Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47829 

IV. Environmental Impact 

The agency has determined under 21 

CFR 25.32(p) that this action is of a type 

that does not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FDA concludes that the labeling 

provisions of this final rule are not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget because they 

do not constitute a ‘‘collection of 

information’’ under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). Rather, the food labeling health 

claim on the association between 

consumption of barley betafiber and 

reduced risk of coronary heart disease is 

a ‘‘public disclosure of information 

originally supplied by the Federal 

Government to the recipient for the 

purpose of disclosure to the public’’ (5 

CFR 1320.3(c)(2)). 

VI. Federalism 

FDA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles set forth 

in Executive Order 13132. FDA has 

determined that the rule will have a 

preemptive effect on State law. Section 

4(a) of the Executive order requires 

agencies to ‘‘construe * * * a Federal 

statute to preempt State law only where 

the statute contains an express 

preemption provision or there is some 

other clear evidence that the Congress 

intended preemption of State law, or 

where the exercise of State authority 

conflicts with the exercise of Federal 

authority under the Federal statute.’’

Section 403A of the act (21 U.S.C. 343–

1) is an express preemption provision. 

Section 403A(a)(5) of the act provides 

that ‘‘* * * no State or political 

subdivision of a State may directly or 

indirectly establish under any authority 

or continue in effect as to any food in 

interstate commerce—* * * any 

requirement respecting any claim of the 

type described in section 403(r)(1) made 

in the label or labeling of food that is 

not identical to the requirement of 

section 403(r). * * *’’

On February 25, 2008, FDA published 

an IFR which imposed requirements 

under section 403(r) of the act. This 

final rule affirms the February 25, 2008, 

amendment to the existing food labeling 

regulations to add barley betafiber to the 

authorized health claim for soluble fiber 

from certain foods and CHD. Although 

this rule has a preemptive effect in that 

it precludes States from issuing any 

health claim labeling requirements for 

barley betafiber and reduced risk of 

CHD that are not identical to those 

required by this final rule, this 

preemptive effect is consistent with 

what Congress set forth in section 403A 

of the act. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act 

displaces both State legislative 

requirements and State common law 

duties (Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 

999 (2008)). 

FDA believes that the preemptive 

effect of this final rule is consistent with 

Executive Order 13132. Section 4(e) of 

the Executive order provides that ‘‘when 

an agency proposes to act through 

adjudication or rulemaking to preempt 

State law, the agency shall provide all 

affected State and local officials notice 

and an opportunity for appropriate 

participation in the proceedings.’’ On 

December 12, 2007, FDA’s Division of 

Federal and State Relations provided 

notice via fax and e-mail transmission to 

State health commissioners, State 

agriculture commissioners, food 

program directors, and drug program 

directors, as well as FDA field 

personnel, of FDA’s intent to amend the 

health claim regulation authorizing 

health claims for soluble fiber from 

certain foods and CHD (§ 101.81). 

In addition, the agency sought input 

from all stakeholders through 

publication of the IFR in the Federal 

Register on February 25, 2008. FDA 

received one comment from the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, which 

noted that FDA’s ruling on the health 

claim would not adversely affect the 

State’s actions or conflict with any State 

laws. 

In conclusion, the agency believes 

that it has complied with all of the 

applicable requirements of Executive 

Order 13132 and has determined that 

the preemptive effects of this rule are 

consistent with the Executive order. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101 

Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 101 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 101—FOOD LABELING 

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending § 101.81 that was published 

in the Federal Register of February 25, 

2008 (73 FR 9938), is adopted as a final 

rule, without change. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Jeffrey Shuren, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy and 

Planning. 

[FR Doc. E8–18863 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 94 

[Public Notice: 6320] 

RIN 1400–AC45 

Procedures for Children Abducted to 

the United States; Interim Final Rule 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule 

amends regulations regarding incoming 

parental abduction cases pursuant to the 

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 

of International Child Abduction. 

Incoming cases will be processed by the 

United States Central Authority (USCA), 

the Office of Children’s Issues in the 

Bureau of Consular Affairs within the 

U.S. Department of State or an entity 

designated by the USCA. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 

2008. 

The Department will accept written 

comments from the public through 

September 15, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1400–AC45, by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic comments: Submit 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal; 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Address all written 

submissions to Corrin M. Ferber, CA/ 

OCS/PRI, U.S. Department of State, 

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 4th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20037, fax 202–

736–9111. 

Instructions: Please submit one copy 

of your comments by only one method. 

All submissions must include the 

agency name and Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) identification 

above for this rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Corrin M. Ferber, CA/OCS/PRI, U.S. 

Department of State, Room 4039, 2201 

C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520; 

telephone: (202) 736–9172 (this is not a 

toll free number). Hearing-or speechimpaired persons may use the 

Telecommunications Devices for the 

Deaf (TDD) by contacting the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47830 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since 

1988, the Department of State has 

served as the United States Central 

Authority (USCA) under the Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction (Hague 

Convention). The Office of Children’s 

Issues (CI) in the Department’s Bureau 

of Consular Affairs serves as the primary 

point of contact for abduction cases and 

is responsible for processing all Hague 

Convention applications seeking the 

return of children wrongfully removed 

or retained in the United States from 

any other Hague Convention contracting 

state. In addition, CI is responsible for 

facilitating access rights under the 

Hague Convention. In FY 2007, CI 

processed approximately 575 cases 

involving 821 children who were 

reported abducted from or retained 

outside the United States in other Hague 

contracting countries. Another 355 cases 

involving 518 children who were 

reported abducted to or retained in the 

United States from other Hague 

contracting countries were also 

processed in FY 2007 (Hague incoming 

cases). 

The processing of incoming Hague 

Convention applications requires case 

officers to communicate with foreign 

Central Authorities about incoming 

cases, to determine the whereabouts of 

children wrongfully taken to the United 

States, to attempt to promote the 

voluntary return of abducted children, 

and to facilitate the initiation of judicial 

proceedings with a view toward 

securing the return of abducted 

children. Many of the case officer 

functions involve extensive contact with 

local law enforcement officials, social 

service agencies, legal aid organizations 

and local bar associations. 

22 CFR part 94 is being amended to 

reflect the fact that CI will resume case 

officer functions for Hague Convention 

cases where a child has been abducted 

to or retained in the United States, or 

will select an entity to assist the Central 

Authority to carry out these obligations. 

Since 1996, these functions have been 

carried out by the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children 

(NCMEC). See 61 FR 7069 (Feb. 26, 

1996); 60 FR 66073 (Dec. 21, 1995). CI 

continued to perform the remaining 

USCA functions during this time and 

retained ultimate responsibility for all 

incoming cases, and all inherently 

governmental functions, including 

matters of Hague Convention 

interpretation and policy direction. In 

March 2008, in an effort to reintegrate 

these various USCA functions, CI 

significantly modified its agreement 

with the Department of Justice’s Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention and NCMEC such that CI 

would resume the case officer functions. 

This change reflects the expansion of 

CI’s capacity to manage the full range of 

case officer functions for incoming 

Hague abduction cases. During the past 

12 years, CI has significantly increased 

its capacity to carry out casework, 

including its ability to liaise with other 

federal agencies; federal, state and local 

law enforcement; domestic and foreign 

social service agencies, nongovernmental organizations; legal aid 

organizations; and local bar 

associations. The Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) noted in its 2005 report 

that case officers exhibit the necessary 

combination of tact, empathy, and 

professionalism required to do this 

work. Further, it noted that the ability 

and commitment of the caseworkers was 

evident and well supported by the 

management team within CI. The 

findings of the OIG indicate that CI has 

developed the necessary tools to manage 

incoming casework since entering into 

its initial agreement with NCMEC in 

1995. This development, coupled with 

CI’s desire to provide consistent, 

efficient services to parents, and an 

interest in maintaining clear 

communications with foreign Central 

Authorities, makes this an appropriate 

time for CI to resume responsibility for 

handling incoming Hague Convention 

cases, or, alternatively, to select an 

entity to assist in the carrying out of 

these functions. 

The Department of State is publishing 

this as an interim final rule, rather than 

as a notice of proposed rulemaking as 

allowed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) when 

an agency determines, for good cause, 

that it is unnecessary to publish a 

proposed rule. The Department of State 

has determined that publication of a 

proposed rule is unnecessary, as the 

transfer of responsibility over incoming 

Hague Convention cases back to CI 

primarily affects internal workload 

distribution and management of the 

USCA functions. This rule minimally 

modifies the regulation to allow the 

USCA to have the discretion to 

determine whether to execute Central 

Authority functions itself, or to select an 

entity to assist the Central Authority to 

carry out its obligations. 

This rule is exempt from E.O. 12866, 

but nonetheless has been reviewed and 

found to be consistent with the 

objectives and policies thereof. This rule 

is not expected to have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). In addition, this rule would not 

impose information collection 

requirements under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35. Nor does this rule have 

federalism implications warranting the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

in accordance with E.O. 12612. This 

rule has been reviewed as required by 

E.O. 12988 and certified to be in 

compliance therewith. 

Regulatory Findings 

The Department is publishing this 

rule as an interim final rule, with 60 

days for post-promulgation public 

comments, in accordance with the 

exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 

553(a)(2) for matters relating to agency 

management or personnel. The transfer 

of responsibility over incoming Hague 

Convention cases back to the Office of 

Children’s Issues at the Department of 

State primarily affects internal workload 

distribution and management of the 

USCA functions. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive 

Order 13272: Small Business 

Since this action is exempt from 

notice and comment procedures 

contained in 5 U.S.C. 553, and no other 

statute mandates such procedures, no 

analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is 

required. However, these changes to the 

regulations are not expected to have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, and Executive Order 

13272, section 3(b). 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This interim final rule is not a major 

rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for 

purposes of congressional review of 

agency rulemaking under the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–

121. This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more; a major increase in 

costs or prices; or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of the United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), 

Public Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 64, 2 U.S. 

C. 1532, generally requires agencies to 

prepare a statement before proposing or 

adopting any rule that may result in an 

annual expenditure of $100 million or 

more (adjusted annually for inflation) by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47831 

state, local, or tribal governments, or by 

the private sector. This rule will not 

result in any such expenditure nor will 

it significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: 

Federalism 

This rule does not have federalism 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 

13132. It will not have substantial direct 

effects 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. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Review 

The Department of State does not 

consider this interim final rule to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review. In 

addition, the Department is generally 

exempt from Executive Order 12866 

except to the extent that it is 

promulgating regulations in conjunction 

with a domestic agency that are 

significant regulatory actions. The 

Department has nevertheless reviewed 

the regulation to ensure its consistency 

with the regulatory philosophy and 

principles set forth in that Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department has reviewed the 

regulations in light of sections 3 (a) and 

3 (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to 

eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for most collections of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulation. The 

Department of State has determined that 

this rule does not require new collection 

of information for purposes of the PRA. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 94 

Infants and children, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 22 CFR part 94 is revised to 

read as follows: 

PART 94—INTERNATIONAL CHILD 

ABDUCTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Hague Convention on the Civil 

Aspects of International Child Abduction; 

International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 

Public Law 100–300. 

■ 2. Section 94.6 is amended by revising 

the introductory text and revising 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (l) to read 

as follows: 

§ 94.6 Procedures for children abducted to 

the United States. 

The U.S. Central Authority, or an 

entity acting at its direction, shall 

perform the following operational 

functions with respect to all Hague 

Convention applications seeking the 

return of children wrongfully removed 

to or retained in the United States or 

seeking access to children in the United 

States: 

(a) Receive all applications seeking 

return of children wrongfully retained 

in the United States or seeking access to 

children in the United States; 

* * * * * 

(l) Perform such additional functions 

as determined by the U.S. Central 

Authority, deemed advisable to 

maintain U.S. treaty compliance with 

the Hague Convention on the Civil 

Aspects of International Child 

Abduction. 

Dated: July 23, 2008. 

Janice Jacobs, 

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 

Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–18961 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 

Benefits Payable in Terminated SingleEmployer Plans; Allocation of Assets 

in Single-Employer Plans; Interest 

Assumptions for Valuing and Paying 

Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation’s regulations on Benefits 

Payable in Terminated Single-Employer 

Plans and Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest 

assumptions for valuing and paying 

benefits under terminating singleemployer plans. This final rule amends 

the regulations to adopt interest 

assumptions for plans with valuation 

dates in September 2008. Interest 

assumptions are also published on the 

PBGC’s Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov). 

DATES: Effective September 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory 

and Policy Division, Legislative and 

Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202–326–

4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

PBGC’s regulations prescribe actuarial 

assumptions—including interest 

assumptions—for valuing and paying 

plan benefits of terminating singleemployer plans covered by title IV of 

the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974. The interest 

assumptions are intended to reflect 

current conditions in the financial and 

annuity markets. 

Three sets of interest assumptions are 

prescribed: (1) A set for the valuation of 

benefits for allocation purposes under 

section 4044 (found in Appendix B to 

Part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use 

to determine whether a benefit is 

payable as a lump sum and to determine 

lump-sum amounts to be paid by the 

PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 

4022), and (3) a set for private-sector 

pension practitioners to refer to if they 

wish to use lump-sum interest rates 

determined using the PBGC’s historical 

methodology (found in appendix C to 

part 4022). 

This amendment (1) adds to appendix 

B to part 4044 the interest assumptions 

for valuing benefits for allocation 

purposes in plans with valuation dates 

during September 2008, (2) adds to 

appendix B to part 4022 the interest 

assumptions for the PBGC to use for its 

own lump-sum payments in plans with 

valuation dates during September 2008, 

and (3) adds to appendix C to part 4022 

the interest assumptions for privatesector pension practitioners to refer to if 

they wish to use lump-sum interest rates 

determined using the PBGC’s historical 

methodology for valuation dates during 

September 2008. 

For valuation of benefits for allocation 

purposes, the interest assumptions that 

the PBGC will use (set forth in appendix 

B to part 4044) will be 6.24 percent for 

the first 20 years following the valuation 

date and 5.31 percent thereafter. These 

interest assumptions represent an 

increase (from those in effect for August 

2008) of 0.19 percent for the first 20 

years following the valuation date and 

0.19 percent for all years thereafter. 

The interest assumptions that the 

PBGC will use for its own lump-sum 

payments (set forth in appendix B to 

part 4022) will be 3.50 percent for the 

period during which a benefit is in pay 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS