Regulatory Planning and Review of Existing Regulations, 34619-34620 [2017-15551]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 26, 2017 / Proposed Rules
government in the General Schedule
Locality Areas to adjust for the varying
cost-of-living across different parts of
the United States? What would the
impact of multiple total annual
compensation levels be on particular
regions or industries?
11. Should the standard salary level
and the highly compensated employee
total annual compensation level be
automatically updated on a periodic
basis to ensure that they remain
effective, in combination with their
respective duties tests, at identifying
exempt employees? If so, what
mechanism should be used for the
automatic update, should automatic
updates be delayed during periods of
negative economic growth, and what
should the time period be between
updates to reflect long term economic
conditions?
IV. Conclusion
The Department invites interested
parties to submit comments during the
public comment period and welcomes
any pertinent information that will
provide a basis for reviewing the 2016
Final Rule.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of
July 2017.
Patricia Davidson,
Deputy Administrator for Program
Operations, Wage and Hour Division.
[FR Doc. 2017–15666 Filed 7–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–27–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Background
29 CFR Chapter XL
Regulatory Planning and Review of
Existing Regulations
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (PBGC) is asking for input
on what regulatory and deregulatory
actions it should be considering as part
of its regulatory program. PBGC is
committed to a program that provides
clear and helpful guidance, minimizes
burdens and maximizes benefits, and
addresses ineffective and outdated
rules. This initiative supports PBGC’s
ongoing regulatory planning and active
retrospective review of regulations and
responds to the President’s executive
order on ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda.’’
DATES: PBGC requests that comments be
received on or before August 25, 2017
to be assured of consideration.
pmangrum on DSKBC4BHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:57 Jul 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
Comments, identified by
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ may
be submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web
site instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: reg.comments@pbgc.gov.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory
Affairs Group, Office of the General
Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Comments received, including
personal information provided, will be
posted to www.pbgc.gov. Copies of
comments may also be obtained by
writing to Disclosure Division, Office of
the General Counsel, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street
NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, or
calling 202–326–4040 during normal
business hours. (TTY and TDD users
may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be
connected to 202–326–4040.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Cibinic, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs,
Office of the General Counsel, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K
Street NW., Washington DC 20005–
4026; cibinic.stephanie@pbgc.gov; 202–
326–4400 extension 6352. (TTY and
TDD users may call the Federal relay
service toll-free at 800–877–8339 and
ask to be connected to 202–326–4400
extension 6352.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
The Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (PBGC) is a federal
corporation created under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) to guarantee the payment of
pension benefits earned by nearly 40
million American workers and retirees
in nearly 24,000 private-sector defined
benefit pension plans. PBGC
administers two insurance programs—
one for single-employer defined benefit
pension plans and a second for
multiemployer defined benefit pension
plans. Each program is operated and
financed separately from the other, and
assets from one cannot be used to
support the other. PBGC receives no
funds from general tax revenues.
Operations are financed by insurance
premiums, investment income, assets
from pension plans trusteed by PBGC,
and recoveries from the companies
formerly responsible for the trusteed
plans.
To carry out its mission, PBGC issues
regulations interpreting or
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34619
implementing ERISA on such matters
as: how to pay premiums, when reports
are due, what benefits are covered by
the insurance program, how to
terminate a plan, the liability for
underfunding, and how multiemployer
plan withdrawal liability works.
Regulatory objectives and priorities are
developed in the context of PBGC’s
statutory purposes:
• To encourage the continuation and
maintenance of voluntary private
pension plans;
• To provide for the timely and
uninterrupted payment of pension
benefits; and
• To keep premiums at the lowest
possible levels consistent with carrying
out PBGC’s obligations under title IV of
ERISA.
PBGC intends to issue regulations
consistent with its statutory mission of
implementing the law and encouraging
the continuation and maintenance of
defined benefit plans. Thus, PBGC
attempts to minimize administrative
burdens on plans and participants,
improve transparency, simplify filing,
provide relief for small businesses, and
assist plans to comply with applicable
requirements. PBGC is committed to
issuing simple, understandable, and
timely regulations that help affected
parties. PBGC looks to maximize net
benefits and actively reviews
regulations to identify and ameliorate
inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and
requirements made irrelevant over time,
with the goal that net cost impact is zero
or less overall.
PBGC develops its regulatory
planning and review under a series of
executive orders. E.O. 12866 (issued in
1993) and E.O. 13563 (issued in 2011)
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 also calls for the periodic
review of existing regulations to identify
any that can be made more effective or
less burdensome in achieving regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13771 (issued in January
2017) seeks to reduce regulatory
requirements and control regulatory
costs. This executive order was followed
by E.O. 13777 (issued in February 2017),
which calls for a Regulatory Reform
Task Force (RRTF) in each agency to
evaluate existing regulations and make
recommendations regarding their
‘‘repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law.’’ In
evaluating regulations, the RRTF should
ask for input from persons and entities
affected by such regulations.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
pmangrum on DSKBC4BHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34620
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 26, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Request for Input
With an eye toward the Fall iteration
of the semi-annual regulatory agenda,
PBGC is requesting information,
suggestions, and comment from the
public—including from plan sponsors,
participants, practitioners, organizations
representing retirees and plan
participants, and other parties
participating in or affected by PBGC’s
programs—on regulatory and
deregulatory actions PBGC should take.
To facilitate this request for
information, PBGC developed the
questions below, the answers to which
will help determine whether there are
gaps in regulatory guidance where the
public believes rulemaking would be
beneficial, and help PBGC evaluate the
continued effectiveness and usefulness
of existing regulations.
To maximize the effectiveness of
comments, PBGC suggests that
commenters:
• Clearly identify the regulation at
issue, providing the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) citation where
available;
• Explain, in as much detail as
possible, why they believe regulating in
a specific area is necessary or beneficial,
or why an existing rule may be
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
and
• Describe the costs and benefits of
taking a particular regulatory or
deregulatory action and the data or
experience on which the commenter
bases a recommendation.
1. Are there areas where PBGC
rulemaking or other guidance would
clarify or ease the burden of certain
statutory requirements on the public?
Would tools such as regulatory safe
harbors help plans and sponsors comply
with applicable requirements, and if so,
what areas particularly would benefit
from safe harbors?
2. Are there challenges affecting the
establishment and maintenance of
pension plans or other aspects of the
private pension plan system that should
be addressed through rulemaking or
other guidance?
3. Are there regulations PBGC should
modernize that have become outdated?
If so, what type of change (e.g.,
innovations in technology, business or
actuarial practices, consumer (worker
and retiree) needs) has caused the rules
to become outdated? How would PBGC
modernize such rules?
4. What, if any, technological
developments would relieve the
administrative burden of an existing
regulation or existing information
collection?
5. Are there regulations establishing
programs or processes that have not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:57 Jul 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
operated as well as expected? If so, what
specifically has not worked and why?
6. Are there regulations that are
unnecessarily complicated which could
be streamlined to achieve regulatory
objectives more efficiently?
7. Does PBGC have regulations or
information collections (e.g., forms,
reports, or notices) that are duplicative
or that have conflicting requirements
with other agencies, such as the
Department of the Treasury, Internal
Revenue Service, or Department of
Labor?
8. Does PBGC ask for information in
forms or on reports that may be stale,
duplicative, or unnecessary to achieve a
particular statutory purpose or
regulatory objective? Are there PBGCrequired notices from plans to third
parties (such as plan participants) that
ask for or relay duplicative information?
9. Has PBGC issued any significant
guidance documents (e.g., technical
updates, policy statements) that may be
outdated, ineffective, or unnecessary to
achieve a particular statutory purpose or
regulatory objective?
10. Are there regulations that could be
tailored to impose less burden on the
public? If so, what could be alternative
regulatory or other approaches to such
rules?
11. Are there regulations that are
unnecessary and could be repealed or
replaced without impairing a PBGC
program’s statutory purpose?
12. Are there PBGC regulations that
eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation?
13. Are there any other areas where
PBGC could improve its regulations to
better accomplish its mission?
These questions are not intended to
be exhaustive. Commenters may raise
other issues or make suggestions
unrelated to these questions that they
believe would help PBGC develop a
better and more responsive regulatory
structure.
Issued in Washington, DC.
W. Thomas Reeder,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2017–15551 Filed 7–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Chapter I
46 CFR Chapters I and III
49 CFR Chapter IV
[Docket No. USCG–2017–0662]
Navigation Safety Advisory Council—
Input To Support Regulatory Reform of
Coast Guard Regulations—New Task
U.S. Coast Guard, Department
of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Announcement of new task
assignment for the Navigation Safety
Advisory Council (NAVSAC);
teleconference meeting.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Coast Guard is
issuing a new task to the Navigation
Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC).
The U.S. Coast Guard is asking
NAVSAC to help the agency identify
existing regulations, guidance, and
collections of information (that fall
within the scope of the Council’s
charter) for possible repeal,
replacement, or modification. This
tasking is in response to the issuance of
Executive Orders 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs; 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda;’’ and 13783,
‘‘Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth.’’ The full Council is
scheduled to meet by teleconference on
August 16, 2017, to discuss this tasking.
This teleconference will be open to the
public. The U.S. Coast Guard will
consider NAVSAC recommendations as
part of the process of identifying
regulations, guidance, and collections of
information to be repealed, replaced, or
modified pursuant to the three
Executive Orders discussed above.
DATES: The full Council is scheduled to
meet by teleconference on August 16,
2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. Please
note that this teleconference may
adjourn early if the Council has
completed its business.
ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference
or to request special accommodations,
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
no later than 1 p.m. on August 9, 2017.
The number of teleconference lines is
limited and will be available on a firstcome, first-served basis.
Instructions: Submit comments on the
task statement at any time, including
orally at the teleconference, but if you
want Council members to review your
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34619-34620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15551]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Chapter XL
Regulatory Planning and Review of Existing Regulations
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is asking for
input on what regulatory and deregulatory actions it should be
considering as part of its regulatory program. PBGC is committed to a
program that provides clear and helpful guidance, minimizes burdens and
maximizes benefits, and addresses ineffective and outdated rules. This
initiative supports PBGC's ongoing regulatory planning and active
retrospective review of regulations and responds to the President's
executive order on ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.''
DATES: PBGC requests that comments be received on or before August 25,
2017 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
Email: reg.comments@pbgc.gov.
Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory Affairs Group, Office of
the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026.
Comments received, including personal information provided, will be
posted to www.pbgc.gov. Copies of comments may also be obtained by
writing to Disclosure Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-
4026, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and
TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-
8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Cibinic, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington DC
20005-4026; cibinic.stephanie@pbgc.gov; 202-326-4400 extension 6352.
(TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-
877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400 extension 6352.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal
corporation created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits earned by
nearly 40 million American workers and retirees in nearly 24,000
private-sector defined benefit pension plans. PBGC administers two
insurance programs--one for single-employer defined benefit pension
plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans.
Each program is operated and financed separately from the other, and
assets from one cannot be used to support the other. PBGC receives no
funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance
premiums, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by
PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the
trusteed plans.
To carry out its mission, PBGC issues regulations interpreting or
implementing ERISA on such matters as: how to pay premiums, when
reports are due, what benefits are covered by the insurance program,
how to terminate a plan, the liability for underfunding, and how
multiemployer plan withdrawal liability works. Regulatory objectives
and priorities are developed in the context of PBGC's statutory
purposes:
To encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary
private pension plans;
To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of
pension benefits; and
To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels consistent
with carrying out PBGC's obligations under title IV of ERISA.
PBGC intends to issue regulations consistent with its statutory
mission of implementing the law and encouraging the continuation and
maintenance of defined benefit plans. Thus, PBGC attempts to minimize
administrative burdens on plans and participants, improve transparency,
simplify filing, provide relief for small businesses, and assist plans
to comply with applicable requirements. PBGC is committed to issuing
simple, understandable, and timely regulations that help affected
parties. PBGC looks to maximize net benefits and actively reviews
regulations to identify and ameliorate inconsistencies, inaccuracies,
and requirements made irrelevant over time, with the goal that net cost
impact is zero or less overall.
PBGC develops its regulatory planning and review under a series of
executive orders. E.O. 12866 (issued in 1993) and E.O. 13563 (issued in
2011) direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 also calls
for the periodic review of existing regulations to identify any that
can be made more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13771 (issued in January 2017) seeks to reduce
regulatory requirements and control regulatory costs. This executive
order was followed by E.O. 13777 (issued in February 2017), which calls
for a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) in each agency to evaluate
existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their ``repeal,
replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.'' In
evaluating regulations, the RRTF should ask for input from persons and
entities affected by such regulations.
[[Page 34620]]
Request for Input
With an eye toward the Fall iteration of the semi-annual regulatory
agenda, PBGC is requesting information, suggestions, and comment from
the public--including from plan sponsors, participants, practitioners,
organizations representing retirees and plan participants, and other
parties participating in or affected by PBGC's programs--on regulatory
and deregulatory actions PBGC should take.
To facilitate this request for information, PBGC developed the
questions below, the answers to which will help determine whether there
are gaps in regulatory guidance where the public believes rulemaking
would be beneficial, and help PBGC evaluate the continued effectiveness
and usefulness of existing regulations.
To maximize the effectiveness of comments, PBGC suggests that
commenters:
Clearly identify the regulation at issue, providing the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citation where available;
Explain, in as much detail as possible, why they believe
regulating in a specific area is necessary or beneficial, or why an
existing rule may be outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; and
Describe the costs and benefits of taking a particular
regulatory or deregulatory action and the data or experience on which
the commenter bases a recommendation.
1. Are there areas where PBGC rulemaking or other guidance would
clarify or ease the burden of certain statutory requirements on the
public? Would tools such as regulatory safe harbors help plans and
sponsors comply with applicable requirements, and if so, what areas
particularly would benefit from safe harbors?
2. Are there challenges affecting the establishment and maintenance
of pension plans or other aspects of the private pension plan system
that should be addressed through rulemaking or other guidance?
3. Are there regulations PBGC should modernize that have become
outdated? If so, what type of change (e.g., innovations in technology,
business or actuarial practices, consumer (worker and retiree) needs)
has caused the rules to become outdated? How would PBGC modernize such
rules?
4. What, if any, technological developments would relieve the
administrative burden of an existing regulation or existing information
collection?
5. Are there regulations establishing programs or processes that
have not operated as well as expected? If so, what specifically has not
worked and why?
6. Are there regulations that are unnecessarily complicated which
could be streamlined to achieve regulatory objectives more efficiently?
7. Does PBGC have regulations or information collections (e.g.,
forms, reports, or notices) that are duplicative or that have
conflicting requirements with other agencies, such as the Department of
the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, or Department of Labor?
8. Does PBGC ask for information in forms or on reports that may be
stale, duplicative, or unnecessary to achieve a particular statutory
purpose or regulatory objective? Are there PBGC-required notices from
plans to third parties (such as plan participants) that ask for or
relay duplicative information?
9. Has PBGC issued any significant guidance documents (e.g.,
technical updates, policy statements) that may be outdated,
ineffective, or unnecessary to achieve a particular statutory purpose
or regulatory objective?
10. Are there regulations that could be tailored to impose less
burden on the public? If so, what could be alternative regulatory or
other approaches to such rules?
11. Are there regulations that are unnecessary and could be
repealed or replaced without impairing a PBGC program's statutory
purpose?
12. Are there PBGC regulations that eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
creation?
13. Are there any other areas where PBGC could improve its
regulations to better accomplish its mission?
These questions are not intended to be exhaustive. Commenters may
raise other issues or make suggestions unrelated to these questions
that they believe would help PBGC develop a better and more responsive
regulatory structure.
Issued in Washington, DC.
W. Thomas Reeder,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2017-15551 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-02-P