81122 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

$0.36 + $5 = $5.36). The $5 increase in 

copayment in this Example 7 is less 

than the amount calculated pursuant to 

paragraph (g)(1)(iv)(A) of this section of 

$5.36. Thus, the $5 increase in 

copayment does not cause the plan to 

cease to be a grandfathered health plan. 

Example 8. (i) Facts. On March 23, 

2010, a self-insured group health plan 

provides two tiers of coverage—selfonly and family. The employer 

contributes 80% of the total cost of 

coverage for self-only and 60% of the 

total cost of coverage for family. 

Subsequently, the employer reduces the 

contribution to 50% for family coverage, 

but keeps the same contribution rate for 

self-only coverage. 

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 8, the 

decrease of 10 percentage points for 

family coverage in the contribution rate 

based on cost of coverage causes the 

plan to cease to be a grandfathered 

health plan. The fact that the 

contribution rate for self-only coverage 

remains the same does not change the 

result. 

Example 9. (i) Facts. On March 23, 

2010, a self-insured grandfathered 

health plan has a COBRA premium for 

the 2010 plan year of $5,000 for selfonly coverage and $12,000 for family 

coverage. The required employee 

contribution for the coverage is $1,000 

for self-only coverage and $4,000 for 

family coverage. Thus, the contribution 

rate based on cost of coverage for 2010 

is 80% ((5,000¥1,000)/5,000) for selfonly coverage and 67% 

((12,000¥4,000)/12,000) for family 

coverage. For a subsequent plan year, 

the COBRA premium is $6,000 for selfonly coverage and $15,000 for family 

coverage. The employee contributions 

for that plan year are $1,200 for selfonly coverage and $5,000 for family 

coverage. Thus, the contribution rate 

based on cost of coverage is 80% 

((6,000¥1,200)/6,000) for self-only 

coverage and 67% ((15,000¥5,000)/ 

15,000) for family coverage. 

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 9, 

because there is no change in the 

contribution rate based on cost of 

coverage, the plan retains its status as a 

grandfathered health plan. The result 

would be the same if all or part of the 

employee contribution was made pretax through a cafeteria plan under 

section 125 of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Example 10. (i) Facts. A group health 

plan not maintained pursuant to a 

collective bargaining agreement offers 

three benefit packages on March 23, 

2010. Option F is a self-insured option. 

Options G and H are insured options. 

Beginning July 1, 2013, the plan 

increases coinsurance under Option H 

from 10% to 15%. 

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 10, 

the coverage under Option H is not 

grandfathered health plan coverage as of 

July 1, 2013, consistent with the rule in 

paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section. 

Whether the coverage under Options F 

and G is grandfathered health plan 

coverage is determined separately under 

the rules of this paragraph (g). 

Example 11. (i) Facts. A group health 

plan that is a grandfathered health plan 

and also a high deductible health plan 

within the meaning of section 223(c)(2) 

of the Internal Revenue Code had a 

$2,400 deductible for family coverage 

on March 23, 2010. The plan is 

subsequently amended after June 15, 

2021 to increase the deductible limit by 

the amount that is necessary to comply 

with the requirements for a plan to 

qualify as a high deductible health plan 

under section 223(c)(2)(A) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, but that exceeds 

the maximum percentage increase. 

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 11, 

the increase in the deductible at that 

time does not cause the plan to cease to 

be a grandfathered health plan because 

the increase was necessary for the plan 

to continue to satisfy the definition of a 

high deductible health plan under 

section 223(c)(2)(A) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27498 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4044 

Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions 

for Valuing Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans to prescribe 

interest assumptions under the asset 

allocation regulation for plans with 

valuation dates in the first quarter of 

2021. These interest assumptions are 

used for valuing benefits under 

terminating single-employer plans and 

for other purposes. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Katz (katz.gregory@pbgc.gov), 

Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Division, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 

20005, 202–229–3829. (TTY users may 

call the Federal relay service toll free at 

1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–229–3829.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 

4044) prescribes actuarial 

assumptions—including interest 

assumptions—for valuing benefits under 

terminating single-employer plans 

covered by title IV of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA). The interest assumptions in 

the regulation are also published on 

PBGC’s website (https://www.pbgc.gov). 

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in 

appendix B to part 4044 (‘‘Interest Rates 

Used to Value Benefits’’) to determine 

the present value of annuities in an 

involuntary or distress termination of a 

single-employer plan under the asset 

allocation regulation. The assumptions 

are also used to determine the value of 

multiemployer plan benefits and certain 

assets when a plan terminates by mass 

withdrawal in accordance with PBGC’s 

regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor 

Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR 

part 4281). 

The first quarter 2021 interest 

assumptions will be 1.69 percent for the 

first 20 years following the valuation 

date and 1.66 percent thereafter. In 

comparison with the interest 

assumptions in effect for the fourth 

quarter of 2020, these interest 

assumptions represent no change in the 

select period (the period during which 

the select rate (the initial rate) applies), 

an increase of 0.07 percent in the select 

rate, and an increase of 0.26 percent in 

the ultimate rate (the final rate). 

Need for Immediate Guidance 

PBGC has determined that notice of, 

and public comment on, this rule are 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to the public interest. PBGC 

routinely updates the interest 

assumptions in appendix B of the asset 

allocation regulation each quarter so 

that they are available to value benefits. 

Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public 

interest is best served by issuing this 

rule expeditiously, without an 

opportunity for notice and comment, 

and that good cause exists for making 

the assumptions set forth in this 

amendment effective less than 30 days 

after publication to allow the use of the 

proper assumptions to estimate the 

value of plan benefits for plans with 

valuation dates early in the first quarter 

of 2021. 

PBGC has determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the criteria set forth in Executive 

Order 12866. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81123 

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 4044 

Employee benefit plans, Pension 

insurance, Pensions. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 

CFR part 4044 is amended as follows: 

PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF 

ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4044 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1341, 1344, 1362. 

■ 2. In appendix B to part 4044, add an 

entry for ‘‘January–March 2021’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

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 = 

*******

January–March 2021 ........................................................ 0.0169 1–20 0.0166 >20 N/A N/A 

Issued in Washington, DC, by: 

Hilary Duke, 

Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory 

Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27377 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2019–0027] 

RIN 0651–AD42 

Trademark Fee Adjustment 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2020, the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO) published in the 

Federal Register a final rule on setting 

and adjusting trademark fees that is 

scheduled to go into effect on January 2, 

2021. This final rule changes the 

effective date of one fee paid by 

international applicants under the 

Madrid Protocol from January 2, 2021, 

to February 18, 2021. 

DATES: The effective date of 37 CFR 

2.6(a)(1)(ii), amended at 85 FR 73197, 

November 17, 2020, is delayed from 

January 2, 2021, to February 18, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Trademark 

Examination Policy, at 571–272–8946, 

or by email at TMPolicy@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

USPTO published a final rule (85 FR 

73197, Nov. 17, 2020) that set or 

adjusted certain trademark fees, as 

authorized by the Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act, as amended by the Study 

of Underrepresented Classes Chasing 

Engineering and Science Success Act of 

2018. Those fee changes allow the 

USPTO to continue to recover the 

prospective aggregate costs of strategic 

and operational trademark and 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

goals (based on workload projections 

included in the USPTO fiscal year 2021 

Congressional Justification), including 

associated administrative costs, and to 

further USPTO strategic objectives by 

better aligning fees with costs, 

protecting the integrity of the trademark 

register, improving the efficiency of 

agency processes, and ensuring 

financial sustainability to facilitate 

effective trademark operations. 

Among the changes in the November 

17, 2020 final rule, the USPTO amended 

the fee at 37 CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii) addressing 

applications under section 66(a) of the 

Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141f. This 

fee, paid by international applicants 

designating the United States under the 

World Intellectual Property 

Organization’s (WIPO) Protocol Relating 

to the Madrid Agreement Concerning 

the International Registration of Marks 

(Madrid Protocol), is set to increase 

from $400 to $500. 

This final rule delays the effective 

date of the change to § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) 

because the treaty requires three months 

advance notice to WIPO, which then 

alerts international applicants, before an 

increase in the amount of the 

international application/subsequent 

designation fee can enter into force. On 

November 18, 2020, the USPTO 

provided WIPO with the required notice 

of the change to § 2.6(a)(1)(ii). Thus, the 

effective date of § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) is delayed 

from January 2, 2021, to February 18, 

2021, three months following the 

notification. 

Rulemaking Requirements 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This 

final rule revises the effective date of 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(ii). This action relates to the 

setting or adjusting of trademark fees 

and is a rule of agency practice and 

procedure and/or an interpretive rule 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). See JEM 

Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 32 (D.C. 

Cir. 1994) (‘‘[T]he ‘critical feature’ of the 

procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A)] ‘is that it covers agency 

actions that do not themselves alter the 

rights or interests of parties, although 

[they] may alter the manner in which 

the parties present themselves or their 

viewpoints to the agency.’ ’’ (quoting 

Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 

(D.C. Cir. 1980))); see also Bachow 

Commc’ns Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 

690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an 

application process are procedural 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 

244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules 

for handling appeals were procedural 

where they did not change the 

substantive standard for reviewing 

claims). Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or 

(c) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs. 

Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 

553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do 

not require notice and comment 

rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative rules, 

general statements of policy, or rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). 

Moreover, the Director of the USPTO, 

pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) and (d)(1), finds good cause to 

adopt the change in this final rule 

without prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment or a 30-day delay in 

effectiveness, as such procedures would 

be impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest. Immediate 

implementation of the change to the