Investment Advice-Participants and Beneficiaries, 60156-60157 [E9-27889]
Download as PDF
60156
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a
summary of safety and effectiveness
data and information submitted to
support approval of this application
may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.33 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.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
CFR part 520 is amended as follows:
■
PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM
NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 520 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
§ 520.2220a
[Amended]
2. In § 520.2220a, in paragraph (a)(2),
add in numerical sequence ‘‘058829’’.
■
Dated: November 16, 2009.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
FR Doc. E9–27885 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR 2550
dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
RIN 1210–AB13
Investment Advice—Participants and
Beneficiaries
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Withdrawal of final rule.
This document withdraws
final rules under the Employee
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:06 Nov 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
Retirement Income Security Act, and
parallel provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, relating to the
provision of investment advice to
participants and beneficiaries in
individual account plans, such as 401(k)
plans, and beneficiaries of individual
retirement accounts (and certain similar
plans). Final rules were published in the
Federal Register on January 21, 2009
(74 FR 3822). The effective and
applicability dates of the final rules had
been deferred until May 17, 2010, in
order to permit a review of policy and
legal issues raised with respect to the
rules. As discussed in this Notice, the
Department has determined to withdraw
the final rules. The Department also
intends to soon propose a revised rule
limited to the application of the
statutory exemption relating to
investment advice.
DATES: Effective January 19, 2010, the
final rule published January 21, 2009
amending 29 CFR Part 2550 (74 FR
3822), for which the effective and
applicability date was delayed on March
20, 2009 (74 FR 11847), May 22, 2009
(74 FR 23951) and November 17, 2009
(74 FR 59092), is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Wong, Office of Regulations and
Interpretations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration (EBSA), (202)
693–8500. This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On January 21, 2009, the Department
of Labor published final rules on the
provision of investment advice to
participants and beneficiaries of
participant-directed individual account
plans and to beneficiaries of individual
retirement accounts and certain similar
plans (IRAs) (74 FR 3822). The rules
implement a statutory prohibited
transaction exemption under ERISA
Section 408(b)(14) and Sec. 408(g), and
under section 4975 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (Code),1 and also
contain an administrative class
exemption granting additional relief. As
published, these rules were to be
effective on March 23, 2009. On
February 4, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register (74
FR 6007) an invitation for public
comment on a proposed 60-day
extension for the effective dates of the
final rules until May 22, 2009, and a
proposed conforming amendment to the
applicability date of Section 2550.408g–
1, in order to afford the Agency the
opportunity to review legal and policy
1 These provisions were added to ERISA and the
Code by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA),
Public Law 109–280, 120 Stat. 780 (Aug. 17, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
issues relating to the final rules. The
Department also invited public
comments on the provisions of those
rules and on the merits of rescinding,
modifying or retaining the rules. In
response to this invitation, the
Department received 28 comment
letters.2 On March 20, 2009, the
Department adopted the 60-day
extension of the final rule’s effective
and applicability date. (See 74 FR
11847). In order to afford the
Department additional time to consider
the issues raised by commenters, the
effective and applicability dates were
further delayed until November 18,
2009 (74 FR 23951), and then until May
17, 2010.
B. Comments Received
A number of the commenters
expressed the view that the final rule
raises significant issues of law and
policy, and should be withdrawn.
Several of these commenters argued that
the class exemption contained in the
final rule permits financial interests that
would cause a fiduciary adviser, and
individuals providing investment
advice on behalf of a fiduciary adviser,
to have conflicts of interest, but does not
contain conditions that would
adequately mitigate such conflicts. They
asserted that investment advice
provided under the class exemption
therefore might be tainted by the
fiduciary adviser’s conflicts. Other
commenters expressed concerns about
those provisions of the rule relating to
the ‘‘fee-leveling’’ requirement under
the statutory exemption. In particular,
some opined that the Department’s
interpretation of the statutory
exemption’s fee-leveling requirement is
incorrect for permitting the receipt of
varying fees by an affiliate of a fiduciary
adviser. As a result, they argued, a
fiduciary adviser under such a feeleveling arrangement has a conflict of
interest, and the final rule does not
adequately protect against investment
advice that is influenced by the
financial interests of the fiduciary
adviser’s affiliates. Commenters who
advocated retention of the final rule
argued that it contains strong safeguards
that would protect the interests of plan
participants and beneficiaries.
C. Analysis and Determination
As documented in the Department’s
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of the
January 2009 final regulation and class
exemption, defined contribution (DC)
plan participants and IRA beneficiaries
2 These comments are available on the
Department’s Web site at: https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/
regs/cmt-investmentadvicefinalrule.html.
E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM
20NOR1
dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
often make costly investment errors.
Those who receive and follow quality
investment advice can reduce such
errors and thereby reap substantial
financial benefit. The Department
estimated that the PPA statutory
exemption as implemented by the final
regulation, together with the final class
exemption, would extend investment
advice to 21 million previously
unadvised participants and
beneficiaries, generating $13 billion in
annual financial benefits at a cost of $5
billion, for a net annual financial benefit
of $8 billion.
In arriving at its estimates, the
Department assumed that on average
participants and beneficiaries who are
advised make investment errors at onehalf the rate of those who are not. The
Department further assumed that
different types of investment advice
arrangements on average would be
equally effective: Arrangements
operating without need for exemptive
relief, those operating pursuant to the
PPA, and those operating pursuant to
the class exemption all would reduce
investment errors by one-half on
average.
The Department’s assumptions
regarding the effectiveness of different
advice arrangements were subject to
uncertainty, particularly as applied to
its assessment of the final class
exemption’s effects. In the preamble to
the January 2009 final regulation and
class exemption the Department noted
evidence that conflicts of interest, such
as those that might be attendant to
advice arrangements operating pursuant
to the class exemption, can sometimes
taint advice. Conflicted advisers
pursuing their own interests, and the
investment managers who compensate
them, may profit at the expense of
participants and beneficiaries. The
conditions attached to the class
exemption were intended to ensure that
advisers operating pursuant to the class
exemption would honor the interests of
participants and beneficiaries.
As discussed earlier, a number of
commenters raised legal and policy
issues concerning the exemption and, in
particular, questioned the adequacy of
the final class exemption’s conditions to
mitigate the potential for investment
adviser self-dealing. The Department
believes that the questions raised in
these comments are sufficient to cast
doubt on the conditions’ adequacy to
mitigate advisers’ conflicts. If conflicts
are not mitigated advice might be
tainted. Therefore the Department has
set aside its previous assumption that
participants and beneficiaries who
follow advice delivered pursuant to the
final class exemption will commit
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:06 Nov 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
investment errors at one-half the rate of
those who are unadvised, together with
its previous conclusion that the final
class exemption’s benefits justify its
cost. Instead the Department believes
that doubts as to whether the final class
exemption’s conditions are adequate to
mitigate conflicts justify withdrawal of
the final class exemption. Accordingly,
the Department is withdrawing the
January 2009 final rule. With regard to
the statutory prohibited transaction
exemption under ERISA Section
408(b)(14) and Section 408(g), and Code
Section 4975, in order to address the
absence of regulatory guidance that
results from withdrawal of the January
2009 final rule, the Department intends
to propose regulations that, upon
adoption, implement those provisions.
Work is currently being completed on
those proposed regulations, and the
Department anticipates that they will be
published in the Federal Register
shortly.
For the reasons set forth above, the
publication on January 21, 2009 (74 FR
3822), of the final rule amending 29 CFR
Part 2550, for which the effective and
applicability date was delayed on March
20, 2009 (74 FR 11847), May 22, 2009
(74 FR 23951) and November 17, 2009,
is withdrawn.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
November 2009.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. E9–27889 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0946]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zones; Blasting and Dredging
Operations and Movement of
Explosives, Columbia River, Portland
to St. Helens, OR
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing two temporary safety zones
on the Columbia River to help ensure
the safety of the maritime public during
blasting and dredging operations taking
place near St. Helens, Oregon as well as
the movement of explosives for those
operations from Portland, Oregon to the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60157
work site. The first temporary safety
zone is a fixed zone around the area
where the blasting and dredging
operations will be taking place near St.
Helens, Oregon. The second temporary
safety zone is a moving zone around the
barge KRS 200–6 at any time that it has
explosives onboard.
DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01
a.m. on November 20, 2009 through
11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2010.
The safety zone has been enforced
with actual notice since October 30,
2009.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2009–
0946 and are available online by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2009–0946 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They
are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
rule, call or e-mail MST1 Jaime Sayers,
Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Portland; telephone
503–240–9319, e-mail
Jaime.A.Sayers@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment
pursuant to authority under section 4(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
because the publishing of an NPRM
would be impracticable and contrary to
public interest since immediate action is
needed to ensure the public’s safety
during blasting and dredging operations.
Delaying the implementation of the
safety zone would subject the public to
the hazards associated with blasting and
dredging operations and the movement
of explosives for those operations. The
E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM
20NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 223 (Friday, November 20, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60156-60157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27889]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
29 CFR 2550
RIN 1210-AB13
Investment Advice--Participants and Beneficiaries
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Withdrawal of final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws final rules under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and parallel provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, relating to the provision of investment advice to
participants and beneficiaries in individual account plans, such as
401(k) plans, and beneficiaries of individual retirement accounts (and
certain similar plans). Final rules were published in the Federal
Register on January 21, 2009 (74 FR 3822). The effective and
applicability dates of the final rules had been deferred until May 17,
2010, in order to permit a review of policy and legal issues raised
with respect to the rules. As discussed in this Notice, the Department
has determined to withdraw the final rules. The Department also intends
to soon propose a revised rule limited to the application of the
statutory exemption relating to investment advice.
DATES: Effective January 19, 2010, the final rule published January 21,
2009 amending 29 CFR Part 2550 (74 FR 3822), for which the effective
and applicability date was delayed on March 20, 2009 (74 FR 11847), May
22, 2009 (74 FR 23951) and November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59092), is
withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Wong, Office of Regulations and
Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA),
(202) 693-8500. This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On January 21, 2009, the Department of Labor published final rules
on the provision of investment advice to participants and beneficiaries
of participant-directed individual account plans and to beneficiaries
of individual retirement accounts and certain similar plans (IRAs) (74
FR 3822). The rules implement a statutory prohibited transaction
exemption under ERISA Section 408(b)(14) and Sec. 408(g), and under
section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code),\1\ and also
contain an administrative class exemption granting additional relief.
As published, these rules were to be effective on March 23, 2009. On
February 4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register (74
FR 6007) an invitation for public comment on a proposed 60-day
extension for the effective dates of the final rules until May 22,
2009, and a proposed conforming amendment to the applicability date of
Section 2550.408g-1, in order to afford the Agency the opportunity to
review legal and policy issues relating to the final rules. The
Department also invited public comments on the provisions of those
rules and on the merits of rescinding, modifying or retaining the
rules. In response to this invitation, the Department received 28
comment letters.\2\ On March 20, 2009, the Department adopted the 60-
day extension of the final rule's effective and applicability date.
(See 74 FR 11847). In order to afford the Department additional time to
consider the issues raised by commenters, the effective and
applicability dates were further delayed until November 18, 2009 (74 FR
23951), and then until May 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These provisions were added to ERISA and the Code by the
Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), Public Law 109-280, 120 Stat.
780 (Aug. 17, 2006).
\2\ These comments are available on the Department's Web site
at: https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/cmt-investmentadvicefinalrule.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments Received
A number of the commenters expressed the view that the final rule
raises significant issues of law and policy, and should be withdrawn.
Several of these commenters argued that the class exemption contained
in the final rule permits financial interests that would cause a
fiduciary adviser, and individuals providing investment advice on
behalf of a fiduciary adviser, to have conflicts of interest, but does
not contain conditions that would adequately mitigate such conflicts.
They asserted that investment advice provided under the class exemption
therefore might be tainted by the fiduciary adviser's conflicts. Other
commenters expressed concerns about those provisions of the rule
relating to the ``fee-leveling'' requirement under the statutory
exemption. In particular, some opined that the Department's
interpretation of the statutory exemption's fee-leveling requirement is
incorrect for permitting the receipt of varying fees by an affiliate of
a fiduciary adviser. As a result, they argued, a fiduciary adviser
under such a fee-leveling arrangement has a conflict of interest, and
the final rule does not adequately protect against investment advice
that is influenced by the financial interests of the fiduciary
adviser's affiliates. Commenters who advocated retention of the final
rule argued that it contains strong safeguards that would protect the
interests of plan participants and beneficiaries.
C. Analysis and Determination
As documented in the Department's regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
of the January 2009 final regulation and class exemption, defined
contribution (DC) plan participants and IRA beneficiaries
[[Page 60157]]
often make costly investment errors. Those who receive and follow
quality investment advice can reduce such errors and thereby reap
substantial financial benefit. The Department estimated that the PPA
statutory exemption as implemented by the final regulation, together
with the final class exemption, would extend investment advice to 21
million previously unadvised participants and beneficiaries, generating
$13 billion in annual financial benefits at a cost of $5 billion, for a
net annual financial benefit of $8 billion.
In arriving at its estimates, the Department assumed that on
average participants and beneficiaries who are advised make investment
errors at one-half the rate of those who are not. The Department
further assumed that different types of investment advice arrangements
on average would be equally effective: Arrangements operating without
need for exemptive relief, those operating pursuant to the PPA, and
those operating pursuant to the class exemption all would reduce
investment errors by one-half on average.
The Department's assumptions regarding the effectiveness of
different advice arrangements were subject to uncertainty, particularly
as applied to its assessment of the final class exemption's effects. In
the preamble to the January 2009 final regulation and class exemption
the Department noted evidence that conflicts of interest, such as those
that might be attendant to advice arrangements operating pursuant to
the class exemption, can sometimes taint advice. Conflicted advisers
pursuing their own interests, and the investment managers who
compensate them, may profit at the expense of participants and
beneficiaries. The conditions attached to the class exemption were
intended to ensure that advisers operating pursuant to the class
exemption would honor the interests of participants and beneficiaries.
As discussed earlier, a number of commenters raised legal and
policy issues concerning the exemption and, in particular, questioned
the adequacy of the final class exemption's conditions to mitigate the
potential for investment adviser self-dealing. The Department believes
that the questions raised in these comments are sufficient to cast
doubt on the conditions' adequacy to mitigate advisers' conflicts. If
conflicts are not mitigated advice might be tainted. Therefore the
Department has set aside its previous assumption that participants and
beneficiaries who follow advice delivered pursuant to the final class
exemption will commit investment errors at one-half the rate of those
who are unadvised, together with its previous conclusion that the final
class exemption's benefits justify its cost. Instead the Department
believes that doubts as to whether the final class exemption's
conditions are adequate to mitigate conflicts justify withdrawal of the
final class exemption. Accordingly, the Department is withdrawing the
January 2009 final rule. With regard to the statutory prohibited
transaction exemption under ERISA Section 408(b)(14) and Section
408(g), and Code Section 4975, in order to address the absence of
regulatory guidance that results from withdrawal of the January 2009
final rule, the Department intends to propose regulations that, upon
adoption, implement those provisions. Work is currently being completed
on those proposed regulations, and the Department anticipates that they
will be published in the Federal Register shortly.
For the reasons set forth above, the publication on January 21,
2009 (74 FR 3822), of the final rule amending 29 CFR Part 2550, for
which the effective and applicability date was delayed on March 20,
2009 (74 FR 11847), May 22, 2009 (74 FR 23951) and November 17, 2009,
is withdrawn.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of November 2009.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. E9-27889 Filed 11-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P