33360 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

acting at the request of the designated 

federal trustees: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (‘‘NOAA’’) 

and the United States Department of the 

Interior (‘‘DOI’’) through the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

State of Louisiana is acting through its 

designated State trustees: The Louisiana 

Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, 

Department of Public Safety & 

Corrections (‘‘LOSCO’’), Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources 

(‘‘LDNR’’), Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (‘‘LDEQ’’), 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries (‘‘LDWF’’), and the Coastal 

Protection and Restoration Authority 

(‘‘CPRA’’). 

This is a civil action brought against 

Defendant CITGO Petroleum Corp. for 

recovery of damages for injury to, 

destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of 

natural resources, under Section 1002 of 

the Oil Pollution Act (‘‘OPA’’), 33 U.S.C. 

2702, and Section 2480 of the Louisiana 

Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act 

(‘‘OSPRA’’), La. Rev. Stat. 30:2480. The 

United States and Louisiana seek 

damages in order to compensate for and 

restore natural resources injured by 

CITGO’s oil discharge that occurred at 

CITGO refinery in Lake Charles, 

Louisiana, beginning on or about June 

18, 2006. The United States and the 

State also seek to recover unreimbursed 

costs of assessing such injuries. 

The Complaint in this natural 

resource damages case was filed against 

CITGO concurrently with the lodging of 

the proposed Consent Decree. The 

Complaint alleges that CITGO is liable 

for damages under OPA and OSPRA. 

The Complaint alleges that CITGO 

discharged oil into the Indian Marais 

waterway, the Calcasieu River, and the 

Calcasieu Estuary in June 2006 and that 

natural resources were injured as a 

result of the discharge. 

Under the proposed Consent Decree, 

CITGO will pay a total of 

$19,688,149.83. Of this total, CITGO 

will pay $19.16 million to the trustees 

to restore, replace, or acquire the 

equivalent of the natural resources 

allegedly injured, destroyed, or lost as a 

result of the oil spill and $528,149.83 to 

reimburse the trustees for all remaining 

unpaid assessment costs. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

proposed Consent Decree. Comments 

should be addressed to the Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and should refer to United 

States of America and Louisiana v. 

CITGO Petroleum Corp., D.J. Ref. No. 

90–5–1–1–09112/1. All comments must 

be submitted no later than thirty (30) 

days after the publication date of this 

notice. Comments may be submitted by 

either email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, 

P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department website: https://

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree upon written 

request and payment of reproduction 

costs. Please mail your request and 

payment to: Consent Decree Library, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $7.75 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Thomas Carroll, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13449 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

[Application Number D–11681] 

RIN 1210–ZA18 

Reopening of Comment Period for 

Proposed Amendments to Class 

Prohibited Transaction Exemptions To 

Remove Credit Ratings Pursuant to the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act 

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor is 

reopening the comment period on 

proposed amendments to six class 

exemptions from prohibited transaction 

rules set forth in the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code 

(the Code). The exemptions are 

Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 

(PTEs) 75–1, 80–83, 81–8, 95–60, 97–41 

and 2006–16. The proposed 

amendments relate to the use of credit 

ratings in the conditions of these class 

exemptions. Section 939A of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act requires the Department 

to remove any references to or 

requirements of reliance on credit 

ratings from its class exemptions and to 

substitute standards of creditworthiness 

as the Department determines to be 

appropriate. This reopening of the 

comment period provides interested 

persons with the opportunity to submit 

additional comments on the proposed 

amendments due to the passage of time 

since the proposal was originally 

published in 2013. All comments 

received to date on the proposed 

amendments will be included in the 

public record and need not be 

resubmitted. The proposed amendments 

to the class exemptions would affect 

participants and beneficiaries of 

employee benefit plans and IRAs, 

fiduciaries of the plans and IRAs, and 

financial institutions that engage in 

transactions with, or provide services to, 

the plans and IRAs. 

DATES: The Department is reopening the 

comment period for proposed 

amendments to certain class exemptions 

that were published in the Federal 

Register on June 21, 2013 (78 FR 37572). 

Written comments and requests for a 

public hearing must be received by the 

Department on or before August 9, 2021. 

If the Department adopts final 

amendments, they would be effective 

180 days after the date of their 

publication in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: All written comments and 

requests for a public hearing concerning 

the proposed amendments should be 

sent to the Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Office of Exemption 

Determinations, U.S. Department of 

Labor through the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal and identified by Application No. 

D–11681: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket ID 

number: EBSA 2012–0013 (follow the 

instructions for submitting comments). 

Warning: All comments received will 

be included in the public record 

without change and will be made 

available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. If you submit a 

comment, EBSA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information, but DO NOT submit 

information that you consider to be 

confidential, or otherwise protected 

(such as Social Security number or an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33361 

1Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

2 Id., section 931(5). 

3Code section 4975(c)(2) authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to grant exemptions from the 

parallel prohibited transaction provisions of the 

Code. Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of 

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 

(2018), transferred this authority from the Secretary 

of the Treasury to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, 

this notice is issued solely by the Department. 

4 40 FR 50845 (October 31, 1975), as amended by 

71 FR 5883 (February 3, 2006). 

5 45 FR 73189 (November 4, 1980), as amended 

by 67 FR 9483 (March 1, 2002). 

6 46 FR 7511 (January 23, 1981), as corrected at 

46 FR 10570 (February 3, 1981) and as amended by 

50 FR 14043 (April 9, 1985) and 67 FR 9483 (March 

1, 2002). 

7 60 FR 35925 (July 12, 1995), as amended by 67 

FR 9483 (March 1, 2002). 

8 62 FR 42830 (August 8, 1997). 

9 71 FR 63786 (October 31, 2006). 

10 78 FR 37572 (June 21, 2013). The Department 

proposed the amendments on its own motion, 

pursuant to ERISA section 408(a) and Code section 

4975(c)(2), and in accordance with the procedures 

set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 

66637 (October 27, 2011)). 

11References to Credit Ratings in Certain 

Investment Company Act Rules and Forms, Release 

Nos. 33–9193, IC–29592; 76 FR 12896 (March 9, 

2011). 12References to Ratings of Nationally Recognized 

Statistical Rating Organizations, Release Nos. 34– 

60789, IC–28939; 74 FR 52358 (October 9, 2009). 

13Purchase of Certain Debt Securities by Business 

and Industrial Development Companies Relying on 

an Investment Company Act Exemption, Release 

No. IC–30268; 77 FR 70117 (November 23, 2012). 

unlisted phone number), or confidential 

business information that you do not 

want publicly disclosed. However, if 

EBSA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EBSA might not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Additionally, the http://

www.regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EBSA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it. If you send an email 

directly to EBSA without going through 

http://www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public record and 

made available on the internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Wilker, Office of Exemption 

Determinations, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, (202) 693–8557 

(this is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act (DoddFrank),1 Congress found that credit 

ratings of certain financial products 

proved to be inaccurate and had 

‘‘contributed significantly to the 

mismanagement of risks by financial 

institutions and investors, which in turn 

adversely impacted the health of the 

economy in the United States and 

around the world.’’ 2 Dodd-Frank 

section 939A requires federal agencies, 

including the Department, to review any 

regulation that references or includes 

requirements regarding credit ratings, 

remove the references or requirements, 

and substitute standards of 

creditworthiness as the agency deems 

appropriate. 

Pursuant to Dodd-Frank section 939A, 

the Department conducted a review of 

its class prohibited transaction 

exemptions. In the absence of an 

exemption, ERISA and the Code 

prohibit certain transactions involving 

employee benefit plans and IRAs. Class 

exemptions allow parties to engage in 

specified transactions that would 

otherwise be prohibited, so long as the 

parties satisfy the conditions and 

definitional provisions of the 

exemption. Under ERISA section 408(a), 

the Department may grant prohibited 

transaction exemptions provided the 

Secretary of Labor finds that the 

exemption is (i) administratively 

feasible, (ii) in the interests of plans and 

their participants and beneficiaries, and 

(iii) protective of the rights of 

participants and beneficiaries of the 

plans.3

The Department’s review of its class 

exemptions identified Prohibited 

Transaction Exemptions (PTEs) 75–1, 

Parts III & IV,4 80–83,5 81–8,6 95–60,7

97–41,8 2006–16 9 (each, a ‘‘Class 

Exemption,’’ and collectively, the ‘‘Class 

Exemptions’’) as those including 

references to, or requiring reliance on, 

credit ratings. Each Class Exemption 

allows certain parties to engage in a 

financial transaction involving a plan or 

IRA, and, in each Class Exemption the 

Department conditioned the exemption 

on the security or other financial 

product or its issuer or guarantor 

receiving a specified minimum credit 

rating. The credit rating requirements 

range from a rating in one of the four 

highest generic categories of credit 

ratings (also known as an ‘‘investment 

grade’’ rating) to a rating in one of the 

two highest generic categories, from a 

nationally recognized statistical rating 

organization. The credit rating 

conditions are one component of the 

safeguards established in each Class 

Exemption to protect the interests of 

plans, their participants and 

beneficiaries, and IRA owners entering 

into transactions covered by the Class 

Exemptions. 

2013 Proposal 

On June 21, 2013, following its review 

of the Class Exemptions, the Department 

issued proposed amendments to the 

Class Exemptions to remove references 

to, and requirements of reliance on, 

credit ratings (2013 Proposal).10 In 

drafting the proposed amendments, the 

Department focused on alternatives to 

credit ratings requirements set forth in 

three releases by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC 

releases included proposed 

amendments to rules 2a–7 and 5b–3 

(Rule 2a–7 and Rule 5b–3); 11 a final 

amendment to rule 10f–3 (Rule 10f–3),12

and a new rule 6a–5 (Rule 6a–5),13 all 

under the Investment Company Act of 

1940. 

In the 2013 Proposal, the Department 

set forth the following approaches to the 

various credit ratings requirements in 

the Class Exemptions. For PTEs 75–1, 

Parts III and IV, and 80–83, which each 

conditioned the exemption in part on 

certain securities involved being ‘‘rated 

in one of the four highest rating 

categories by at least one nationally 

recognized statistical rating 

organization,’’ the Department proposed 

to replace this condition with a 

requirement that the securities be ‘‘(i) 

subject to no greater than moderate 

credit risk and (ii) sufficiently liquid 

that such securities can be sold at or 

near their fair market value within a 

reasonably short period of time.’’ In 

doing so, the Department relied on 

Rules 6a–5 and 10f–3. 

For PTE 81–8, which permits 

employee benefit plans and IRAs to 

invest in commercial paper that, among 

other things, possesses a rating in ‘‘one 

of the three highest rating categories by 

at least one nationally recognized 

statistical rating service,’’ the 

Department proposed instead to require 

the commercial paper to be ‘‘(i) subject 

to a minimal or low amount of credit 

risk based on factors pertaining to credit 

quality and the issuer’s ability to meet 

its short-term financial obligations and 

(ii) sufficiently liquid that such 

securities can be sold at or near their 

fair market value within a reasonably 

short period of time.’’ In doing so, the 

Department relied on Rule 10f–3 and 

the proposed amendment to Rule 2a–7. 

PTE 2006–16 allows securities 

lending transactions secured by foreign 

collateral including (i) foreign sovereign 

debt securities if the issue, issuer or 

guarantor has a rating in one of the two 

highest rating categories from a 

nationally recognized statistical rating 

organization, and (ii) irrevocable letters 

of credit issued by foreign banks with a 

counterparty rating of investment grade 

or better as determined by a nationally 

recognized statistical rating 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33362 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

14See PTE 95–60 Section III(a)(2)(B) and PTE 97– 

41 Section II(c)(2), discussed in the 2013 Proposal, 

78 FR at 37579–80. 

15Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings 

and Amendment to the Issuer Diversification 

Requirement in the Money Market Fund Rule (Reproposed Rule and Proposed Rule), 79 FR 47986 

(August 14, 2014); Removal of Certain References to 

Credit Ratings and Amendment to the Issuer 

Diversification Requirement in the Money Market 

Fund Rule (Final Rule), 80 FR 58124 (September 25, 

2015). 16Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings 

under the Investment Company Act (Final Rule), 79 

FR 1316 (January 8, 2014). 17Uniform Agreement on the Classification and 

Appraisal of Securities Held by Depository 

Institutions (Agreement), October 29, 2013, 

available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

supervisionreg/srletters/sr1318a1.pdf 18Alternatives to the Use of Credit Ratings (Final 

Rule) 77 FR 74103 (December 13, 2012). 

19 80 FR 21989 (April 20, 2015). 

20See Class Exemption for Principal Transactions 

in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice 

Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs, 

81 FR 21089, 21119–20 (April 8, 2016). The U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later vacated 

the exemption on unrelated grounds. Chamber of 

Commerce of the United States v. U.S. Department 

of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018). 

organization. The Department proposed 

to replace the requirement for foreign 

sovereign debt securities issue, issuer or 

guarantor to be in the two highest 

ratings categories with a requirement 

that they be ‘‘(i) subject to a minimal 

amount of credit risk, and (ii) 

sufficiently liquid that such securities 

can be sold at or near their fair market 

value in the ordinary course of business 

within seven calendar days.’’ In doing 

so, the Department relied on the 

proposed amendments to Rules 2a–7 

and 5b–3. The Department proposed to 

replace the requirement that foreign 

banks issuing letters of credit receive an 

‘‘investment grade’’ counterparty rating 

with a requirement that the bank’s 

ability to honor its commitments 

thereunder be subject to ‘‘no greater 

than moderate credit risk,’’ relying on 

Rule 6a–5. 

Finally, the Department proposed to 

eliminate certain references to credit 

ratings in PTEs 95–60 and 97–41 and 

replace them with references to credit 

quality.14

The Department received three 

comments in response to the 2013 

Proposal. The comments were generally 

supportive of the Department’s 

approach in light of the statutory 

requirement to remove credit ratings 

references and requirements, and 

commenters did not suggest specific 

changes to the language of the 

amendments. Commenters did suggest 

that the Department provide additional 

guidance on satisfaction of the new 

standards, and requested that the 

Department delay finalizing the 2013 

Proposal until the SEC had finalized all 

of its proposals. Following the receipt of 

these comments, the Department did not 

finalize the amendments as it focused 

on other priorities. Due to the passage 

of time, the Department is now seeking 

comments that take into account 

developments that have occurred since 

the Department issued and received 

comments on the 2013 Proposal. 

Other Regulators 

The SEC has finalized the 

amendments to Rules 2a–7 and 5b–3 

since the Department’s 2013 Proposal. 

The SEC re-proposed an amendment to 

Rule 2a–7 in 2014, and finalized the 

amendment in 2015.15 The SEC also 

finalized its amendment to Rule 5b–3 in 

2014.16 While the SEC made changes to 

the language in response to comments, 

the final amendments generally took the 

same approach to replacing references 

to credit ratings with alternative 

methods for determining credit quality. 

Other regulators have also replaced 

credit rating standards in their 

regulations using different standards 

than the Department used in its 2013 

Proposal. For example, in October 2013, 

the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System (Federal 

Reserve Board), and the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC), issued a 

joint agreement to revise an existing 

agreement and replace references to 

credit ratings with alternative standards 

of creditworthiness consistent with 

Dodd-Frank.17 The revised agreement 

provides that a security is investment 

grade if the issuer of the security has an 

adequate capacity to meet financial 

commitments for the life of the asset. An 

issuer has adequate capacity to meet its 

financial commitments if the risk of 

default is low, and the full and timely 

repayment of principal and interest is 

expected. The National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA) used similar 

language to define ‘‘investment grade’’ 

in the 2012 rule amendment.18 The rule 

provides that investment grade means 

the issuer of a security has an adequate 

capacity to meet the financial 

commitments under the security for the 

projected life of the asset or exposure, 

even under adverse economic 

conditions (12 CFR 704.2). An issuer 

has an adequate capacity to meet 

financial commitments if the risk of 

default by the obligor is low and the full 

and timely repayment of principal and 

interest on the security is expected. 

(Id.). NCUA also defined a higher 

standard, ‘‘minimal amount of credit 

risk,’’ as the amount of credit risk when 

the issuer of a security has a very strong 

capacity to meet all financial 

commitments under the security for the 

projected life of the asset or exposure, 

even under adverse economic 

conditions (Id.). An issuer has a very 

strong capacity to meet all financial 

commitments if the risk of default by 

the obligor is very low, and the full and 

timely repayment of principal and 

interest on the security is expected. (Id.) 

2015–2016 Rulemaking 

In 2015 and 2016, the Department 

also engaged in a rulemaking regarding 

the definition of an investment advice 

fiduciary under ERISA and the Internal 

Revenue Code, which included 

publication of the Proposed Class 

Exemption for Principal Transactions in 

Certain Debt Securities between 

Investment Advice Fiduciaries and 

Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (the 

Proposed Principal Transactions 

Exemption).19 The Proposed Principal 

Transactions Exemption included 

conditions imposing standards of 

creditworthiness that were similar to 

those provided in the 2013 Proposal. 

Specifically, under the proposal, a debt 

security purchased by or sold to a plan 

or IRA in a principal transaction with an 

investment advice fiduciary would have 

to ‘‘[p]ossess[ ] no greater than a 

moderate credit risk; and . . . [be] 

sufficiently liquid that the Debt Security 

could be sold at or near its fair market 

value within a reasonably short period 

of time.’’ 

In comparison to comments on the 

2013 Proposal, the Department received 

significant comments on the standards 

of creditworthiness in the Proposed 

Principal Transactions Exemption. 

Commenters generally stated that the 

standard lacked objectivity, and some 

commenters expressed the view that the 

Department’s reliance on Rule 6a–5 was 

misplaced because the SEC used the 

standard in a different context. Further, 

commenters requested that the standard 

use the term ‘‘carrying value’’ rather 

than ‘‘fair market value.’’ Finally, one 

commenter suggested that the 

Department require financial 

institutions to establish policies and 

procedures to determine how credit risk 

and liquidity will be assessed, as a 

means of operationalizing the 

requirements. Based on these 

comments, the Department finalized the 

Principal Transactions Exemption with 

revised standards of creditworthiness 

that require the debt security to (i) 

possess ‘‘no greater than a moderate 

credit risk;’’ and (ii) be ‘‘sufficiently 

liquid’’ that it ‘‘could be sold at or near 

its carrying value within a reasonably 

short period of time.’’ 20


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33363 

Request for Comment 

Due to the passage of time since the 

2013 Proposal was originally published, 

and to ensure that all interested parties 

have an opportunity to provide 

comments or new information, the 

Department is reopening the comment 

period and soliciting comments on all 

aspects of the 2013 Proposal. The 

Department specifically seeks comment 

regarding the following questions: 

• Are changes to the 2013 Proposal’s 

standards of creditworthiness necessary 

as a result of the SEC’s finalization of 

amendments to Rules 2a–7 and 5b–3? 

• Are changes to the 2013 Proposal’s 

standards of creditworthiness necessary 

as a result of other regulators’ actions 

removing references to credit ratings? 

For example, should the Department 

incorporate OCC, Federal Reserve 

Board, FDIC and/or NCUA standards 

developed for depository institutions? 

Have other regulators developed 

standards the Department should 

incorporate into the Class Exemptions? 

Are there particular challenges in the 

ERISA context to implementing any of 

those standards? 

• Are changes to the 2013 Proposal’s 

standards of creditworthiness necessary 

in light of business or other economic 

developments since the Department 

proposed changes to the Class 

Exemptions in 2013? 

• Should references to ‘‘fair market 

value’’ in the 2013 Proposal’s standards 

of creditworthiness be replaced with 

references to ‘‘carrying value’’? If so, 

please explain why. 

• Do commenters recommend that the 

Department require financial 

institutions to adopt policies and 

procedures for compliance with the 

standards of creditworthiness? If so, 

please describe the types of specific 

policies and procedures that would be 

helpful. Do financial institutions 

already have similar policies and 

procedures in place? Will 180 days 

provide sufficient time for financial 

institutions that currently do not 

currently such policies and procedures 

in place to adopt them? 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

June 2021. 

Ali Khawar, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13149 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Comment Request; 

Distribution of Characteristics of the 

Insured Unemployed 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor’s 

(DOL) Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) is soliciting 

comments concerning a proposed 

extension for the authority to conduct 

the information collection request (ICR) 

titled, ‘‘Distribution of Characteristics of 

the Insured Unemployed.’’ This 

comment request is part of continuing 

Departmental efforts to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

written comments received by August 

23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with 

applicable supporting documentation, 

including a description of the likely 

respondents, proposed frequency of 

response, and estimated total burden, 

may be obtained free by contacting 

Sandra Trujillo by telephone at 202– 

693–2933 (this is not a toll-free 

number), TTY 1–877–889–5627 (this is 

not a toll-free number), or by email at 

trujillo.sandra@dol.gov. 

Submit written comments about, or 

requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail 

or courier to the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of 

Unemployment Insurance, Room S– 

4524, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210; by email: 

trujillo.sandra@dol.gov; or by fax 202– 

693–3975. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Stengle by telephone at 202– 

693–2991 (this is not a toll-free number) 

or by email at stengle.thomas@dol.gov. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOL, as 

part of continuing efforts to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a pre-clearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information 

before submitting them to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for final 

approval. This program helps to ensure 

requested data can be provided in the 

desired format, reporting burden (time 

and financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements can be properly assessed. 

The Distribution of Characteristics of 

the Insured Unemployed is a monthly 

snapshot of the demographic 

composition of the claimant population 

in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

system. It is based on those who file a 

claim in the week containing the 19th 

day of the month, which reflects 

unemployment during the week 

containing the 12th day of the month. 

This corresponds with the sample 

timeframe used by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics for the production of labor 

force statistics they produce. This report 

serves a variety of socio-economic needs 

because it provides aggregate data 

reflecting UI claimants’ sex, race/ethnic 

group, age, industry, and occupation. 

The Social Security Act, Section 

303(a)(6), authorizes this information 

collection. 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless it is 

approved by OMB under the PRA and 

displays a currently valid OMB Control 

Number. In addition, notwithstanding 

any other provisions of law, no person 

shall generally be subject to penalty for 

failing to comply with a collection of 

information that does not display a 

valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 

1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

provide comments to the contact shown 

in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 

must be written to receive 

consideration, and they will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval of the final ICR. In 

order to help ensure appropriate 

consideration, comments should 

mention OMB control number 1205– 

0009. 

Submitted comments will also be a 

matter of public record for this ICR and 

posted on the internet, without 

redaction. DOL encourages commenters 

not to include personally identifiable 

information, confidential business data, 

or other sensitive statements/ 

information in any comments. 

DOL is particularly interested in 

comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES