review—Requirements (Adopted 3/14/06) Rule 26.3 New Source Review—Exemptions (Adopted 3/14/06) Rule 26.6 New Source Review—Calculations (Adopted 3/14/06) Rule 26.8 New Source Review—Permit To Operate (Adopted 10/22/91) Rule 26.10 New Source Review—PSD (Adopted 1/13/98) Rule 26.11 New Source Review—ERC Evaluation At Time of Use (Adopted 5/14/02) Rule 26.12 Federal Major Modifications (Adopted 6/27/06) Rule 28 Revocation of Permits (Adopted 7/18/72) Rule 29 Conditions on Permits (Adopted 3/14/06) Rule 30 Permit Renewal (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 32 Breakdown Conditions: Emergency Variances, A., B.1., and D. only. (Adopted 2/20/79) Rule 33 Part 70—Permits—General (Adopted 9/12/06) Rule 33.1 Part 70—Permits—Definitions (Adopted 9/12/06) Rule 33.2 Part 70—Permits—Application Contents (Adopted 4/10/01) Rule 33.3 Part 70—Permits—Permit Content (Adopted 9/12/06) Rule 33.4 Part 70—Permits—Operational Flexibility (Adopted 4/10/01) Rule 33.5 Part 70—Permits—Time frames for Applications, Review and Issuance (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 33.6 Part 70—Permits—Permit Term and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 33.7 Part 70—Permits—Notification (Adopted 4/10/01) Rule 33.8 Part 70—Permits—Reopening of Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 33.9 Part 70—Permits—Compliance Provisions (Adopted 4/10/01) Rule 33.10 Part 70—Permits—General Part 70—Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 3/14/95) Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted 11/12/96) Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/6/98) Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 4/11/06) Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee (Adopted 9/10/96) Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 6/19/90) Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 8/4/92) Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and Call-Back Fees (Adopted 6/22/99) Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 52 Particulate Matter-Concentration (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 53 Particulate Matter-Process Weight (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 6/14/94) Rule 56 Open Burning (Revised 11/11/03) Rule 57 Incinerators (Adopted 1/11/05) Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 1/11/05) Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and Renovation (Adopted 6/16/92) Rule 63 Separation and Combination of Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78) Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 4/13/99) Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices (Adopted 7/5/83) Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94) Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and Separation (Adopted 6/16/92) Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 9/26/89) Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 6/16/92) Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, and Well Cellars (Adopted 6/8/93) Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/13/94) Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)(Adopted 9/13/05) Rule 73 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) (Adopted 9/13/05) Rule 74 Specific Source Standards (Adopted 7/6/76) Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/12/91) Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 11/13/01) Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing (Revised 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04) Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers (Adopted 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04) Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Organic Compounds at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted 10/10/95) Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Waste-water Separators and Process Turnarounds (Adopted 7/5/83) Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Adopted 11/8/05) Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil Production Facilities and Natural Gas Production and Processing Facilities (Adopted 3/10/98) Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential Water Heaters—Control of NO <sup>X</sup> (Adopted 4/9/85) Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (Adopted 9/14/99) Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Adopted 11/11/03) Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 11/8/94) Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 6/13/00) Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations (Adopted 1/8/91) Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants (Adopted 1/11/05) Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines (Adopted 1/08/02) Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations (Revised 11/11/03) Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted 1/08/02) Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94) Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94) Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations (Adopted 5/10/94) Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings (Revised 6/27/06) Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78) Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 5/23/72) Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 4/13/04) Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems (Adopted 2/9/99) Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91) Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91) Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91) Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 9/17/91) Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures (Adopted 9/17/91) Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/95) Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 11/9/99) [FR Doc. E7-10457 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for rulemaking regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Mr. Richard Fairall petitioned the agency to amend the standard to incorporate performance requirements for a “stroboscopic lighting system” that can be installed on the front and rear of a motorcycle as a collision avoidance system. NHTSA is denying this petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate or provide any quantitative data showing that implementation of his recommended lighting system would result in a reduction of death and injury to motorcyclists or other motorists. However, notwithstanding the absence of detailed safety data in Mr. Fairall's submission, because NHTSA has a continued interest in identifying potential countermeasures to reduce motorcycle crashes, the agency conducted a preliminary evaluation of the petitioner's recommended auxiliary “stroboscopic lighting system.” The preliminary evaluation did not persuade NHTSA that the stroboscopic lighting system would result in fewer motorcycle crashes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202)-366-6987, facsimile (202)-493-2739. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Mr. Richard “Scott” Fairall petitioned NHTSA to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to incorporate performance requirements for a flashing front and rear motorcycle collision avoidance lighting system. Mr. Fairall devised an auxiliary “stroboscopic lighting system” for motorcycles to be used by the motorcyclist with the intent of reducing the incidences of other motorists violating the right-of-way of motorcyclists. The rider of the motorcycle would activate and deactivate the system (usually when approaching an intersection) using a rocker switch. The forward facing portion of Mr. Fairall's system is comprised of two turn signal housings with clear lenses, each having a strobe light in it. The rearward facing portion has red lenses and is also comprised of two turn signal housings, each with a strobe inside. The strobe controller flashes each side's strobe twice (at 2 Hz) before alternating to the other side. The duration that the lighting system remains activated would depend on the speed of the motorcycle and the width of the intersection. Mr. Fairall stated the maximum length of time of use for the lighting system would be approximately four seconds. Mr. Fairall claimed his auxiliary “stroboscopic lighting system” would warn motorists of the potential for collision, and has effectively prevented accidents involving his motorcycle for over 11,000 miles. In addition, he also provided numerous anecdotes regarding the effectiveness of his and other, similar, modulating headlamp designs. In his petition, Mr. Fairall claimed that his recommended lighting system would enhance the conspicuity of the motorcycle and produce a significant and immediate downward trend in crashes and injuries to motorcyclists. Finally, Mr. Fairall cited NHTSA statistics showing a substantial increase in motorcycle accidents and fatalities. FMVSS No. 108; *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* , specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The purpose of the standard is to reduce traffic collisions, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. Among the many aspects of vehicle lighting that are covered by FMVSS No. 108 are the conditions under which lamps on a vehicle are wired and permitted to flash. Paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 states: The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning signal lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired for signaling purposes;
(c)A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or lower beam, but not both to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6; 1 1 We note that the reference to S5.6 is an error, and that the reference should point to S7.9.4. NHTSA will issue a technical amendment to correct this error shortly. Steady means free from change or variation. This means that they must not modulate, flash, or vary in size, area, intensity or appearance. Motorcycle headlamp systems that modulate, as permitted under S7.9.4 of FMVSS No. 108, enhance the conspicuity of motorcycles without having other negative safety impacts (e.g., causing confusion with emergency vehicles). Currently, motorcycle headlamp modulation systems or other lighting systems that deviate from these requirements are not permitted under FMVSS No. 108 and may not be installed on new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket as replacement equipment. NHTSA notes that based upon the agency's policy statements published in the **Federal Register** on November 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 213, pages 59482-59492) in order to be treated as a petition, the Fairall submission must have substantive data purporting to show positive safety benefits for the recommended idea. As the NHTSA policy statement makes clear, NHTSA has neither the budget nor the time to sponsor exhaustive research (such as fleet testing) of most lighting ideas presented to it. Because Mr. Fairall's submission did include some data, we treated it as a petition. NHTSA is denying this petition because the petitioner did not demonstrate or provide sufficient quantitative data showing that implementation of his recommended lighting system would result in a reduction of death and injury motorcyclists or other motorists. Paragraph 5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 restricts lamps that may flash to certain ones. The reason for restricting flashing lamps is to ensure that the signal is instantly recognized and unambiguous to drivers, as explained in our November 4, 1998 Statement of Policy. There is a positive safety benefit to the public from clear and unambiguous signals. Mr. Fairall's recommended lamps, which would be considered auxiliary because they are not required equipment, are not among those permitted to flash. We do not believe Mr. Fairall's data are sufficient to show positive safety benefits from changing our current standardized requirements. The petitioner's primary support for his contention that his recommended system is effective in reducing motorcyclists' death and injury is to refer to an “11,000 mile benchmark test;” i.e., operating the system while he rode his motorcycle. The petitioner stated, “It has been 100 percent effective in stopping motorist from violating my right-of-way throughout the testing period of more than 11,000 miles.” Based on statistical considerations, the 11,000 vehicle-miles-driven is insufficient to form a valid estimate for the impact this system might have on motorcycle safety. Mr. Fairall's numerous anecdotal examples of drivers noticing his lighting system do not qualify as sufficient data. Moreover, the petitioner did not provide data to support his contention that the use of the “stroboscopic lighting system” was the reason that motorists did not violate his right-of-way. Data addressing the behavior of other motorists who encountered the lighting system was not provided. Additional Data Analysis NHTSA is aware that since 1999, motorcycle injuries and fatalities have continued to rise and the majority of fatalities are multi-vehicle crashes. Frequently, crashes are the result of a right-of-way violation at an intersection, where the motorcycle is traveling straight when it collides with another vehicle that has either turned or pulled out in front of it. The agency has ongoing research efforts focusing on ways to increase motrcycle conspicuity. One such research effort, a study done by Calspan Corporation, examines whether the use of Daytime Running Lamps
(DRLs)on motorcylces would improve their conspicuity. Despite the previously stated consideration of a lack of supporting data, NHTSA decided to undertake some additional testing of Mr. Fairall's recommended stroboscopic lighting system on an investigatory basis. The agency conducted a preliminary evaluation of the petitioner's recommended concept at our Vehicle Research & Test Center
(VRTC)in East Liberty, Ohio. We made this decision based upon our continued interest in identifying potential countermeasures to reduce motorcycle crashes. The prevalence of right-of-way collisions near intersections guided this research. Researchers have hypothesized that the majority of frontal crashes are attributable to either poor speed-spacing judgment of other motorists or insufficient front motorcycle conspicuity. Speed-spacing judgment refers to the accuracy that a driver can estimate the distance at which it is safe to turn left at an intersection in front of an oncoming motorcycle. Conspicuity is the extent to which an object can be distinguished from its surroundings. Because most fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcycles are the result of a right-of-way violation in the proximity of an intersection, three intersection-type test scenarios were utilized to examine potential conspicuity improvements to a motocycle equipped with the forward facing portion of the “stroboscopic lighting system”. The test scenarios included a gap acceptance test that was initiated with the motorcycle taking a position in the adjacent, opposing traveling lane. The other two were right side and left side peripheral field-of-view scenarios. Since the majority of motorcycle fatalities involve other vehicles impacting the motorcycle from the front, the agency evaluated the front portion of Mr. Fairall's system. This evaluation involved three intersection-type tests. The agency did not find any safety benefits in a speed-spacing judgment test (gap acceptance test) nor in a peripheral detectability test involving motorcyclists at 90° to a stationary vehicle driver's line-of-sight. While potential limited benefits were associated with the system in a peripheral detectability test at 45°, it is unclear whether they would outweigh safety disbenefits such as the system providing a false sense of security to motorcyclists and the impact on the driving behavior of other drivers who may react to the strobing light in unexpected manners. A common concern with auxiliary lamps and lighting systems is their potential to distract other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to the lighting devices requires by the standard. In order to initiate rulemaking to allow a system such as the one identified by Mr. Fairall, the agency would need clear data demonstrating safety benefits. Agency Conclusion After a thorough review of Mr. Fairall's petition, the agency has decided to deny Mr. Fairall's petition for rulemaking. The agency notes that the limited data the petitioner provided, consisting of the petitioner's own experiences in driving approximately 11,000 miles as well as anecdotal evidence, are insufficient to support a rulemaking. Despite the petitioner's attempt to demonstrate the effect of the new lighting system, NHTSA would require substantially more data demonstrating the effectiveness of such a system to initiate a rulemaking. A “strooscopic” or flasing lighting system operated by the motorcyclist near intersections to increase his or her conspicuity is an interesting concept. Our preliminary evaluation showed that the recommended “stroboscopic lighting system” does not appear to enhance motorcycle conspicuity if the driver of the car is directly observing the motorcycle, or if the motorcycle approaches the car at 90 degrees or greater to the driver's line of sight. While limited improvements were found in motorcycle conspicuity when the motorcyclist approaches a vehicle at approximately 45 degrees to the driver's line of sight, the data are insufficient to warrant rulemaking activity. Therefore, the agency is denying the petition. The agency remains interested in finding effective ways to increase motorcycle conspicuity and reduce the number of crashes involving motorcycles. Dated: May 23, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 07-2693 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Congressional statement of purpose§ 2451
- Definitions§ 1101
- Rule making§ 553
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Definitions§ 601
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation§ 1302
- Purposes§ 3501
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Purpose.§ 62.1
- Sanctions.§ 62.50
- Termination of designation§ 62.60
- Statutory authority and scope.§ 55.1
- Consistency updates.§ 55.12
- Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.§ 55.14
public-private-law
statutes-at-large
20 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 22 CFR 62
- Pub. L. 105-277
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 109 Stat. 48
- 22 USC 1431-1442
- Pub. L. 104-208
- Pub. L. 107-56
- 115 Stat. 354
- Pub. L. 107-173
- 116 Stat. 543
- Pub. L. 109-280
- 29 CFR 4006
- 29 CFR 4007
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 55
- 40 CFR 9
- Pub. L. 104-113
- Pub. L. 101-549
- 49 CFR 571
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite22 CFR 62
Pub. L.Pub. L. 105-277
Cites 46 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources