Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18265

1 61 FR 42146, 42163–65 (August 14, 1996).

2 61 FR 42146.

3Commerce Business Daily, Issue No. PSA–1669,

August 29, 1996, at 4.

4NFA Rule 2–13 requires that CPOs and CTAs

who file a Disclosure Document with the

Commission also must file such Disclosure

Document with the NFA at its Chicago office.

5EDGAR, which is an acronym for Electronic

Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval, performs

automated collection, validation, indexing,

acceptance, and forwarding of submissions by

companies and others who are required by law to

file forms with the SEC. As of May 6, 1996, all

public domestic companies were required to make

their filings on EDGAR. Among the items filed on

EDGAR are annual and quarterly reports, mutual

fund prospectuses and proxy statements. Filings

under EDGAR must be prepared in accordance with

Regulation S–T (17 CFR Part 232 (1996)) and the

SEC’s EDGAR Filer Manual. EDGAR filings must be

made in ASCII format. On October 19, 1996, the

SEC released a Request for Proposals soliciting

offers for the construction and operation of a new,

modernized, privatized EDGAR electronic filing

system.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 4

Electronic Filing of Disclosure

Documents With the Commission

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

announcing the adoption of an optional,

permanent program for commodity pool

operators (‘‘CPOs’’) and commodity

trading advisors (‘‘CTAs’’) electronically

to file Disclosure Documents with the

Commission. This permanent filing

program is the continuation of a

substantially similar pilot program,

which commenced on October 15, 1996.

Additionally, the Commission has

adopted a series of technical

amendments to Part 4 of its rules to

codify the permanent electronic filing

program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan C. Ervin, Deputy Director/Chief

Counsel, or Gary L. Goldsholle,

Attorney/Advisor, Division of Trading

and Markets, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581.

Telephone Number: (202) 418–5450.

Facsimile Number: (202) 418–5536.

Electronic Mail: tm@cftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 8, 1996, the Commission

announced an optional, six-month pilot

program for electronic filing of CPO and

CTA Disclosure Documents with the

Commission (‘‘Pilot Program’’) and

invited public comment on issues

relevant to the Program.1 The Pilot

Program commenced on October 15,

1996, and has been used by over 100

CPOs and CTAs. Under the Pilot

Program, CPOs and CTAs have been

permitted to file their Disclosure

Documents by sending them to a

designated Internet electronic mail

address for the Commission.

Additionally, any related

correspondence between Commission

staff and the CPOs and CTAs concerning

the Disclosure Documents filed under

the Pilot Program also has been

conducted by means of electronic mail.

Based upon its experience

administering the Pilot Program and the

comments received, the Commission

has determined to adopt a permanent

filing program that is substantially

similar to the Pilot Program.

The Commission announced the Pilot

Program in its Interpretation Regarding

Use of Electronic Media by Commodity

Pool Operators and Commodity Trading

Advisors (‘‘Release’’).2 In the Release,

the Commission set forth the procedures

for filing Disclosure Documents under

the Pilot Program and invited interested

parties to comment on a wide range of

issues relevant to the Pilot Program.

Specifically, the Commission requested

comment concerning: (1) Whether it is

preferable to require CPOs and CTAs to

file Disclosure Documents electronically

instead of in paper form; (2) whether

special encryption procedures or other

protections against unauthorized

interception should be required; (3)

whether special graphical capabilities

are needed; (4) whether the Commission

should establish uniform formatting

requirements for electronically filed

documents; and (5) whether word

processing programs or versions in

addition to those specified in the

Release should be permitted. The

Commission also noted in the Release

that it had received an unsolicited

proposal from a vendor who had

developed a prototype electronic filing

system. The Commission requested

comment concerning the advisability of

establishing a contractual relationship

with an independent vendor to facilitate

electronic filing and/or to serve as a

repository or conduit for public access

to documents, and the willingness of

registrants to pay a filing fee to cover the

potential cost of implementing a thirdparty filing system. The Commission

also published a notice seeking

information and indications of interest

from other potential third-party vendors

in Commerce Business Daily.3

II. Analysis of Comments Received and

Use of the Pilot Program

Although the Commission received

over eighty comments on the issues

discussed in the Release, only two

commenters addressed issues pertaining

to the Pilot Program: the National

Futures Association (‘‘NFA’’) and a

CTA.

NFA commended the Commission’s

decision to initiate the Pilot Program.

Indeed, to facilitate the use of the Pilot

Program, NFA adopted procedures

essentially identical to those established

for the Pilot Program, thus allowing

CPOs and CTAs to file Disclosure

Documents electronically with both the

Commission and NFA under the same

basic procedures and protocols.4 NFA

opposed the use of a private vendor to

provide an electronic filing system for

the Commission. In particular, NFA was

concerned about the costs likely to be

associated with the use or

implementation of a third-party system,

regardless of whether such costs are

ultimately born by registrants or the

Commission. NFA commented that it

was ‘‘not aware of any potential

regulatory benefits which would justify

these additional costs.’’ NFA also

expressed concern that a private vendor

might have possession of or access to

confidential or sensitive information.

The CTA who submitted comments

also strongly opposed the suggestion

that the Commission might contract

with a private vendor to provide an

electronic filing service. Like the NFA,

this commenter expressed concern

regarding the costs of a privately

operated system, stating that he was

unwilling to bear any additional costs

for an electronic filing system. With

respect to issues of format, this

commenter opposed the creation of

uniform formatting requirements and

suggested that the Commission expand

the list of acceptable word processing

programs. This commenter also

expressed the view that an encryption

requirement would represent ‘‘overkill’’

in the context of filing of Disclosure

Documents. The commenter favored a

universal requirement that CPOs and

CTAs file Disclosure Documents

electronically and urged the

Commission to make such documents

publicly available in a system analogous

to the Securities and Exchange

Commission’s (‘‘SEC’s’’) EDGAR

system.5

Based upon the comments received

and its experience with the Pilot

Program, the Commission has

determined to make the pilot program

for the electronic filing of CPO and CTA

Disclosure Documents permanent. In
18266 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

6 In the future, the Commission may wish to give

guidance concerning voluntary formatting measures

that could be taken to facilitate the staff’s review of

Disclosure Documents.

7The SEC began developing EDGAR in the early

1980s, and the cost of development has exceeded

$111 million, 85% higher than projected. ‘‘SEC

System Shows Need For Upgrades,’’ USA Today,

March 6, 1996, at 2B. In addition, EDGAR has been

receiving so many filings that the system recently

overflowed and the SEC was forced temporarily to

purge data from 1994 to accommodate new

submissions. Lisa Bransten, ‘‘SEC Dumps Data as

Website Overflows,’’ Financial Times (USA

Edition), February 26, 1997, at 8.

8Of course, the Commission does not intend to

preclude a third party from voluntarily compiling

Disclosure Documents and making such facilities

available to the public.

9For example, XYZ, whose NFA identification

number is 99999999, is a CTA with separate

Disclosure Documents for two trading programs.

XYZ names one Disclosure Document

‘‘99999999.DD1’’ and the other ‘‘99999999.DD2.’’

The first amendment to either Disclosure Document

would be named ‘‘99999999.DD3,’’ and each

subsequent submission for either Disclosure

Document would follow sequentially, e.g.,

99999999.DD4, 99999999.DD5, etc. In the event that

a registrant has more than one version of the

Disclosure Document for a particular trading

general, the Commission’s experience

administering the Pilot Program has

been favorable. The CPOs and CTAs

who have used the program have

expressed support for the additional

flexibility and efficiency fostered by

electronic filing. Since October 15,

1996, over 100 CPOs and CTAs have

filed Disclosure Documents under the

program.

The permanent electronic filing

program will be nearly identical to the

Pilot Program. The Commission

encourages NFA to make permanent its

procedures for electronic filing,

incorporating the modifications

announced in this release as well as any

subsequent modifications, such as those

concerning acceptable word processing

programs. Given the relatively modest

usage of the Pilot Program, the

Commission is reluctant at this time to

incur the costs necessary to expand the

electronic filing system beyond its

current structure or to develop a

mechanism for passing such costs on to

CPOs and CTAs. Although the

Commission’s notice in Commerce

Business Daily generated proposals and

expressions of interest from more than

a dozen firms, in light of the

commenters’ views that the costs of

using a third-party vendor’s electronic

filing system would likely outweigh the

benefits, the Commission will continue

to monitor usage of its and NFA’s

electronic filing program to determine

whether development of a more

elaborate filing system or solicitation of

bids from third-party vendors becomes

appropriate in the future.

While the Commission agrees with

the CTA commenter that it may be

advantageous for certain CPOs and

CTAs to be able to file documents in

additional word processing programs

and operating systems, this benefit must

be weighed against the effects on

efficiency of access and review that

would result if CPOs and CTAs filed

Disclosure Documents in myriad

formats. Currently, the relevant

Commission staff have access only to

the word processing formats identified

in the Pilot Program, i.e., WordPerfect

for DOS and Microsoft Word for

Windows. However, the Commission

recognizes the rapid pace at which

computer software evolves and thus that

word processing standards common

today may soon become obsolete.

Accordingly, the Commission intends

the electronic filing program to

accommodate additional word

processing or electronic formats as

technologies evolve. The Commission

will maintain a list of acceptable

formats for filing Disclosure Documents

and amendments on its Internet website

or other publicly accessible source.

However, since most word processing

programs in use today are able to

convert documents into the formats

identified in the Pilot Program, the

Commission does not believe that it is

necessary to expand the list of available

formats at the present time. Persons who

wish to use the electronic filing program

but are unable to use the formats

currently permitted may contact the

Division of Trading and Markets,

Managed Funds Review Branch for

assistance.

The Commission also agrees with the

CTA commenter that it is not necessary

to mandate uniform electronic

formatting requirements, other than the

specification of acceptable word

processing programs.6 In addition,

based upon the comments received and

the Commission’s experience in

operating the Pilot Program, the

Commission does not believe that it is

necessary to mandate encryption

procedures or standards for use in the

electronic filing program as currently

designed. Since the use of electronic

filing procedures remains entirely

voluntary, CTAs or CPOs who are

unwilling to assume the risk of having

an electronic filing intercepted or

altered may continue to rely on

hardcopy filings. However, the

Commission does not wish to preclude

CPOs or CTAs from using encryption

procedures they believe to be necessary,

and registrants who desire to use their

own encryption or other security

measures may contact the Managed

Funds Review Branch to discuss the

feasibility of filing encrypted material.

The Commission may revisit this issue

as encryption technologies and systems

develop.

Finally, the Commission does not

believe that, at current usage levels, the

electronic filing program would justify

the expense of creating an ‘‘EDGARlike’’ public access system. Currently,

such a system would capture only about

one percent of public pool documents

and CTA Disclosure Documents. Based

upon the SEC’s experience with

EDGAR, substantial costs are associated

with operating a public electronic

repository.7 Moreover, many CPOs and

CTAs may not wish to undertake the

procedures necessary for electronic

filing. The Commission will continue to

monitor the progress of EDGAR and

other electronic repositories to

determine if implementing such a

system for Disclosure Documents

becomes feasible and appropriate.8

III. Procedures for Filing Disclosure

Documents Electronically

In establishing a permanent electronic

filing program for Disclosure

Documents, the Commission encourages

CPOs and CTAs to take advantage of the

efficiencies this new medium offers.

Because electronic mail transmissions

are nearly instantaneous, in the limited

context of the Pilot Program, the

Commission found that the review

process for electronically submitted

Disclosure Documents was generally

completed more quickly than would be

the case for paper-based submissions.

The Commission expects that, as

increasing numbers of registrants

connect to the Internet, use of electronic

filing procedures will increase.

Upon the effective date of this release,

CPOs and CTAs may file a Disclosure

Document, or amendments thereto, with

the Commission by taking the following

steps.

1. Save the Disclosure Document or

amendments as either a WordPerfect for

DOS (version 5.1 or earlier) or Microsoft

Word for Windows (version 6.0 or

earlier) file, or another acceptable

format as specified on the Commission’s

Internet website (www.cftc.gov/tm/efile)

or publicly available source of guidance.

As noted above, CPOs or CTAs who are

unable to file Disclosure Documents

using these formats may contact the

Division of Trading and Markets.

2. Use the CTA’s NFA identification

number or CPO’s pool identification

number as the file name for the saved

document, with a successively

numbered file extension (DD1, DD2,

DD3, * * * D10, D11, * * * D99, EE1,

EE2, etc.) for each item of

correspondence.9 Note that the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18267

program or pool offering, each version would

similarly be given a separate file extension.

10Persons participating in the pilot program are

not required to make duplicate filings under Rules

4.26(d) or 4.36(d), as clarified in rule amendments

discussed infra. 11 61 FR 44009 (August 27, 1996).

12 47 FR 18618–21 (April 30, 1982).

13 47 FR at 18619–20.

14 47 FR at 18620.

requirement for CPOs to use the pool

identification number represents a

change from the Pilot Program and is

necessary to assist Commission staff in

distinguishing among multiple pools

operated by a CPO. CTAs who file more

than one Disclosure Document are

requested to indicate in the text of the

electronic mail message the name of

each trading program for which it is

filing a Disclosure Document as an

attachment. Other than this minor

change in nomenclature, registrants who

have filed documents under the Pilot

Program should continue numbering

their submissions sequentially and

should not revert back to DD1 for

purposes of the permanent electronic

filing program.

3. Add the file as an attachment to an

electronic mail message addressed to

ddoc-efile@cftc.gov.10 Persons who file

Disclosure Documents electronically

must agree to receive comments from

Commission staff by electronic mail.

Accordingly, the message text should

include the electronic mail address to

which comments, if any, may be sent.

Confirmation of receipt of the filed

Disclosure Document will be provided

by Commission staff to the electronic

mail address supplied by the registrant,

and the Disclosure Document will

proceed through the normal staff review

process. Following review of the filed

document, staff comments also will be

transmitted to the registrant’s electronic

mail address.

4. The registrant’s response to staff

comments, if any, should be sent by

electronic mail message directly to the

Commission staff reviewer’s Internet

address provided in the staff comment

letter. The message should indicate the

date of the staff comment message, and

any revised text or pages should be

attached in the same manner as the

original filing (using the registrant’s

NFA identification number and the

appropriate sequential file extension as

described in No. 2, above). For instance,

if a Disclosure Document is submitted

as 99999999.DD9, then the revised text

or pages comprising the next document

submitted to the Commission should be

numbered 99999999.D10.

For purposes of the electronic filing

program, a document of up to one

megabyte (approximately 230 pages) can

be received as an electronic mail

attachment. Registrants who have a

Disclosure Document in excess of one

megabyte should contact the Managed

Funds Review Branch.

IV. Final Rules

On August 19, 1996, the Commission

authorized publication of a series of

proposed technical changes to Part 4 of

its rules to reflect interpretations set

forth in the Release and the proposed

establishment of an electronic filing

program.11 In connection with the

institution of the Pilot Program for

electronic filing and the eventual

creation of a permanent electronic filing

system, the Commission proposed

technical amendments to Rules 4.2(a),

4.26(d) and 4.36(d) to accommodate

electronic filing with the Commission.

The Commission also proposed

amendments to Rules 4.1, 4.21 and 4.31,

which pertain to the delivery of

Disclosure Documents to prospective

pool participants and managed account

customers and the receipt of electronic

acknowledgments of such delivery.

Although the Commission requested

public comment on the proposed

amendments to Rules 4.2(a), 4.26(d) and

4.36(d), no comments were received.

The Commission plans to address the

proposed amendments to Rules 4.1, 4.21

and 4.31 in a subsequent release.

A. Rule 4.2(a)—Requirements as to

Filing

Rule 4.2(a) currently provides a postal

address for all material to be filed with

the Commission under Part 4. Rule

4.2(a) was proposed to be amended to

provide that Disclosure Documents and

amendments to Disclosure Documents

may be filed at an electronic mail

address as specified by the Commission

in addition to the designated postal

address. In light of the Commission’s

decision to adopt the permanent

electronic Disclosure Document filing

program announced in this release, the

Commission has determined to amend

Rule 4.2(a) as set forth in the rule

proposal, with minor modifications to

the language more accurately to reflect

the Commission’s intent.

B. Rules 4.26(d) and 4.36(d)—Use,

Amendment and Filing of Disclosure

Document

The Commission also proposed

several technical modifications of Rules

4.26(d) and 4.36(d), which relate to

filing of Disclosure Documents. The

proposed amendments would have

clarified that persons filing Disclosure

Documents electronically are required

to file the document only once, rather

than in duplicate as is required for

paper-based filings. In light of the

Commission’s decision to establish the

permanent electronic Disclosure

Document filing program announced in

this release, the Commission has

determined to amend Rules 4.26(d) and

4.36(d) as set forth in the rule proposal,

with minor modifications to the

language more accurately to reflect the

Commission’s intent.

V. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–611 (1994),

requires that agencies, in proposing

rules, consider the impact of those rules

on small businesses. The rule

amendments discussed herein would

affect registered CPOs and CTAs. The

Commission has previously established

certain definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to

be used by the Commission in

evaluating the impact of its rules on

such entities in accordance with the

RFA.12 The Commission previously

determined that registered CPOs are not

small entities for the purpose of the

RFA.13 With respect to CTAs, the

Commission has stated that it would

evaluate within the context of a

particular rule proposal whether all or

some affected CTAs would be

considered to be small entities and, if

so, the economic impact on them of any

rule.14

The amendments adopted herein do

not impose any new burdens upon

CPOs or CTAs. The proposed

amendments enable CPOs and CTAs

electronically to file Disclosure

Documents with the Commission.

Consequently, the Commission believes

that the adoption of these rule

amendments will in many cases reduce

the burden of compliance by CPOs and

CTAs.

In certifying pursuant to section 3(a)

of the RFA that the proposed revisions

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, the Commission invited

comments from any CPOs and CTAs

who believed that the proposed

revisions, if adopted, would have a

significant economic impact on their

activities. No such comments were

received on the revisions adopted

herein.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 3(a) of

the RFA (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the

Chairperson, on behalf of the

Commission, certifies that the action

taken herein will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.
18268 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, Pub. L. 104–13 (May 13, 1995),

imposes certain requirements on federal

agencies (including the Commission) in

connection with their conducting or

sponsoring any collection of

information as defined by the

Paperwork Reduction Act. While this

rule has no burden, the group of rules

(3038–0005) of which this is a part has

the following burden:

Average Burden Hours per Response:

124.75.

Number of Respondents: 4,654.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Copies of the OMB approved

information collection package

associated with this rule may be

obtained from: Desk Officer, CFTC,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 10202, NEOB Washington DC

20503, (202) 395–7340.

C. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 4

Commodity futures, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Filings.

In consideration of the foregoing, and

pursuant to the authority contained in

the Commodity Exchange Act, and in

particular sections 2(a)(1), 4b, 4c, 4l,

4m, 4n, 4o, and 8a, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6b, 6c,

6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, and 12a, the Commission

hereby amends Chapter I of Title 17 of

the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 4—COMMODITY POOL

OPERATORS AND COMMODITY

TRADING ADVISORS

Subpart A—General Provisions,

Definitions and Exemptions

1. The authority citation for part 4

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6b, 6c, 6l, 6m,

6n, 6o, 12a and 23.

2. Section 4.2 paragraph (a) is to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 4.2 Requirements as to filing.

(a) All material filed with the

Commission under this part 4 must be

filed with the Commission at its

Washington, DC office (Att: Special

Counsel, Front Office Audit Unit,

Division of Trading and Markets,

C.F.T.C., Three Lafayette Centre, 1155

21st Street, NW., Washington, DC

20581; Provided, however, that

Disclosure Documents and amendments

thereto may be filed at an electronic

mail address for the Commission, as

specified by the Commission.

* * * * *

Subpart B—Commodity Pool

Operators

3. Section 4.26 paragraph (d) is to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 4.26 Use, amendment and filing of

Disclosure Document.

* * * * *

(d) Except as provided by § 4.8:

(1) The commodity pool operator

must file with the Commission two

copies of the Disclosure Document for

each pool that it operates or that it

intends to operate not less than 21

calendar days prior to the date the pool

operator first intends to deliver the

Document to a prospective participant

in the pool; Provided, however, that a

pool operator electing to file

electronically pursuant to § 4.2(a) may

file a single copy of the Disclosure

Document by that method; and

(2) The commodity pool operator

must file with the Commission two

copies of the subsequent amendments to

the Disclosure Document for each pool

that it operates or that it intends to

operate within 21 calendar days of the

date upon which the pool operator first

knows or has reason to know of the

defect requiring the amendment;

Provided, however, that a pool operator

electing to file electronically pursuant to

§ 4.2(a) may file a single copy of each

such amendment by that method.

Subpart C—Commodity Trading

Advisors

4. Section 4.36 paragraph (d) is to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 4.36 Use, amendment and filing of

Disclosure Document.

* * * * *

(d) (1) The trading advisor must file

with the Commission two copies of the

Disclosure Documents for each trading

program that it offers or that it intends

to offer not less than 21 calendar days

prior to the date the trading advisor first

intends to deliver the Document to a

prospective client in the trading

program; Provided, however, that a

trading advisor electing to file

electronically pursuant to § 4.2(a) may

file a single copy of the Disclosure

Document by that method.

(2) The commodity trading advisor

must file with the Commission two

copies of all subsequent amendments to

the Disclosure Document for each

trading program that it offers or that it

intends to offer within 21 calendar days

of the date upon which the trading

advisor first knows or has reason to

know of the defect requiring the

amendment; Provided, however, that a

trading advisor electing to file

electronically pursuant to § 4.2(a) may

file a single copy of each such

amendment by that method.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 9, 1997,

by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–9655 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–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: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation’s regulation on Allocation

of Assets in Single-Employer Plans

prescribes interest assumptions for

valuing benefits under terminating

single-employer plans. This final rule

amends the regulation to adopt interest

assumptions for plans with valuation

dates in May 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,

1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC

20005, 202–326–4024 (202–326–4179

for TTY and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

PBGC’s regulation on Allocation of

Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29

CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial

assumptions for valuing plan benefits of

terminating single-employer plans

covered by title IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Among the actuarial assumptions

prescribed in part 4044 are interest

assumptions. These interest

assumptions are intended to reflect

current conditions in the financial and

annuity markets.

Two sets of interest assumptions are

prescribed, one set for the valuation of

benefits to be paid as annuities and one

set for the valuation of benefits to be

paid as lump sums. This amendment

adds to appendix B to part 4044 the

annuity and lump sum interest

assumptions for valuing benefits in

plans with valuation dates during May

1997.

For annuity benefits, the interest

assumptions will be 6.30 percent for the

first 25 years following the valuation