32846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

agencies review high volume CE 

providers. The commenter also 

expressed concern that increasing the 

CE threshold amount may create the 

impression that oversight of CEs is not 

important. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s assertions. First, we do not 

believe that raising the threshold 

amount will lead to some key providers 

furnishing ‘‘less than quality service’’ to 

the disability program. Rather, we 

believe this revision will allow us to 

fulfill our stewardship obligations to the 

disability programs, while also ensuring 

that we use our scarce administrative 

resources as efficiently as possible. As 

for the commenter’s assertion that the 

revision will lead to fewer on-site 

reviews of high volume providers in 

large States, the commenter is correct 

that we will no longer require automatic 

review of CE providers whose billing 

falls between $100,000 and $149,999. 

However, we will still require States to 

review all high volume providers as we 

now define that term. In addition, our 

regulations require the State agencies to 

maintain procedures for handling 

complaints. Sections 404.1519s(f)(9) and 

416.919s(f)(9). By reducing the number 

of required reviews, we believe that the 

State agencies will be able to conduct 

more on-site reviews sooner in 

situations where credible complaints 

have been lodged against mid-tier and 

smaller CE providers. We can better 

fulfill our stewardship responsibilities 

by providing the State agencies with the 

ability to target CE providers with 

documented problems for on-site 

reviews regardless of their volume. 

Thus, we are not making any changes to 

the rules we proposed. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 

We have consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that these final rules meet 

the criteria for a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Thus, they were subject to OMB review. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that these final rules will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they only directly affect States. 

Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as 

provided in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, as amended, is not required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These final rules will impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements requiring OMB clearance. 

Federalism and the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act 

We have reviewed the final rules 

under the threshold criteria of Executive 

Order 13132 (Federalism) and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. These final rules would change 

the threshold billing amount above 

which the State agencies that make 

determinations of disability for the 

Commissioner under titles II and XVI of 

the Act perform an annual on-site 

review of CE providers. Although the 

State agencies perform these reviews, 

the Social Security Administration fully 

funds the necessary costs of providing 

this service. We have determined that 

these final rules would not have 

substantial direct effects on States, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability 

Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social Security. 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability 

benefits, Public assistance programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we are amending subpart P of 

part 404 and subpart I of part 416 of 

chapter III of title 20 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950–) 

Subpart P—[Amended] 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart P 

of part 404 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)– 

(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i) and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, 

and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)–(h), 416(i), 

421(a), (i) and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 

902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 

Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

■ 2. Revise paragraph (e)(1) of 

§ 404.1519s to read as follows: 

§ 404.1519s Authorizing and monitoring 

the consultative examination. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Any consultative examination 

provider with an estimated annual 

billing to the disability programs we 

administer of at least $150,000; or 

* * * * * 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 3. The authority citation for subpart I 

of part 416 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 

1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p) and 

1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 

1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 

4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98– 

460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 

U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, 1382h note). 

■ 4. Revise paragraph (e)(1) of 

§ 416.919s to read as follows: 

§ 416.919s Authorizing and monitoring the 

consultative examination. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Any consultative examination 

provider with an estimated annual 

billing to the disability programs we 

administer of at least $150,000; or 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–14070 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 2530 

RIN 1210–AB15 

Final Rule Relating to Time and Order 

of Issuance of Domestic Relations 

Orders 

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document finalizes an 

interim final rule published on March 7, 

2007, which was adopted in response to 

the specific statutory directive 

contained in section 1001 of the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006, Public Law No. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 32847 

1The QDRO provisions were added to ERISA and 

the Code by the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 

(REA), Public Law No. 98–397, 98 Stat. 1426 (1984). 

Except where no corresponding provision exists, all 

references to paragraphs of ERISA section 206(d)(3) 

should be read to refer to corresponding provisions 

of Code section 414(p). The Secretary of Labor has 

authority to interpret the QDRO provisions, section 

206(d)(3), and its parallel provision at section 

414(p) of the Code, and to issue QDRO regulations 

in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. 

29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(N) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p)(13). 

The Secretary of the Treasury has authority to issue 

rules and regulations necessary to coordinate the 

requirements of section 414(p) (and the regulations 

issued by the Secretary of Labor thereunder) with 

the other provisions of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of 

the Code. 26 U.S.C. 401(n). The Secretary of the 

Treasury and the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation were consulted in connection with the 

final rule. 

2For purposes of the Code, the requirements of 

section 414(p)(2) and (3) (parallel to ERISA section 

206(d)(3)(C) and (D)) do not apply to governmental 

plans, church plans, or eligible plans under Code 

section 457(b). See Code section 414(p)(9) and (11). 

109–280 (PPA), requiring the Secretary 

of Labor to issue, not later than one year 

after the date of the enactment of the 

PPA, regulations clarifying certain 

issues relating to the timing and order 

of domestic relations orders under 

section 206(d)(3) of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 

as amended (ERISA). The rule provides 

guidance to plan administrators, service 

providers, participants, and alternate 

payees on the qualified domestic 

relations order (QDRO) requirements 

under ERISA. The rule is being adopted 

in response to the specific statutory 

directive contained in the PPA. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

August 9, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison E. Wielobob, Office of 

Regulations and Interpretations, 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 

693–8510. This is not a toll free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Qualified Domestic Relations Order 

Provisions 

Section 206(d)(3) of title I of ERISA, 

and the related provisions of section 

414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 (Code), establish a limited 

exception to the prohibitions against 

assignment and alienation contained in 

ERISA section 206(d)(1) and Code 

section 401(a)(13).1 Under this limited 

exception, a participant’s benefits under 

a pension plan may be assigned to an 

alternate payee, defined as the 

participant’s spouse, former spouse, 

child, or other dependent, pursuant to 

an order that constitutes a qualified 

domestic relations order (QDRO) within 

the meaning of those provisions. Such 

QDROs, in addition, survive the federal 

preemption of State law imposed by 

ERISA section 514(a) by virtue of ERISA 

section 514(b)(7). 

Pursuant to the QDRO provisions, a 

plan administrator must determine, in 

accordance with specified procedures, 

whether an order purporting to divide a 

participant’s benefits under a plan 

meets the applicable requirements set 

forth in section 206(d)(3) of ERISA.2 If 

the plan administrator determines that 

the order meets these requirements and 

is, accordingly, a QDRO within the 

meaning of section 206(d)(3), the plan 

administrator must distribute the 

assigned portion of the participant’s 

benefits to the alternate payee or payees 

named in the order in accordance with 

the terms of the order. 

Subparagraphs (G) and (H) of ERISA 

section 206(d)(3) set forth provisions 

relating to the procedures that a plan 

must establish, and a plan administrator 

must observe, in determining whether 

an order is a QDRO and in 

administering the plan and the 

participant’s benefits during the period 

in which the plan administrator is 

making such a determination. The 

plan’s procedures must be reasonable, 

must be in writing, must require prompt 

notification and disclosure of the 

procedures to participants and alternate 

payees upon receipt of an order, and 

must permit alternate payees to 

designate representatives for notice 

purposes. In addition, the plan 

administrator must complete the 

determination process and notify 

participants and alternate payees of its 

determination within a reasonable 

period after receipt of the order. 

Subparagraph (H) of section 206(d)(3) 

provides specific procedural protection 

of a potential alternate payee’s interest 

in a participant’s benefits during the 

plan’s determination process and for a 

period of up to 18 months (the 18- 

month period) during which the issue of 

the qualified status of a domestic 

relations order is being determined— 

whether by the plan administrator, by a 

court of competent jurisdiction, or 

otherwise. During the 18-month period, 

a plan administrator must separately 

account for any amounts that would 

have been payable to the alternate payee 

if the order had been immediately 

treated as a QDRO and must pay these 

amounts (including any interest 

thereon) to the alternate payee if the 

order is determined to be a QDRO 

within such period. If the issue as to 

whether the order is a QDRO is not 

resolved within the 18-month period, 

the plan administrator is to pay such 

amounts to the person or persons who 

would have been entitled to the 

amounts if there had been no order. Any 

determination that an order is a QDRO 

that is made after the close of the 18- 

month period is to be applied 

prospectively only. 

If a plan fiduciary, acting in 

accordance with the fiduciary 

responsibility provisions of part 4 of 

title I of ERISA, treats an order as a 

QDRO (or determines that such an order 

is not a QDRO) and distributes benefits 

in accordance with that determination, 

paragraph (I) of section 206(d)(3) 

provides that the obligations of the plan 

and its fiduciaries to the affected 

participants and alternate payees with 

respect to the distribution shall be 

treated as discharged. 

The QDRO provisions detail specific 

requirements that an order must satisfy 

in order to constitute a QDRO. The 

order must be a ‘‘domestic relations 

order,’’ which is a judgment, decree, or 

order issued pursuant to a State 

domestic relations law (including a 

community property law) that relates to 

the provision of child support, alimony 

payments, or marital property rights to 

a spouse, former spouse, child, or other 

dependent of a participant. Section 

206(d)(3)(B)(ii). It must create or 

recognize the existence of an alternate 

payee’s right to receive all or a portion 

of the benefits payable with respect to 

a participant under a plan. Section 

206(d)(3)(B)(i). Further, it must clearly 

specify the name and last known 

mailing address (if any) of the 

participant and the name and mailing 

address of each alternate payee covered 

by the order; the amount or percentage 

of the participant’s benefits to be paid 

by the plan(s) to each such alternate 

payee, or the manner in which such 

amount or percentage is to be 

determined; the number of payments or 

period to which the order applies; and 

each plan to which the order applies. 

Section 206(d)(3)(C). An order will fail 

to be a QDRO, however, if it requires the 

plan: To provide any type or form of 

benefit, or any option, not otherwise 

provided under the plan; to provide 

increased benefits determined on the 

basis of actuarial value; or to pay 

benefits to an alternate payee that are 

required to be paid to another alternate 

payee under another order previously 

determined to be a QDRO. Section 

206(d)(3)(D). 

B. Pension Protection Act of 2006 

Under section 1001 of the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), Public 

Law 109–280, section 1001, 120 Stat. 

780 (2006), Congress instructed the 

Secretary of Labor to issue regulations, 

not later than one year after the date of 

the enactment, under section 206(d)(3) 

of ERISA and section 414(p) of the 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
32848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3 72 FR 10070. 

4The examples in paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), and 

(d)(2) of the final regulation show how the rules in 

paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1), respectively, 

apply to specific facts. They do not represent the 

only circumstances for which these rules apply. 

5Example (1) in paragraph (d)(2) of the IFR 

regulation also dealt with a posthumous domestic 

relations order, but in this example no pre-death 

notice is given to the plan. This example dealt 

solely with the type or form of benefit. Although the 

order in this example fails to be a QDRO, the 

conclusion is unrelated to the absence of pre-death 

notification to the plan. This example is unchanged 

and is in paragraph (d)(2) of the final regulation. 

6See Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997); 

Hopkins v. AT & T Global Info. Solutions Co., 105 

F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 1997); Rivers v. Central & S.W. 

Corp., 186 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 1999); Carmona v. 

Carmona, 548 F. 3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008); 26 CFR 

1.401(a)–20 Q&A–25(b)(3) (second sentence); and 

29 CFR 4022.8(d). 

Code, to clarify that—(1) a domestic 

relations order otherwise meeting the 

requirements to be a QDRO, including 

the requirements of section 206(d)(3)(D) 

of ERISA and section 414(p)(3) of the 

Code, shall not fail to be treated as a 

QDRO solely because—(A) the order is 

issued after, or revises, another 

domestic relations order or QDRO; or 

(B) of the time at which it is issued. 

Section 1001 of the PPA also requires 

that the regulations clarify that such 

orders are subject to all of the same 

requirements and protections that apply 

to QDROs, including the provisions of 

section 206(d)(3)(H) of ERISA and 

section 414(p)(7) of the Code. 

C. Interim Final Rule and Public 

Comments 

On March 7, 2007, the Department 

published an interim final rule (IFR) 

with a request for comments.3 The IFR 

closely tracks the statutory language of 

section 1001 of the PPA. The IFR also 

includes several illustrative examples of 

specific fact patterns that the 

Department understands to be relatively 

common situations faced by plans. The 

Department received 24 comments in 

response to the request for comments 

contained in the IFR. Overall, the 

comments were favorable. 

A number of commenters asked the 

Department to add additional examples 

to illustrate the rules in the regulation. 

The suggested additions generally were 

slight variations on the existing 

examples. The Department was not 

persuaded that additional examples are 

necessary to illustrate or further clarify 

the general rules of the regulation. To 

the contrary, the Department is 

concerned that, by adding more 

examples, some might conclude that the 

examples themselves are the only 

circumstances to which the general 

principles, contained in paragraphs 

(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1) of the final 

regulation, apply. Such a conclusion 

would be inconsistent with the intent of 

the Department.4 Accordingly, the 

Department, with one exception 

(discussed below), has decided against 

adding additional examples. 

A number of commenters were 

concerned that Example (1), set forth in 

paragraph (c)(2) of the IFR, could be 

interpreted as requiring a plan fiduciary 

to reject a posthumous order if the plan 

fiduciary was not given notice of that 

order before the death of the participant. 

The Department does not agree with 

that interpretation of the example. 

Example (1) was intended to clarify that 

a domestic relations order will not fail 

to be a QDRO solely because it is issued 

after the death of a participant. The 

example dealt solely with the timing 

issue and its conclusion does not 

depend on the plan’s receipt of predeath notification of the domestic 

relations order. The facts of the example 

include pre-death notification merely 

because, as indicated above, the 

Department understands this to be a 

fairly frequent fact pattern confronted 

by plans. Nothing in the example 

should be construed as a requirement 

under section 206 of ERISA that an 

otherwise valid posthumous order fails 

to be a QDRO merely because the plan 

was not put on notice of the order while 

the participant was alive.5 This 

example, which is in paragraph (c)(2) of 

the final regulation, has been modified 

to address the concern raised by these 

commenters. 

A number of commenters expressed 

concern that Example (3), set forth in 

paragraph (c)(2) of the interim final 

regulation, could be read to require 

plans to provide a type or form of 

benefit, or an option, not otherwise 

available under the plan contrary to 

section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) of ERISA. 

Example (3) was intended to clarify that 

a domestic relations order will not fail 

to be a QDRO merely because it is 

issued after the annuity starting date. 

The example dealt solely with the 

timing issue and assumed that for all 

other purposes, including the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(D)(i), 

the order met the requirements of 

section 206. In this regard, it is the view 

of the Department that a domestic 

relations order issued after the annuity 

starting date would not violate the 

requirements of section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) 

merely because the order requires the 

allocation of some or all of the 

participant’s determined benefit 

payment under the applicable optional 

form of benefit to an alternate payee. In 

such cases, the plan is merely required 

to pay a portion of the benefit otherwise 

due to the participant to another person. 

On the other hand, any domestic 

relations order received by a plan after 

the original annuity starting date of the 

participant that would require 

reannuitization with a new annuity 

starting date would violate section 

206(d)(3)(D)(i), unless the plan 

specifically provides for such an option. 

Examples of an order requiring a 

reannuitization with a new annuity 

starting date would include an order 

issued after the annuity starting date 

directing the plan to substitute one 

measuring life for another or directing 

the plan to change the form of benefit, 

such as from a single life annuity to a 

qualified joint and survivor annuity 

(QJSA) with a death benefit or from an 

annuity to a lump sum payment. In an 

effort to clarify the application of the 

principles in this paragraph, the 

Department has modified Example (3), 

set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of the final 

regulation, and has added Example (4) 

to paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule. 

With regard to the principle, 

expressed above, that a domestic 

relations order issued after the annuity 

starting date does not violate the 

requirements of section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) 

merely because the order requires the 

allocation of some or all of the 

participant’s determined monthly 

benefit payment to an alternate payee, 

the Department, based on its review of 

sections 206 and 205 of ERISA, the case 

law, and other relevant guidance, is of 

the view that such principle does not 

apply to a domestic relations order that 

is received after the annuity starting 

date and that requires an allocation to 

an alternate payee of some or all of the 

death benefit that, under the form of 

benefit in effect, is payable to another 

beneficiary.6 An example of this is a 

plan’s receipt of a domestic relations 

order after the annuity starting date of 

a QJSA that assigns to the participant’s 

former spouse a shared payment of the 

participant’s current spouse’s survivor 

benefits under the QJSA. 

A number of commenters asked the 

Department to undertake an education 

campaign on QDROs. The Department’s 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration (EBSA) already 

conducts various educational outreach 

programs aimed at increasing awareness 

of the requirements of ERISA and 

helping fiduciaries meet their legal 

obligations. In response to these specific 

comments, however, EBSA will update 

its educational handbook ‘‘QDROs—The 

Division of Pensions Through Qualified 

Domestic Relations Orders’’ that is 

available at http://www.dol.gov/EBSA/ 

publications. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 32849 

A number of commenters raised 

QDRO issues pertaining to matters that 

the Department considers to be beyond 

the scope of the directive contained in 

section 1001 of the PPA. This section of 

the PPA specifically directed the 

Department to clarify certain timing 

issues. These timing issues are 

addressed, with examples, in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of the final 

regulation. QDRO issues beyond this 

specific directive may be addressed in 

future guidance by the Department in 

consultation with the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation and the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

D. Overview of Final Rule 

Scope of the Regulation 

Paragraph (a) of the regulation 

provides that the scope of the regulation 

is to implement the directive contained 

in section 1001 of the PPA to clarify 

certain timing issues with respect to 

domestic relations orders and qualified 

domestic relations orders under ERISA. 

Subsequent Domestic Relations Orders 

Paragraph (b)(1) of the regulation 

provides that a domestic relations order 

otherwise meeting ERISA’s 

requirements to be a QDRO shall not fail 

to be treated as a QDRO solely because 

the order is issued after, or revises, 

another domestic relations order or 

QDRO. Paragraph (b)(2) provides 

examples of this rule. Example 1 

illustrates this rule as applied to a 

subsequent order revising an earlier 

QDRO involving the same parties. 

Example 2 illustrates this rule in the 

context of a subsequent order involving 

the same participant and a different 

alternate payee. 

Timing of Domestic Relations Order 

Paragraph (c)(1) of the regulation 

provides that a domestic relations order 

otherwise meeting ERISA’s 

requirements to be a QDRO shall not fail 

to be treated as a QDRO solely because 

of the time at which it is issued. 

Paragraph (c)(2) provides examples of 

this rule. Example 1 illustrates the 

principle that a domestic relation order 

will not fail to be a QDRO solely 

because it is issued after the death of the 

participant. Example 2 illustrates that a 

domestic relation order will not fail to 

be a QDRO solely because it is issued 

after the parties divorce. Example 3 

illustrates that an order would not fail 

to be a QDRO solely because it is issued 

after the participant’s annuity starting 

date. 

Requirements and Protections 

Paragraph (d)(1) of the regulation 

provides that any domestic relations 

order described in paragraph (b) or (c) 

of the regulation shall be subject to the 

same requirements and protections that 

apply to all QDROs under section 

206(d)(3) of ERISA. Paragraph (d)(2) 

provides examples of this rule. Example 

1 illustrates that, although an order will 

not fail to be a QDRO solely because it 

is issued after the death of the 

participant, the order would fail to be a 

QDRO if it requires the plan to provide 

a type or form of benefit, or any option, 

not otherwise provided under the plan. 

Example 2 illustrates application of the 

protective rules regarding segregation of 

payable benefits to a second order 

involving the same participant and 

alternate payee. Example 3 illustrates 

that, although an order will not fail to 

be a QDRO solely because it is issued 

after another QDRO, the order will fail 

to be a QDRO if it assigns benefits 

already assigned to another alternate 

payee under another QDRO. Example 4 

illustrates the principle that although an 

order will not fail to be a QDRO solely 

because it is issued after the annuity 

starting date, the order would fail to be 

a QDRO if it requires the plan to provide 

a type or form of benefit, or any option, 

not otherwise provided under the plan. 

E. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Order 12866 Statement 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735), a regulatory action determined 

to be ‘‘significant’’ is subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Section 3(f) of the Executive 

Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action that is likely to 

result in a rule (1) Having an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more, or adversely and materially 

affecting a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities (also referred to as 

‘‘economically significant’’); (2) creating 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfering with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially altering the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 

raising novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. This 

regulatory action is not economically 

significant within the meaning of 

section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order. 

However, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OBM) has determined that the 

action is significant within the meaning 

of section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order, 

and the Department accordingly 

provides the following assessment of its 

potential costs and benefits. 

This final rule is intended to clarify 

the statutory requirements for QDROs 

under section 206(d)(3) of ERISA and 

section 414(p) of the Code. The 

provisions of section 206(d)(3) generally 

assist State authorities in deciding 

permissible ways in which pension 

benefits may be divided in domestic 

relations matters. The rules and 

processes under section 206(d)(3) make 

it possible for plan administrators to 

determine whether a State order seeking 

to assign pension benefits to an alternate 

payee should be given effect under the 

plan; clear rules concerning what 

constitutes a QDRO have the effect of 

assisting plan administrators in 

reviewing orders received by the plan, 

as well as participants and alternate 

payees in planning how to take pension 

assets into account when significant 

events require making a division of 

marital assets. 

In directing the Department, in 

section 1001 of the Pension Protection 

Act, to clarify the application of the 

QDRO provisions, Congress recognized 

that existing uncertainty about the 

application of those provisions has 

caused difficulties meriting resolution 

through regulatory action. Such 

uncertainty can impose litigation and 

other costs on plans, participants, and 

alternate payees, as well as on State 

domestic relations authorities, that will 

be reduced through the promulgation of 

this rule. Consistent with the view of 

Congress, this rule clarifies, first, that 

the sequence in which multiple orders 

may be issued does not, in itself, affect 

whether the orders are QDROs, and, 

second, that the time at which an order 

is issued does not, in itself, determine 

whether an order is or is not a QDRO. 

The rule further reiterates that an order 

must meet the specific requirements of 

section 206(d)(3) of ERISA and section 

414(p) of the Code. 

By reducing uncertainty over the 

application of the statutory 

requirements in specific circumstances, 

the rule is expected to reduce costs that 

might otherwise arise from the necessity 

of resolving uncertainty in such 

circumstances. By providing clearer 

rules for plan administrators, the rule is 

also expected to increase the efficiency 

of plan administration. In addition, the 

Department is issuing this rule in direct 

response to a Congressional directive. 

As described above, section 1001 of the 

PPA requires the Department to issue 

regulations clarifying that an order 

otherwise meeting the requirements for 

a QDRO under section 206(d)(3) of 

ERISA should not fail to be treated as 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
32850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a QDRO solely because it was issued 

after or revised another order, or 

because of the time at which it was 

issued. In issuing this final rule, 

therefore, the Department is fulfilling 

objectives expressly endorsed by 

Congress. Because the rule applies only 

in certain specific circumstances and 

affects only a small subset of domestic 

relations orders, the Department 

believes that its economic impact will 

be small, overall, but positive. 

The rule is not anticipated to impose 

increased compliance costs, because it 

merely establishes the legal effect of 

certain sequences of events. Although it 

may cause some orders to be treated as 

QDROs that otherwise might be 

disputed (or fail to be treated as a 

QDRO), the rule provides certainty with 

respect to the circumstances it covers, 

which will aid State authorities seeking 

to divide pension benefits and assist 

plan administrators seeking to discharge 

their obligations under section 206(d)(3) 

of ERISA, without limiting the power of 

State authorities to determine the proper 

division of marital assets. The rule is 

expected generally to provide benefits to 

pension plans, plan participants and 

alternate payees, and State domestic 

relations authorities by increasing the 

clarity of the rules that apply to QDROs. 

Based on the foregoing assessment, 

the Department concludes that the 

benefits of this final rule justify its costs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final regulation being issued here 

is not subject to the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it does not 

contain an ‘‘information collection’’ as 

defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502 (11). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes 

certain requirements with respect to 

federal rules that are subject to the 

notice and comment requirements of 

section 553(b) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and 

that are likely to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Unless an 

agency certifies that a final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

section 603 of the RFA requires that the 

agency present a regulatory flexibility 

analysis at the time of the publication of 

the notice of proposed rule-making 

describing the impact of the rule on 

small entities and seeking public 

comment on such impact. Because this 

rule was issued as an interim final rule, 

the RFA does not apply and the 

Department is not required to either 

certify that the rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses or conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Nevertheless, the Department has 

considered the likely impact of the rule 

on small entities in connection with its 

assessment under Executive Order 

12866, described above, and believes 

this rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For purposes of this discussion, 

the Department continues to consider a 

small entity to be an employee benefit 

plan with fewer than 100 participants. 

The basis of this definition is found in 

section 104(a)(2) of ERISA, which 

permits the Secretary of Labor to 

prescribe simplified annual reports for 

pension plans which cover fewer than 

100 participants. The Department 

invited comments on the effect of the 

interim final rule on small entities, but 

no comments were received. 

Congressional Review Act 

The final rule being issued here is 

subject to the provisions of the 

Congressional Review Act provisions of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and will be 

transmitted to Congress and the 

Comptroller General for review. The 

final rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as that 

term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 804, because 

it does not result in (1) An annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; (2) a major increase in costs or 

prices for consumers, individual 

industries, or Federal, State, or local 

government agencies, or geographic 

regions; or (3) significant adverse effects 

on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

For purposes of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4), the final rule does not include 

any Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures by State, local, or tribal 

governments, or impose an annual 

burden exceeding $100 million on the 

private sector. 

Federalism Statement 

Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 

1999) outlines fundamental principles 

of federalism and requires federal 

agencies to adhere to specific criteria in 

the process of their formulation and 

implementation of policies that have 

substantial direct effects 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. This final rule 

does not have federalism implications 

because it has no 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. Section 

514 of ERISA provides, with certain 

exceptions specifically enumerated, that 

the provisions of Titles I and IV of 

ERISA supersede any and all laws of the 

States as they relate to any employee 

benefit plan covered under ERISA. One 

exception described in section 514(b)(7) 

is for qualified domestic relations 

orders, as defined in section 206(d)(3) of 

ERISA. The rule does not alter the 

provisions of the statute; it merely 

clarifies the status of certain types of 

domestic relations orders under ERISA. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2530 

Alternate payee, Divorce, Domestic 

relations orders, Employee benefit 

plans, Marital property, Spouse, Plan 

administrator, Pensions, Qualified 

domestic relations orders. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department amends 

Subchapter D, Part 2530 of Title 29 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

SUBCHAPTER D—MINIMUM STANDARDS 

FOR EMPLOYEE PENSION BENEFIT PLANS 

UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT 

INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 

PART 2530—RULES AND 

REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM 

STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYEE 

PENSION BENEFIT PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2530 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 

505, 1011, 1012, 1014, and 1015, Pub. L. 93– 

406, 88 Stat. 852–862, 866–867, 894, 898– 

913, 924–929 (29 U.S.C. 1051–4, 1060, 1135, 

26 U.S.C. 410, 411, 413, 414); Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 13–76. Section 2530.206 

also issued under sec. 1001, Pub. L. 109–280, 

120 Stat. 780. 

■ 2. Revise § 2530.206 to read as 

follows: 

§ 2530.206 Time and order of issuance of 

domestic relations orders. 

(a) Scope. This section implements 

section 1001 of the Pension Protection 

Act of 2006 by clarifying certain timing 

issues with respect to domestic relations 

orders and qualified domestic relations 

orders under the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974, as 

amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 32851 

The examples herein illustrate the 

application of this section in certain 

circumstances. This section also applies 

in circumstances not described in the 

examples. 

(b) Subsequent domestic relations 

orders. (1) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section, a domestic relations order 

shall not fail to be treated as a qualified 

domestic relations order solely because 

the order is issued after, or revises, 

another domestic relations order or 

qualified domestic relations order. 

(2) The rule described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section is illustrated by the 

following examples: 

Example (1). Subsequent domestic 

relations order between the same parties. 

Participant and Spouse divorce, and the 

administrator of Participant’s 401(k) plan 

receives a domestic relations order. The 

administrator determines that the order is a 

QDRO. The QDRO allocates a portion of 

Participant’s benefits to Spouse as the 

alternate payee. Subsequently, before benefit 

payments have commenced, Participant and 

Spouse seek and receive a second domestic 

relations order. The second order reduces the 

portion of Participant’s benefits that Spouse 

was to receive under the QDRO. The second 

order does not fail to be treated as a QDRO 

solely because the second order is issued 

after, and reduces the prior assignment 

contained in, the first order. The result 

would be the same if the order were instead 

to increase the prior assignment contained in 

the first order. 

Example (2). Subsequent domestic 

relations order between different parties. 

Participant and Spouse 1 divorce and the 

administrator of Participant’s 401(k) plan 

receives a domestic relations order. The 

administrator determines that the order is a 

QDRO. The QDRO allocates a portion of 

Participant’s benefits to Spouse 1 as the 

alternate payee. Participant marries Spouse 2, 

and then they divorce. Participant’s 401(k) 

plan administrator subsequently receives a 

domestic relations order pertaining to Spouse 

2. The order assigns to Spouse 2 a portion of 

Participant’s 401(k) benefits not already 

allocated to Spouse 1. The second order does 

not fail to be a QDRO solely because the 

second order is issued after the plan 

administrator has determined that an earlier 

order pertaining to Spouse 1 is a QDRO. 

(c) Timing. (1) Subject to paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section, a domestic 

relations order shall not fail to be 

treated as a qualified domestic relations 

order solely because of the time at 

which it is issued. 

(2) The rule described in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section is illustrated by the 

following examples: 

Example (1). Orders issued after death. 

Participant and Spouse divorce, and the 

administrator of Participant’s plan receives a 

domestic relations order, but the 

administrator finds the order deficient and 

determines that it is not a QDRO. Shortly 

thereafter, Participant dies while actively 

employed. A second domestic relations order 

correcting the defects in the first order is 

subsequently submitted to the plan. The 

second order does not fail to be treated as a 

QDRO solely because it is issued after the 

death of the Participant. The result would be 

the same even if no order had been issued 

before the Participant’s death, in other words, 

the order issued after death were the only 

order. 

Example (2). Orders issued after divorce. 

Participant and Spouse divorce. As a result, 

Spouse no longer meets the definition of 

‘‘surviving spouse’’ under the terms of the 

plan. Subsequently, the plan administrator 

receives a domestic relations order requiring 

that Spouse be treated as the Participant’s 

surviving spouse for purposes of receiving a 

death benefit payable under the terms of the 

plan only to a participant’s surviving spouse. 

The order does not fail to be treated as a 

QDRO solely because, at the time it is issued, 

Spouse no longer meets the definition of a 

‘‘surviving spouse’’ under the terms of the 

plan. 

Example (3). Orders issued after annuity 

starting date. Participant retires and begins 

receipt of benefits in the form of a straight 

life annuity, equal to $1,000 per month, and 

with respect to which Spouse has consented 

to the waiver of the surviving spousal rights 

provided under the plan and section 205 of 

ERISA. Subsequent to the commencement of 

benefits (in other words, subsequent to the 

annuity starting date as defined in section 

205(h)(2) of ERISA and as further explained 

in 26 CFR 1.401(a)–20, Q&A–10(b)), 

Participant and Spouse divorce and present 

the plan with a domestic relations order 

requiring 50 percent ($500) of Participant’s 

future monthly annuity payments under the 

plan to be paid instead to Spouse, as an 

alternate payee (so that monthly payments of 

$500 are to be made to Spouse during 

Participant’s lifetime). Pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, the order does not fail 

to be a QDRO solely because it is issued after 

the annuity starting date. If the order instead 

had required payments to Spouse for the 

lifetime of Spouse, this would constitute a 

reannuitization with a new annuity starting 

date, rather than merely allocating to Spouse 

a part of the determined annuity payments 

due to Participant, so that the order, while 

not failing to be a QDRO because of the 

timing of the order, would fail to meet the 

requirements of section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) of 

ERISA (unless the plan otherwise permits 

such a change after the participant’s annuity 

starting date). See 29 CFR 2530.206(d)(2), 

Example (4). 

(d) Requirements and protections. (1) 

Any domestic relations order described 

in this section shall be a qualified 

domestic relations order only if the 

order satisfies the same requirements 

and protections that apply under section 

206(d)(3) of ERISA. 

(2) The rule described in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section is illustrated by the 

following examples: 

Example (1). Type or form of benefit. 

Participant and Spouse divorce, and their 

divorce decree provides that the parties will 

prepare a domestic relations order assigning 

50 percent of Participant’s benefits under a 

401(k) plan to Spouse to be paid in monthly 

installments over a 10-year period. Shortly 

thereafter, Participant dies while actively 

employed. A domestic relations order 

consistent with the divorce decree is 

subsequently submitted to the 401(k) plan; 

however, the plan does not provide for 10- 

year installment payments of the type 

described in the order. Pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, the order does not fail 

to be treated as a QDRO solely because it is 

issued after the death of Participant, but the 

order would fail to be a QDRO under section 

206(d)(3)(D)(i) and paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section because the order requires the plan to 

provide a type or form of benefit, or any 

option, not otherwise provided under the 

plan. 

Example (2). Segregation of payable 

benefits. Participant and Spouse divorce, and 

the administrator of Participant’s plan 

receives a domestic relations order under 

which Spouse would begin to receive 

benefits immediately if the order is 

determined to be a QDRO. The plan 

administrator separately accounts for the 

amounts covered by the domestic relations 

order as is required under section 

206(d)(3)(H)(v) of ERISA. The plan 

administrator finds the order deficient and 

determines that it is not a QDRO. 

Subsequently, after the expiration of the 

segregation period pertaining to that order, 

the plan administrator receives a second 

domestic relations order relating to the same 

parties under which Spouse would begin to 

receive benefits immediately if the second 

order is determined to be a QDRO. 

Notwithstanding the expiration of the first 

segregation period, the amounts covered by 

the second order must be separately 

accounted for by the plan administrator for 

an 18-month period, in accordance with 

section 206(d)(3)(H) of ERISA and paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

Example (3). Previously assigned benefits. 

Participant and Spouse 1 divorce, and the 

administrator of Participant’s 401(k) plan 

receives a domestic relations order. The 

administrator determines that the order is a 

QDRO. The QDRO assigns a portion of 

Participant’s benefits to Spouse 1 as the 

alternate payee. Participant marries Spouse 2, 

and then they divorce. Participant’s 401(k) 

plan administrator subsequently receives a 

domestic relations order pertaining to Spouse 

2. The order assigns to Spouse 2 a portion of 

Participant’s 401(k) benefits already assigned 

to Spouse 1. The second order does not fail 

to be treated as a QDRO solely because the 

second order is issued after the plan 

administrator has determined that an earlier 

order pertaining to Spouse 1 is a QDRO. The 

second order, however, would fail to be a 

QDRO under section 206(d)(3)(D)(iii) and 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section because it 

assigns to Spouse 2 all or a portion of 

Participant’s benefits that are already 

assigned to Spouse 1 by the prior QDRO. 

Example (4). Type or form of benefit. 

Participant retires and commences benefit 

payments in the form of a straight life 

annuity based on the life of Participant, with 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
32852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

respect to which Spouse consents to the 

waiver of the surviving spousal rights 

provided under the plan and section 205 of 

ERISA. Participant and Spouse divorce after 

the annuity starting date and present the plan 

with a domestic relations order that 

eliminates the straight life annuity based on 

Participant’s life and provides for Spouse, as 

alternate payee, to receive all future benefits 

in the form of a straight life annuity based 

on the life of Spouse. The plan does not 

allow reannuitization with a new annuity 

starting date, as defined in section 205(h)(2) 

of ERISA (and as further explained in 26 CFR 

1.401(a)–20, Q&A–10(b)). Pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the order 

does not fail to be a QDRO solely because it 

is issued after the annuity starting date, but 

the order would fail to be a QDRO under 

section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) and paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section because the order requires the 

plan to provide a type or form of benefit, or 

any option, not otherwise provided under the 

plan. However, the order would not fail to be 

a QDRO under section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) and 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section if instead it 

were to require all of Participant’s future 

payments under the plan to be paid instead 

to Spouse, as an alternate payee (so that 

payments that would otherwise be paid to 

the Participant during the Participant’s 

lifetime are instead to be made to the Spouse 

during the Participant’s lifetime). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

June 2010. 

Phyllis C. Borzi, 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13868 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0412] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Navy River Swim Special Local 

Regulation; Lower Mississippi River, 

Walls, MS 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a special local regulation 

for all waters of the Lower Mississippi 

River from mile marker 710 to 711 

extending the entire width of the river. 

This special local regulation is needed 

to protect persons and vessels from the 

potential safety hazards associated with 

an event involving a swim across the 

Lower Mississippi River. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 a.m. 

to 9 a.m., local time, on June 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

0412 and are available online by going 

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

USCG–2010–0412 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at 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 Lieutenant Junior 

Grade Jason Erickson, Coast Guard; 

telephone 901–521–4753, e-mail 

Jason.A.Erickson@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 

immediate action is needed to protect 

the participants in the Mississippi River 

swim, spectators, and other mariners 

from the safety hazards associated with 

swimming across the Lower Mississippi 

River. Further, the Coast Guard had late 

notice with respect to the permit: the 

Coast Guard did not receive the 

application for a marine event permit 

until May 2010. 

Under 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. This is because immediate 

action is needed to protect the 

participants in the Mississippi River 

swim, spectators, and other mariners 

from the safety hazards associated with 

swimming across the Lower Mississippi 

River. 

Basis and Purpose 

On May 6, 2010, the Coast Guard 

received an Application for Approval of 

Marine Event for a swim across the 

Lower Mississippi River. A special local 

regulation is needed to protect 

participants, spectators, and other 

mariners from the possible hazards 

associated with a swim across the Lower 

Mississippi River. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

special local regulation for all waters of 

the Lower Mississippi River from mile 

marker 710 to 711 extending the entire 

width of the river. Entry into the 

designated areas will be prohibited to 

all vessels, mariners, and persons unless 

specifically authorized by the COTP 

Lower Mississippi River or a designated 

representative. 

The COTP Lower Mississippi River or 

a designated representative will inform 

the public through broadcast notices to 

mariners of changes in the effective 

period for the special local regulation. 

This rule is effective from 5 a.m. to 9 

a.m., local time, on June 18, 2010. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

This rule will only be in effect for a 

short period of time and notifications to 

the marine community will be made 

through broadcast notices to mariners. 

The impacts on routine navigation are 

expected to be minimal. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES