22826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘required use’’ definition in the 

November 17, 2008, final rule. HUD 

reviewed and gave careful consideration 

to all views expressed. Following 

consideration of the comments and 

HUD’s further evaluation of the 

definition and application of ‘‘required 

use’’ HUD has decided to withdraw the 

revised definition and, leave in place 

the definition of ‘‘required use’’ as 

found in HUD’s codified regulations in 

24 CFR 3500.2, and which has remained 

in effect since the revised definition of 

‘‘required use’’ in the November 17, 

2008, final rule, had not taken effect. 

HUD reiterates its commitment to fair 

real estate settlement practices that are 

not misleading, prevent abuse, offer 

proper disclosures to homebuyers, and 

promote choice and competition. HUD’s 

intent in revising the definition of 

‘‘required use’’ was to clarify its 

interpretation of RESPA’s requirements 

with respect to transactions involving 

affiliated businesses in order to promote 

more competition among settlement 

service providers. After further 

evaluation and consideration of the 

concerns voiced by consumers and 

industry participants from various fields 

about the application of the revised 

definition of ‘‘required use,’’ HUD has 

concluded that all would benefit by 

HUD withdrawing the revised definition 

and addressing ‘‘required use’’ through 

new rulemaking. 

HUD recognizes that the affiliations of 

businesses involved in complex home 

purchase transactions can themselves be 

complex arrangements, and that 

consumers may have difficulty 

understanding whether there is value in 

using affiliated businesses in mortgage 

transactions. HUD has determined that 

further development of the concept of 

‘‘required use’’ is necessary to assure 

that, especially in the affiliated business 

context, its application protects 

consumers by eliminating abusive 

practices that increase costs for 

unsuspecting consumers. The comments 

submitted in response to the March 10, 

2009, rule provide HUD with a good 

starting point for going forward on this 

issue. Consumers and industry and the 

public generally will have further 

opportunity to offer feedback when 

HUD issues a new proposed rule on this 

subject. 

Although HUD is withdrawing the 

revised definition of ‘‘required use,’’ a 

definition of ‘‘required use’’ remains 

part of HUD’s RESPA regulations. That 

definition, which focuses its discount 

language on settlement services, is the 

one that was in place in HUD’s RESPA 

regulations prior to HUD’s issuance of 

the November 17, 2008, final rule, and 

which has remained in place since the 

revised definition of ‘‘required use’’ 

never took effect. Additionally, although 

HUD is withdrawing the revised 

definition of ‘‘required use’’, the 

withdrawal should not be interpreted to 

signal any lessening of HUD oversight or 

enforcement of existing statutory and 

regulatory provisions in this area. HUD 

interprets its definition generally as 

aiming to distinguish the features of 

legitimate incentives and discounts 

offered to consumers from those that 

may result in undisclosed or higher 

costs to consumers. The public 

comments on this subject underscore 

the need for greater attention to and 

understanding of the treatment of 

discounts to consumers under RESPA 

and HUD’s RESPA regulations. 

With respect to the more specific 

issues expressed by commenters on the 

subject of ‘‘required use’’, HUD will 

defer further discussion of such issues 

to any new rulemaking. Generally, 

however, HUD notes that it revised the 

definition of ‘‘required use’’ to more 

effectively realize Congress’s intent in 

passing RESPA. RESPA’s principal goal 

is consumer protection. RESPA provides 

HUD with the requisite authority to 

promulgate a revised definition of 

‘‘required use’’ that meets the goals of 

RESPA and HUD’s mandate to enforce 

RESPA. Today’s final rule will enable 

HUD to reconsider all of the issues 

involved in the application of the 

required use concept and to better craft 

requirements and limitations that 

address the valid concerns raised in the 

preceding rulemaking. 

IV. Findings and Certifications 

Federalism Impact 

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications and does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments or preempt 

State law within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13132 (entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies 

to assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on state, local, and tribal 

governments and on the private sector. 

This rule does not, within the meaning 

of the UMRA, impose any Federal 

mandates on any state, local, or tribal 

governments nor on the private sector. 

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 3500 

Consumer protection, Condominiums, 

Housing, Mortgagees, Mortgage 

servicing, Reporting and Recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ Accordingly, 24 CFR part 3500 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 3500—REAL ESTATE 

SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3500 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 2601 et. seq: 42 

U.S.C. 3535(d). 

■ 2. Section 3500.1(b)(1) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 3500.1 Designation and applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Sections 3500.8(b), 3500.17, 

3500.21, 3500.22 and 3500.23, and 

Appendices E and MS–1 are applicable 

commencing January 16, 2009. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Effective July 16, 2009, in § 3500.2, 

revise the definition of ‘‘Required use’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 3500.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Required use means a situation in 

which a person must use a particular 

provider of a settlement service in order 

to have access to some distinct service 

or property, and the person will pay for 

the settlement service of the particular 

provider or will pay a charge 

attributable, in whole or in part, to the 

settlement service. However, the 

offering of a package (or combination of 

settlement services) or the offering of 

discounts or rebates to consumers for 

the purchase of multiple settlement 

services does not constitute a required 

use. Any package or discount must be 

optional to the purchaser. The discount 

must be a true discount below the prices 

that are otherwise generally available, 

and must not be made up by higher 

costs elsewhere in the settlement 

process. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 7, 2009. 

Ronald Y. Spraker, 

Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Housing—Deputy Federal Housing 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. E9–11383 Filed 5–12–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4022 

Benefits Payable in Terminated SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions 

for Valuing and Paying Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22827 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation’s regulation on Benefits 

Payable in Terminated Single-Employer 

Plans prescribes interest assumptions 

for valuing and paying certain benefits 

under terminating single-employer 

plans. This final rule amends the benefit 

payments regulation to adopt interest 

assumptions for plans with valuation 

dates in June 2009. Interest assumptions 

are also published on PBGC’s Web site 

(http://www.pbgc.gov). 

DATES: Effective June 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory 

and Policy Division, Legislative and 

Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005, 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: PBGC’s 

regulations prescribe actuarial 

assumptions—including interest 

assumptions—for valuing and paying 

plan benefits of terminating singleemployer plans covered by title IV of 

the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974. The interest 

assumptions are intended to reflect 

current conditions in the financial and 

annuity markets. 

These interest assumptions are found 

in two PBGC regulations: the regulation 

on Benefits Payable in Terminated 

Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 

4022) and the regulation on Allocation 

of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 

CFR part 4044). Assumptions under the 

asset allocation regulation are updated 

quarterly; assumptions under the benefit 

payments regulation are updated 

monthly. This final rule updates only 

the assumptions under the benefit 

payments regulation. 

Two sets of interest assumptions are 

prescribed under the benefit payments 

regulation: (1) A set for PBGC to use to 

determine whether a benefit is payable 

as a lump sum and to determine lumpsum amounts to be paid by PBGC (found 

in Appendix B to Part 4022), and (2) a 

set for private-sector pension 

practitioners to refer to if they wish to 

use lump-sum interest rates determined 

using PBGC’s historical methodology 

(found in Appendix C to Part 4022). 

This amendment (1) adds to 

Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest 

assumptions for PBGC to use for its own 

lump-sum payments in plans with 

valuation dates during June 2009, and 

(2) adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the 

interest assumptions for private-sector 

pension practitioners to refer to if they 

wish to use lump-sum interest rates 

determined using PBGC’s historical 

methodology for valuation dates during 

June 2009. 

The interest assumptions that PBGC 

will use for its own lump-sum payments 

(set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) 

will be 3.75 percent for the period 

during which a benefit is in pay status 

and 4.00 percent during any years 

preceding the benefit’s placement in pay 

status. These interest assumptions 

represent an increase (from those in 

effect for May 2009) of 0.25 percent in 

the immediate annuity rate and are 

otherwise unchanged. For private-sector 

payments, the interest assumptions (set 

forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will 

be the same as those used by PBGC for 

determining and paying lump sums (set 

forth in Appendix B to part 4022). 

PBGC has determined that notice and 

public comment on this amendment are 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This finding is based on the 

need to determine and issue new 

interest assumptions promptly so that 

the assumptions can reflect current 

market conditions as accurately as 

possible. 

Because of the need to provide 

immediate guidance for the valuation 

and payment of benefits in plans with 

valuation dates during June 2009, PBGC 

finds that good cause exists for making 

the assumptions set forth in this 

amendment effective less than 30 days 

after publication. 

PBGC has determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the criteria set forth in Executive 

Order 12866. 

Because no general notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for this 

amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 

601(2). 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022 

Employee benefit plans, Pension 

insurance, Pensions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 29 

CFR part 4022 is amended as follows: 

PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN 

TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4022 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 

1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 

■ 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 

188, as set forth below, is added to the 

table. 

Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum 

Interest Rates for PBGC Payments 

* * * * * 

Rate set 

For plans with a valuation date Immediate 

annuity rate 

(percent) 

Deferred annuities 

(percent) 

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

* * * * * * * 

188 ........................................................................ 6–1–09 7–1–09 3.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

■ 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 

188, as set forth below, is added to the 

table. 

Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum 

Interest Rates for Private-Sector 

Payments 

* * * * * 

22828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Rate set 

For plans with a valuation date Immediate 

annuity rate 

(percent) 

Deferred annuities 

(percent) 

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

* * * * * * * 

188 ........................................................................ 6–1–09 7–1–09 3.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 7th day 

of May 2009. 

Vincent K. Snowbarger, 

Acting Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–11373 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–1272] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Underwater Object, 

Massachusetts Bay, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending 

the duration of a temporary safety zone 

surrounding the location of the sunken 

fishing vessel PATRIOT located 

approximately 17 miles northeast of 

Scituate, Massachusetts in 

Massachusetts Bay. This action is 

necessary to ensure that vessels are not 

endangered by conducting dredging, 

diving, anchoring, fishing or other 

activities in this area. This temporary 

rulemaking is needed to protect the 

environment, the commercial fishing 

industry, and the general public from 

potential hazards associated with the 

underwater object and from the hazards 

associated with planned salvage of the 

vessel. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:59 

p.m. March 14, 2009 through midnight 

May 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2008– 

1272 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting 

the Advanced Docket Search option on 

the right side of the screen, inserting 

USCG–2008–1272 in the Docket ID box, 

pressing Enter, and then clicking on the 

item in the Docket ID column. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

two locations: the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Chief Eldridge 

McFadden, United States Coast Guard, 

Sector Boston, Waterways Management 

Division; telephone 617–223–5160, email Eldridge.C.McFadden@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because initial 

immediate action was needed to protect 

the public from the hazards posed by an 

unknown underwater object located in 

Massachusetts Bay. This object was later 

identified as the F/V Patriot. The F/V 

PATRIOT is located in approximately 

95 feet of water 17 miles northeast of 

Scituate, Massachusetts. This rule 

extends the duration of the existing 

safety zone, which would have expired 

on May 6, 2009, to ensure, to the extent 

practicable, the immediate, continued 

protections for the environment, the 

commercial fishing industry, and the 

general public from the hazards 

associated with the F/V PATRIOT, 

while investigative efforts continue, risk 

mitigation strategies are further 

explored and implemented, and salvage 

efforts are conducted. Specifically, this 

rule is being extended to facilitate and 

protect planned commercial salvage 

operations, which were unable to be 

completed during the prior extension. It 

would be contrary to the public interest 

for the existing safety zone to lapse on 

the eve of such operations. 

For the same reasons, 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

On January 3, 2009, the F/V 

PATRIOT, a 54-foot steel-hull boat, sank 

with the loss of two crewmembers 

onboard. The vessel was reported to 

have an estimated 5000 gallons of fuel 

onboard. There were no survivors and 

the exact position of the vessel was not 

immediately known. On January 8, 

2009, the Coast Guard established a 

temporary safety zone around a reported 

underwater object believed to be the F/ 

V PATRIOT, located in Massachusetts 

Bay approximately 17 miles northeast of 

Scituate, Massachusetts, in position 

42°24′27.34′′ N, 70°27′17.23′′ W. This 

underwater object created an immediate 

and significant danger to the 

environment, the commercial fishing 

industry, and the general maritime 

public, as mariners unaware of its 

presence could make contact with the 

object and cause damage to their vessel, 

equipment below the water or fishing 

gear. On January 14, 2009, the Coast 

Guard extended the temporary safety 

zone until March 14, 2009, while 

investigative efforts continued and risk 

mitigation strategies were further 

explored. 

On January 23, 2009, underwater 

exploratory operations with 

photographic equipment confirmed that 

the object was the F/V PATRIOT. The 

owners of the vessel intend to conduct 

dive and salvage operations on the 

vessel. On April 14, 2009, the Coast 

Guard received a request to extend the 

safety zone until May 6, 2009 in order 

to conduct a salvage operation for the 

vessel. On May 6, 2009, the Coast Guard 

received an additional request to extend 

the safety zone as the operations had not 

yet been started. The Coast Guard has 

agreed to this extension of this zone, 

which will help ensure the planned 

dive and salvage operations can be 

conducted safely.