52846 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 69 FR 68690 (Nov. 24, 2004); 16 CFR 682. 

2See 16 CFR 682.1(b). 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the certification office, 

send it to ATTN: Program Manager, 

Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New 

York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 

516–228–7300; fax: 516–794–5531. Before 

using any approved AMOC, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a 

principal inspector, the manager of the local 

flight standards district office/certificate 

holding district office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, 

FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA); or Bombardier Inc.’s TCCA Design 

Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by 

the DAO, the approval must include the 

DAO-authorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2017–01, dated 

January 6, 2017, for related information for 

related information. This MCAI may be 

found in the AD docket on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017–0528. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace 

Engineer, Avionics and Administrative 

Services Section, FAA, New York ACO 

Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516–228– 

7301; fax: 516–794–5531. 

(3) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Bombardier Challenger 604 Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM), Publication No. CH 

604 AFM, Revision 103, dated November 28, 

2016. 

(ii) Bombardier Challenger 605 AFM, 

Publication No. CH 605 AFM, Revision 41, 

dated November 28, 2016. 

(iii) Bombardier Challenger 650 AFM, 

Publication No. CH 650 AFM, Revision 6, 

dated November 28, 2016. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone: 514–855–5000; fax: 514– 

855–7401; email: thd.crj@

aero.bombardier.com; Internet: http://

www.bombardier.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

20, 2017. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23996 Filed 11–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 314 

[RIN 3084–AB41] 

Disposal of Consumer Report 

Information and Records 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Confirmation of rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission has completed its 

regulatory review of its rule regarding 

Disposal of Consumer Report 

Information and Records as part of the 

Commission’s systematic review of all 

current Commission rules and guides, 

and has determined to retain the Rule in 

its current form. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

November 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Relevant portions of the 

proceeding, including this document, 

are available at www.ftc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiffany George, (202) 326–3040, 

Attorney, Division of Privacy and 

Identity Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

In September 2016, the Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

requested comments on its rule 

regarding Disposal of Consumer Report 

Information and Records (‘‘Disposal 

Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’), as part of its 

comprehensive regulatory review 

program. Specifically, the Commission 

sought comments on the Rule’s costs 

and benefits, and on whether it should 

modify the Rule to account for changes 

in technology or information 

destruction standards. 

After considering the comments, the 

Commission has determined to retain 

the Rule without amendment. Most of 

the commenters who addressed the 

issue supported the Rule’s current 

provisions. A few commenters 

recommended expanding the Rule’s 

provisions. Because the Commission has 

not seen any evidence of problematic 

acts or practices that any proposed 

modification would address, it has 

determined not to amend the Rule at 

this time. 

This document provides background, 

analyzes the comments, and further 

explains the Commission’s decision. 

II. Background 

The Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act (‘‘FACTA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) 

was enacted in 2003. In part, the Act 

amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

(‘‘FCRA’’) by requiring that any person 

that maintains or otherwise possesses 

consumer information, or any 

compilation of consumer information, 

derived from consumer reports for a 

business purpose, properly dispose of 

any such information or compilation. 

The Act also required the Commission 

and other federal agencies to promulgate 

rules regarding the proper disposal of 

consumer report information and 

records. 

Pursuant to the Act’s directive, the 

Commission promulgated the Disposal 

Rule in 2004, which became effective on 

June 1, 2005.1 The Disposal Rule 

requires that persons over which the 

FTC has jurisdiction who maintain or 

otherwise possess consumer 

information for a business purpose 

properly dispose of such information by 

taking reasonable measures to protect 

against unauthorized access to or use of 

the information in connection with its 

disposal. The Rule defines ‘‘consumer 

information’’ as ‘‘any record about an 

individual, whether in paper, electronic, 

or other form, that is a consumer report 

or is derived from a consumer report. 

Consumer information also means a 

compilation of such records. Consumer 

information does not include 

information that does not identify 

individuals, such as aggregate 

information or blind data.’’ 2

The Rule includes several examples of 

what the Commission believes 

constitute reasonable measures to 

protect consumer information in 

connection with its disposal, including 

policies and procedures that require (1) 

the burning, pulverizing, or shredding 

of papers or (2) the destruction or 

erasure of electronic media containing 

consumer information so that the 

information cannot practicably be read 

or reconstructed. These examples are 

intended to provide covered entities 

with guidance on how to comply with 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52847 

3Federal Trade Commission: Disposal of 

Consumer Report Information: Request for 

Comments, 81 FR 63435 (Sept. 15, 2016). 

4The comments are posted at: https://

www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-672. 

The Commission has assigned each comment a 

number appearing after the name of the commenter 

and the date of submission. This notice cites 

comments using the last name of the individual 

submitter or the name of the organization, followed 

by the number assigned by the Commission. 

5See National Automobile Dealers Association 

(Comment #00013). 

6See Electronic Transactions Association 

(Comment #00011). 

7See National Association for Information 

Destruction (Comment #00009). 

8See Electronic Privacy Information Center 

(Comment #00015). 

9See Consumer Data Industry Association 

(Comment #00010). 

10See Data & Marketing Association (Comment 

#00012). 

11See 16 CFR 682.3(a). 

12See 69 FR at 68692; 16 CFR 313.3(o)(2)(ii). 

13 69 FR at 68692. 

14 Id. 

the Rule, but are not intended to be safe 

harbors or exclusive methods for 

compliance. In promulgating the Rule, 

the FTC noted that there are few 

foolproof methods of record destruction 

and that entities covered by the Rule 

must consider their own unique 

circumstances when determining how 

to best comply with the Rule. 

In September 2016, the Commission 

published a Notice seeking comment on 

the Rule as part of the Commission’s 

ongoing comprehensive regulatory 

review program.3 The Notice sought 

comment on the Rule’s overall costs, 

benefits, necessity, and regulatory and 

economic impact. The Notice also asked 

for comment on whether the 

Commission should modify the Rule in 

light of changes in technology and 

industry standards and practices. 

III. Regulatory Review Comments and 

Analysis 

The Commission received 11 

comments in response to the Notice 

during the comment period.4 Comments 

were filed by individuals, trade 

associations, and research organizations. 

The Commission received comments 

from such diverse organizations as the 

National Automobile Dealers 

Association (‘‘NADA’’), Data & 

Marketing Association (‘‘DMA’’), 

National Association for Information 

Destruction (‘‘NAID’’), Consumer Data 

Industry Association (‘‘CDIA’’), 

Electronic Transactions Association 

(‘‘ETA’’), and Electronic Privacy 

Information Center (‘‘EPIC’’). 

All of the commenters addressing the 

issue supported the Rule overall. 

Indeed, none of the commenters 

advocated repealing the Rule or 

narrowing its scope. For example, 

NADA stated that ‘‘the Disposal Rule is 

well-established and working effectively 

and we do not believe it needs to be 

changed or amended in any significant 

way.’’ 5 In addition, ETA noted that ‘‘the 

Disposal Rule as currently written 

effectively promotes consumer 

information security.’’ 6

Commenters differed on whether the 

Commission should expand the Rule’s 

scope. Two organizations supported 

expanding the Rule. For example, NAID 

recommended that the Commission 

‘‘add provisions and clarity to provide 

direction (and enforcement) related to 

. . . emerging issues’’ caused by 

advances in technology, such as the 

applicability of the Rule to third-party 

hardware providers (e.g., digital copier 

manufacturers who might retain a copy 

of consumer information) or cloud 

providers that may maintain consumer 

information. NAID also recommended 

expanding the definition of consumer 

information ‘‘as broadly as possible’’ 

because most covered entities already 

have considerably broad policies in 

place.7 EPIC supported expanding the 

definition of consumer information ‘‘to 

include information that is linked or 

linkable to an individual’’ because it 

‘‘represents a more flexible, technology 

neutral approach that is consistent with 

the reality of modern business 

practices.’’ 8

Most trade associations argued against 

expansion of the Rule, asserting that 

laws and guidance currently in place 

sufficiently protect consumers. For 

instance, CDIA stated ‘‘[t]here is no net 

benefit in requiring consumer reporting 

agencies to incur the additional costs 

and burdens of applying the Disposal 

Rule to aggregate information, blind 

data, or otherwise de-identified data 

when such a change would not address 

any identified consumer harm or 

provide consumers with additional 

protection.’’ 9 DMA commented that 

‘‘[e]xpanding the scope of the Disposal 

Rule could unnecessarily risk stifling an 

innovative sector that has created 

enormous job opportunities and 

provides consumers with robust 

benefits.’’ 10

The Commission agrees with the 

commenters who stated that the Rule 

should continue as it is and that it is not 

necessary to expand the Rule. No 

commenter who supported expansion of 

the Rule provided any evidence of 

problematic acts or practices that 

remain unaddressed with the scope of 

the current Rule. 

As to NAID’s comment requesting 

clarity on emerging issues relating to 

advances in technology including the 

applicability of the Rule to third-party 

service providers, the Commission notes 

that the Rule already applies to ‘‘[a]ny 

person who maintains or otherwise 

possesses consumer information for a 

business purpose’’ and requires 

‘‘reasonable measures to protect against 

unauthorized access to or use of the 

information in connection with its 

disposal.’’ 11 Thus, the Commission 

does not believe a Rule change is 

needed to address this issue. 

As to the commenters that were 

concerned that the definition of 

‘‘consumer information’’ is too limiting, 

the Commission notes that the 

definition—which excludes ‘‘aggregate 

information’’ and ‘‘blind data’’—is not 

limited to information that identifies a 

consumer by name only. The Statement 

of Basis and Purpose to the final Rule 

noted that the terms ‘‘aggregate 

information’’ and ‘‘blind data’’ are 

intended to have the same meaning as 

in the Commission’s Gramm-LeachBliley Act Rule regarding the Privacy of 

Consumer Financial Information, 16 

CFR part 313 (the ‘‘GLB Privacy Rule’’). 

The GLB Privacy Rule in turn defines 

aggregate information or blind data as 

information ‘‘that does not contain 

personal identifiers such as account 

numbers, names, or addresses.’’ 12 In 

addition, in the Statement of Basis and 

Purpose for the Disposal Rule, the 

Commission stated that there are ‘‘a 

variety of personal identifiers beyond 

simply a person’s name that would 

bring information within the scope of 

the Rule, including, but not limited to, 

a social security number, driver’s 

license number, phone number, 

physical address, and email address.’’ 13

The Commission did not include a rigid 

definition in the final Rule because it 

noted that, depending upon the 

circumstances, data elements that are 

not inherently identifying can, in 

combination, identify particular 

individuals.14

Thus, the rulemaking record makes 

clear that the definition of ‘‘consumer 

information’’ is not unduly limited. It 

may include other information that can 

be used to identify an individual. The 

Commission does not believe it is 

necessary to amend the Rule on this 

point. 

In light of the comments received, the 

Commission concludes that a 

continuing need exists for the Rule and 

that costs imposed on businesses are 

reasonable. The Commission has 

determined to retain the Rule without 

amendment at this time. The 

Commission will continue to monitor 

changes in technology and industry 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
52848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Appendix B to PBGC’s regulation on Allocation 

of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 

4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing 

benefits under terminating covered single-employer 

plans for purposes of allocation of assets under 

ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are 

updated quarterly. 

standards and practices to determine if 

it should take action in the future. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24728 Filed 11–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 9803] 

RIN 1545–BL87 

Treatment of Certain Transfers of 

Property to Foreign Corporations; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to final regulations (TD 

9803) that were published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, December 

16, 2016. The final regulations are 

related to certain transfers of property 

by United States persons to foreign 

corporations. 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

November 15, 2017 and is applicable on 

or after December 16, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynlee Baker at (202) 317–6937 (not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final regulations (TD 9803) that 

are the subject of this correction are 

issued under section 367 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final regulations 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, December 16, 2016 (81 FR 

91012) (TD 9803) contain an error that 

needs to be corrected. Specifically, 

paragraph (e) was inadvertently omitted 

from the final regulations. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.367(a)–1 is amended 

by adding paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.367(a)–1 Transfers to foreign 

corporations subject to section 367(a): In 

general. 

* * * * * 

(e) Close of taxable year in certain 

section 368(a)(1)(F) reorganizations. If a 

domestic corporation is the transferor 

corporation in a reorganization 

described in section 368(a)(1)(F) after 

March 30, 1987, in which the acquiring 

corporation is a foreign corporation, 

then the taxable year of the transferor 

corporation shall end with the close of 

the date of the transfer and the taxable 

year of the acquiring corporation shall 

end with the close of the date on which 

the transferor’s taxable year would have 

ended but for the occurrence of the 

transfer. With regard to the 

consequences of the closing of the 

taxable year, see section 381 and the 

regulations thereunder. 

* * * * * 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2017–24687 Filed 11–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4022 

Benefits Payable in Terminated SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions 

for Paying Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

regulation on Benefits Payable in 

Terminated Single-Employer Plans to 

prescribe interest assumptions under 

the regulation for valuation dates in 

December 2017. The interest 

assumptions are used for paying 

benefits under terminating singleemployer plans covered by the pension 

insurance system administered by 

PBGC. 

DATES: Effective December 1, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel S. Liebman (liebman.daniel@

pbgc.gov), Acting Assistant General 

Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 

202–326–4400 ext. 6510. (TTY/TDD 

users may call the Federal relay service 

toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to 

be connected to 202–326–4400, ext. 

6510.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC’s 

regulation on Benefits Payable in 

Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 

CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial 

assumptions—including interest 

assumptions—for paying plan benefits 

under terminated single-employer plans 

covered by title IV of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 

The interest assumptions in the 

regulation are also published on PBGC’s 

Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov). 

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in 

appendix B to part 4022 to determine 

whether a benefit is payable as a lump 

sum and to determine the amount to 

pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains 

interest assumptions for private-sector 

pension practitioners to refer to if they 

wish to use lump-sum interest rates 

determined using PBGC’s historical 

methodology. Currently, the rates in 

appendices B and C of the benefit 

payment regulation are the same. 

The interest assumptions are intended 

to reflect current conditions in the 

financial and annuity markets. 

Assumptions under the benefit 

payments regulation are updated 

monthly. This final rule updates the 

benefit payments interest assumptions 

for December 2017.1

The December 2017 interest 

assumptions under the benefit payments 

regulation will be 0.75 percent for the 

period during which a benefit is in pay 

status and 4.00 percent during any years 

preceding the benefit’s placement in pay 

status. In comparison with the interest 

assumptions in effect for November 

2017, these assumptions are unchanged. 

PBGC has determined that notice and 

public comment on this amendment are 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This finding is based on the 

need to determine and issue new 

interest assumptions promptly so that 

the assumptions can reflect current 

market conditions as accurately as 

possible. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES