Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47831 

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 

governments. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: 

Federalism 

This rule does not have federalism 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 

13132. 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. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Review 

The Department of State does not 

consider this interim final rule to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review. In 

addition, the Department is generally 

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 regulation to ensure its consistency 

with the regulatory philosophy and 

principles set forth in that Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department has reviewed the 

regulations in light of sections 3 (a) and 

3 (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to 

eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for most collections of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulation. The 

Department of State has determined that 

this rule does not require new collection 

of information for purposes of the PRA. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 94 

Infants and children, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 22 CFR part 94 is revised to 

read as follows: 

PART 94—INTERNATIONAL CHILD 

ABDUCTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Hague Convention on the Civil 

Aspects of International Child Abduction; 

International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 

Public Law 100–300. 

■ 2. Section 94.6 is amended by revising 

the introductory text and revising 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (l) to read 

as follows: 

§ 94.6 Procedures for children abducted to 

the United States. 

The U.S. Central Authority, or an 

entity acting at its direction, shall 

perform the following operational 

functions with respect to all Hague 

Convention applications seeking the 

return of children wrongfully removed 

to or retained in the United States or 

seeking access to children in the United 

States: 

(a) Receive all applications seeking 

return of children wrongfully retained 

in the United States or seeking access to 

children in the United States; 

* * * * * 

(l) Perform such additional functions 

as determined by the U.S. Central 

Authority, deemed advisable to 

maintain U.S. treaty compliance with 

the Hague Convention on the Civil 

Aspects of International Child 

Abduction. 

Dated: July 23, 2008. 

Janice Jacobs, 

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 

Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–18961 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 

Benefits Payable in Terminated SingleEmployer Plans; Allocation of Assets 

in Single-Employer Plans; Interest 

Assumptions for Valuing and Paying 

Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation’s regulations on Benefits 

Payable in Terminated Single-Employer 

Plans and Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest 

assumptions for valuing and paying 

benefits under terminating singleemployer plans. This final rule amends 

the regulations to adopt interest 

assumptions for plans with valuation 

dates in September 2008. Interest 

assumptions are also published on the 

PBGC’s Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov). 

DATES: Effective September 1, 2008. 

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: The 

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. 

Three sets of interest assumptions are 

prescribed: (1) A set for the valuation of 

benefits for allocation purposes under 

section 4044 (found in Appendix B to 

Part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use 

to determine whether a benefit is 

payable as a lump sum and to determine 

lump-sum amounts to be paid by the 

PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 

4022), and (3) a set for private-sector 

pension practitioners to refer to if they 

wish to use lump-sum interest rates 

determined using the PBGC’s historical 

methodology (found in appendix C to 

part 4022). 

This amendment (1) adds to appendix 

B to part 4044 the interest assumptions 

for valuing benefits for allocation 

purposes in plans with valuation dates 

during September 2008, (2) adds to 

appendix B to part 4022 the interest 

assumptions for the PBGC to use for its 

own lump-sum payments in plans with 

valuation dates during September 2008, 

and (3) adds to appendix C to part 4022 

the interest assumptions for privatesector pension practitioners to refer to if 

they wish to use lump-sum interest rates 

determined using the PBGC’s historical 

methodology for valuation dates during 

September 2008. 

For valuation of benefits for allocation 

purposes, the interest assumptions that 

the PBGC will use (set forth in appendix 

B to part 4044) will be 6.24 percent for 

the first 20 years following the valuation 

date and 5.31 percent thereafter. These 

interest assumptions represent an 

increase (from those in effect for August 

2008) of 0.19 percent for the first 20 

years following the valuation date and 

0.19 percent for all years thereafter. 

The interest assumptions that the 

PBGC will use for its own lump-sum 

payments (set forth in appendix B to 

part 4022) will be 3.50 percent for the 

period during which a benefit is in pay 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47832 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

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 August 2008) 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 the PBGC 

for determining and paying lump sums 

(set forth in appendix B to part 4022). 

The 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 September 2008, 

the PBGC finds that good cause exists 

for making the assumptions set forth in 

this amendment effective less than 30 

days after publication. 

The 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 

29 CFR Part 4022 

Employee benefit plans, Pension 

insurance, Pensions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

29 CFR Part 4044 

Employee benefit plans, Pension 

insurance, Pensions. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 29 

CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are 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 

179, 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

* * * * * * * 

179 09–1–08 10–1–08 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

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

179, as set forth below, is added to the 

table. 

Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum 

Interest Rates for Private-Sector 

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

* * * * * * * 

179 09–1–08 10–1–08 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF 

ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER 

PLANS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 4044 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 

1341, 1344, 1362. 

■ 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new 

entry for September 2008, as set forth 

below, is added To the table. 

Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest 

Rates Used To Value Benefits 

* * * * * 

For valuation dates occurring in the month—

The values of it are: 

it for t = it for t = it for t = 

* * * * * * * 

September 2008 ............................................................... .0624 1–20 .0531 >20 N/A N/A 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47833 

1Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Express Mail Contract to Competitive Product 

List and Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class 

Not of General Applicability, July 21, 2008 

(Request). 

2The draft Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) 

remains under review. The Commission anticipates 

providing interested persons an opportunity to 

comment on the draft MCS in the near future. 

3Commission Information Request No. 1, July 29, 

2008. 

4See Notice of Response of the United States 

Postal Service to Commission Information Request 

No. 1, August 4, 2008. 

5Comments of United Parcel Service in Response 

to Order Concerning Modification of the Mail 

Classification Schedule and Prices Under Express 

Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, July 31, 2008 

(UPS Comments). 

6Public Representative Comments in Response to 

United States Postal Service Request to Modify the 

Mail Classification Schedule and Prices Under 

Express Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, July 

31, 2008 (Public Representative Comments). 

7 Initial Comments of David B. Popkin, July 31, 

2008 (Popkin Comments). Popkin also filed a Letter 

of Intervention and Request for Information. Letter 

from David B. Popkin to Steven W. Williams, 

Notice of Intervention and Request for Information, 

July 30, 2008 (Letter). The Commission notes that 

notices of intervention are not necessary for the 

filing of comments in these types of proceedings 

and are, in fact, discouraged. Where appropriate, 

motions may be filed under Commission rule 

3001.21. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 11th day 

of August 2008. 

Vincent K. Snowbarger, 

Deputy Director for Operations, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E8–19061 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket No. MC2008–5; Order No. 94] 

Administrative Practice and Procedure, 

Postal Service 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adding 

the Postal Service’s Express Mail 

Contract 1 to the competitive product 

list. This action is consistent with 

changes in a recent law governing postal 

operations. Re-publication of the lists of 

market dominant and competitive 

products is also consistent with new 

requirements in the law. 

DATES: Effective August 15, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 21, 2008, the Postal Service 

filed a request pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30, et seq. to 

modify the Mail Classification Schedule 

by adding Express Mail Contract 1 to the 

competitive product list. The Postal 

Service asserts that Express Mail 

Contract 1 is a competitive product ‘‘not 

of general applicability’’ within the 

meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3).1 A 

redacted version of the Governors’

Decision establishing the price and 

classification and a certification of the 

Governors’ vote is included as 

Attachment A to the filing (Attachment 

A). The requested changes in the Mail 

Classification Schedule product list are 

included in the filing as Attachment B 

with the new product shown in 

brackets.2 The statement of supporting 

justification required by 39 CFR 3020.32 

is included as Attachment C to the filing 

(Attachment C). 

In the same July 21, 2008 filing, the 

Postal Service gives notice, pursuant to 

39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5, 

that the Governors have established 

prices and classifications not of general 

applicability for Express Mail Contract 

1. Request at 2. 

In support of its Request, the Postal 

Service has also filed materials under 

seal, including an unredacted version of 

an explanation and justification in the 

Governors’ Decision and an unredacted 

analysis. Also filed under seal are the 

cost and revenue data and the 

certification of compliance with 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a)(1), (2), and (3). The 

Postal Service asserts ‘‘that the contract, 

related financial information, the 

customer’s name and the portions of the 

Governors’ Decision and accompanying 

analysis that provides prices, terms, and 

conditions should remain confidential.’’

Id. 

After its initial review, the 

Commission sought additional 

information with respect to several 

issues in this case. Toward that end, it 

issued Commission Information Request 

No. 1 on July 29, 2008.3 The Postal 

Service promptly responded providing 

the requested clarifying information on 

August 4, 2008.4

As noted above, the Postal Service 

filing in this docket was made pursuant 

to rule 3015.5 and rule 3020.30 et seq. 

As a consequence, the Commission will 

review the filing under both rule 3015 

and part 3020, subpart B. 

II. Comments 

Comments were filed by United 

Parcel Service (UPS),5 the Public 

Representative,6 and David B. Popkin.7

UPS urges the Commission to require 

public disclosure of the proposed 

contracts subject to adequate safeguards 

to allow meaningful public review. It 

believes that if interested parties are 

denied access to this information, the 

complaint process under section 3662 

will be largely rendered a nullity. UPS 

Comments at 2. 

Along the same lines, Popkin 

expresses concern that because the 

Postal Service’s filing was largely under 

seal, the public cannot comment 

meaningfully on it. Popkin Comments at 

2. In addition, Popkin offers several 

observations about the filing in this case 

and waiver of signature upon delivery. 

Id. at 3. 

The Public Representative comments 

on several aspects of the Postal Service’s 

filings in this case including (1) 

confidentiality; (2) pricing, cost 

coverage, and contribution; and (3) the 

specific agreement. With respect to 

confidentiality, the Public 

Representative argues that the Postal 

Service should justify the limits of all 

confidentiality requests to comport with 

the spirit of Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 26(c) and the Freedom of 

Information Act. Public Representative 

Comments at 3. With respect to pricing, 

cost coverage and contribution, the 

Public Representative acknowledges 

that the pricing in the negotiated service 

agreement (NSA) comports with the 

provisions of title 39. With respect to 

the specific agreement, the Public 

Representative believes that it promotes 

an increased Express Mail volume, 

specifically pieces that are less costly to 

process. Id. at 5. 

III. Commission Analysis 

A. Statutory Requirements 

The statutory responsibility of the 

Commission, in this instance, is to 

assign a new product to either the 

market dominant list or the competitive 

product list. 39 U.S.C. 3642. As part of 

this responsibility, the Commission also 

will preliminarily review the proposal 

for compliance with the requirements of 

the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006. For 

proposed competitive products, this 

includes a review of the provisions 

applicable to rates for competitive 

products. 39 U.S.C. 3633. 

The Postal Service contends that 

adding the Express Mail Contract 1 

product will result in processing 

Express Mail pieces that are less costly 

for the Postal Service than the average 

Express Mail piece. See Request, 

Attachment A. It believes that its 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS