41612 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

should give when communicating with

participants and how often to update

these estimates.

Fixing the Variable Index

Section 4044 Valuation

Tracking the actual performance of a

variable index over time is not an option

for the PBGC when it performs its plan

valuation under ERISA section 4044.

This is because the PBGC must perform

this valuation as of the plan’s

termination date and thus cannot take

into account the actual performance of

the variable index after that date. The

PBGC values each participant’s plan

benefit by first determining the annuity

benefit payable at retirement and then

determining the present value of that

future annuity benefit as of the plan’s

termination date. Thus, the PBGC must

fix the variable index (i.e., make an

assumption about the future

performance of the variable index) as of

the plan’s termination date to be able to

determine, as of that date, what a

participant’s annuity benefit will be at

a future retirement date.

Future Annuity Payments—Funding of

Nonguaranteed Benefits

The way in which the PBGC fixes the

variable index will not affect the

amount of a participant’s annuity

benefit under the plan or the extent to

which that benefit is guaranteed.

However, it can affect the section 4044

valuation, which is performed as of the

plan’s termination date. That valuation,

in turn, can affect the extent to which

any nonguaranteed portion of the

participant’s benefit is funded by plan

assets or by PBGC recoveries on its

employer liability claims.

Lump Sums

The PBGC also must fix the future

performance of a variable index to

determine the amounts of its (generally

de minimis) lump-sum payments. This

is so because, under the PBGC’s

traditional methodology for calculating

lump sum amounts, it must know the

amount of the participant’s future

retirement benefit in order to determine

the lump sum value (based on PBGC

assumptions and methods) of that

benefit as of the plan’s termination date.

The need to fix the variable index

would not disappear even if the PBGC

were to depart from its traditional

methodology for determining lump sum

amounts and were instead to base its

lump sum payments in ‘‘safe-harbor’’

cash balance plans on the amount of the

hypothetical account balance. This is

because the PBGC can pay the

hypothetical account balance only to the

extent it is payable under Title IV of

ERISA, i.e., guaranteed (under ERISA

section 4022(a) and (b)) or funded by

plan assets (under ERISA section 4044)

or by PBGC recoveries on its employer

liability claims (under ERISA section

4022(c))—determinations that the PBGC

must make as of the plan’s termination

date. Thus, the PBGC will need to fix

the variable index to determine the

extent to which the lump sum is

payable.

Possible Methods for Fixing the Variable

Index

The PBGC can fix the future

performance of a variable index in a

number of ways—for example, by using

a standardized PBGC value that will

apply to all plans that terminate on a

given date, by making a ‘‘best estimate’’

determination for each plan termination

based on generally accepted actuarial

principles and practices, by using the

index as it stood on the plan’s

termination date (i.e., the ‘‘spot rate’’),

or by using some ‘‘historical average’’ of

the index.

Each approach would present

different issues. Using a standardized

PBGC value could lead to results that

would diverge significantly from what

one would expect based on the variable

index a plan chose. The ‘‘best estimate’’

approach might leave too much

discretion with the PBGC. Although the

‘‘spot rate’’ approach could be viewed as

consistent with the use of the

termination date as the date to

determine various rights and obligations

under the termination insurance

program, there would be an issue as to

whether this was the best approach

where the index was at (or near) a

historic high or low or where, as in the

case of an equity index, the change in

the index could be negative. And the

‘‘historical average’’ approach would

raise questions as to the period over

which the variable index should be

averaged and the method of averaging.

It also would raise questions as to the

data’s applicability to the future,

particularly where the variable index

had existed for only a short time or was

volatile (e.g., a stock index).

One option that the PBGC is actively

considering, in the common case where

a plan uses a variable Treasury index

other than the yield on 30-year

Treasuries (e.g., the yield on one-year

Treasuries), is to combine elements of

the ‘‘spot rate’’ and ‘‘historical average’’

approaches by using a ‘‘modified spot

rate’’ approach. Under this approach,

the PBGC would start with the less

volatile spot rate for 30-year Treasuries

and adjust it to reflect the historical

difference between the yield on 30-year

Treasuries and the variable index used.

Request for Comments

The PBGC is soliciting comments on

the Title IV aspects of cash balance

plans. As detailed in this notice, the

PBGC is especially interested in

comments on how it should make its

valuation and payment determinations

under a cash balance plan that uses a

variable index to determine benefits,

and on what benefit estimates it should

give participants in such a plan. While

the discussion in this notice focuses on

cash balance plans that use variable

indices to determine interest credits, the

PBGC is also interested in comments on

how it should perform these tasks for

cash balance plans that use annuity

conversion factors that may vary and for

other plans that may raise similar

issues.

E.O. 12866 Review

The Office of Management and Budget

has reviewed this notice under E.O.

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

However, the PBGC has not yet

determined whether there is a need to

proceed by rulemaking to address the

issues raised in this notice.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 30th day

of June, 2000.

David M. Strauss,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 00–17039 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 2000–4A]

Public Performance of Sound

Recordings: Definition of a Service

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Extension of reply comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is extending the

period for filing reply comments in the

proceeding to consider the merits of a

petition filed by the Digital Media

Association. The petition seeks a

determination that a webcasting service

is not deemed to be interactive merely

because it offers the consumer some

degree of influence over the

programming offered by the service.

DATES: Written reply comments are due

on July 14, 2000.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41613

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, an original

and ten copies of the reply comments

should be addressed to: Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O.

Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, DC 20024. If hand

delivered, the reply comments, they

should be brought to: Office of the

General Counsel, James Madison

Building, Room LM–403, First and

Independence Ave., SE., Washington,

DC 20559–6000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

Tanya M. Sandros, Attorney Advisor,

Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400,

Southwest Station, Washington, D.C.

20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.

Telefax: (202) 707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 23, 2000, the Copyright

Office published a notice of inquiry

seeking comments on whether to grant

a petition for rulemaking filed with the

Copyright Office on April 17, 2000, by

the Digital Media Association (DiMA).

65 FR 33266 (May 23, 2000). The

petition requests that the Office adopt a

rule stating that a webcasting service

does not become an interactive service

because a consumer exerts some degree

of influence over the streamed

programming.

Comments in response to the notice of

inquiry were filed on June 22, 2000.

Two parties filed comments in this

proceeding, the Recording Industry

Association of America, Inc. and DiMA.

On June 30, 2000, DiMA filed a request

for an extension of the filing date for

reply comments from the initially

announced date of July 7, 2000, to July

14, 2000. DiMA asserts that it is in need

of more time to develop a meaningful

response because the intervening fourday Fourth of July holiday creates

logistical difficulties for it and its

members. DiMA also suggests that an

extension of the filing deadline by a

week will create no prejudice to any

party interested in filing a reply in this

proceeding.

The Office agrees and, therefore,

grants the request for a one-week

extension of the reply comment filing

period. Reply comments are now due on

Friday, July 14, 2000.

Dated: June 30, 2000.

David O. Carson,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–17109 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–31–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 434

[FRL–6730–7]

Extension of Comment Period for Coal

Mining Point Source Category;

Amendments to Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards; Proposed

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment

period for proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the

comment period for the proposed

amendments to effluent limitations

guidelines and new source performance

standards for the coal mining point

source category. The proposed rule was

published in the Federal Register on

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19439). The

comment period for the proposed rule is

extended by 60 days, ending on

September 8, 2000. This extension is

being granted while taking into

consideration the court-ordered

promulgation deadline for the final rule.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

will be accepted through September 8,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

John Tinger (4303); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; Ariel Rios Building;

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.;

Washington, DC 20460. Comments

delivered by hand should be brought to

Room 615, West Tower; 401 M Street,

S.W.; Washington, DC. Please submit

any references cited in your comments.

Submit an original and three copies of

your written comments and enclosures.

No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

For information on how to submit

electronic comments, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional technical information,

contact John Tinger at (202) 260–4992 or

at Tinger.John@epa.gov. For additional

economic information, contact Kristen

Strellac at (202) 260–6036 or at

Strellac.Kristen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

11, 2000, EPA published proposed

amendments to effluent limitations

guidelines and new source performance

standards for the coal mining industry

in the Federal Register for public

review and comment (65 FR 19439). The

comment period was scheduled to end

July 10, 2000.

EPA has received requests to extend

the comment period to allow more time

for public comment. While EPA believes

the initial comment period of 90 days

was adequate, to accommodate these

requests EPA is extending the comment

period 60 days, through September 8,

2000.

In addition to accepting hard-copy

written comments, EPA will also accept

comments submitted electronically.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as a Word Perfect 5/6/7/8 or ASCII file

and must be submitted to

Tinger.John@epa.gov.

Under a consent decree entered by the

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, EPA is scheduled to

promulgate the final rule by December

2001. See 65 FR 19442. While this

deadline is feasible even with this

extension of the comment period, EPA

would not support any further extension

of the comment period.

Dated: June 29, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 00–17069 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[IB Docket No. 00–106, FCC 00–210]

Review of Commission’s

Consideration of Applications Under

the Cable Landing License Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document solicits

comments on a proposed mechanism for

streamlining the licensing of

international submarine cable systems.

Under the proposal, applicants would

have three options to qualify for

streamlined review. The Commission

initiated this proceeding as a means of

tailoring its licensing process to

encourage rapid, facilities-based entry

by multiple firms that can bring new

capacity to keep up with the increased

demand.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 21, 2000, and reply comments

are due on or before September 21,

2000. Written comments by the public

on the proposed information collections

are due on or before August 21, 2000.

Written comments must be submitted by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) on the proposed information

collections before September 5, 2000.