Here is the FAX I just sent. I borrowed liberally from several folks who provided comments about this, earlier in this thread (thanks). Paladin, if you are out there, we could use your input on this also.....are we missing anything that might be important?
_________________________________________________________________
Dec. 28, 2007
Mr. Emswiler:
I am commenting on the proposed Interim Rule posted to the Federal Register (FR) by FRTIB on Dec. 27, 2007. The FR Document number is E7-25007, and this rule pertains to 5 CFR Part 1601 – Participants Choices of TSP Funds.
This notice is invalid for several reasons and should be withdrawn. It does not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act or the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It does not meet the requirements of "emergency rulemaking" (nor does it state that it is an emergency rule) so can't bypass the NPRM process. I have summarized these regulations below:
___________________________________________________________________
”A notice of proposed rulemaking or NPRM is issued by law when a regulatory agency of the United States Federal Government wishes to add, remove, or change a rule (or regulation) as part of the rulemaking process.
NPRM procedure is required and defined by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Constitution does not require NPRM. Rather, Congress created the requirement to enlighten agencies--that is, to force them to listen to comments and concerns of people who the regulation will likely affect.
The NPRM is published in the Federal Register and typically gives 60 days for public comment from any interested party, and an additional 30 days for reply comments. Original comments may still be filed in the reply comments window. While this is the normal method of agency rulemaking, emergency rulemaking is allowed to bypass the NPRM process.
About Notices of Proposed Rulemaking: (a) Each notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, unless all persons subject to it are named and are personally served with a copy of it.
(b) Each notice, whether published in the Federal Register or personally served, includes:
- A statement of the time, place, and nature of the proposed rulemaking proceeding;
- A reference to the authority under which it is issued;
- A description of the subjects and issues involved or the substance and terms of the proposed regulation;
- A statement of the time within which written comments must be submitted; and
- A statement of how and to what extent interested persons may participate in the proceeding.” ______________________________________________________________
Further, I object to the fact that this proposed interim rule was published between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, when many Federal employees are on leave and unaware of this action
Further, I object to the fact that you have not provided a means to provide comments electronically, via an internet-based comment window, in response to this proposal. It is common practice to all for comments on proposals such as this via such a comment window attached to the rule; to not do so is unreasonable, and gives the appearance that FRTIB is attempting to minimize the number of comments received.
Further, the proposed rule does not contain a clear, impartial and transparent way of how the Board identifies the 3000 TSP members that they are proposing to send the letter to; therefore it could easily be misused and arbitrary. Before any such letters are sent, there needs to be a very clear set of criteria that need to be demonstrated for each of the Fed Employee that the Board proposes to send a letter to.
Finally, the statements that the regulations…. “will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number or small entities. They will affect only employees of the Federal Government”….are incorrect. Federal retirees are also impacted by this proposed regulation, and the proposed regulation certainly WILL HAVE a significant economic impact on at least some TSP participants.
I also do not agree with the basic premise outlined for the necessity of this Interim Rule. The FRTIB has not provided a complete accounting of TSP expenses, including trading expenses, so that a fair and objective evaluation can be made as to the degree that overall TSP expenses are changing. The conclusion that some 3,000 frequent traders are causing TSP expenses to spike, is speculative and unsupported, based upon the data provided to date. This Interim Rule will lead to severe restrictions on the ability of TSP participants to manage their retirement funds. Such a drastic change is unwarranted without a much more detailed and thorough examination of the data on TSP expenses, and also an examination of a range of alternatives for addressing this (perceived) problem, if a problem is even identified.
The existing rule allowing unlimited interfund transfers, which could be made via letter, via internet (TSP website), or via the Thriftline, was put in place several years ago to allow TSP participants the flexibility to manage their retirement funds as they see fit. It is a fundamental part of the process for managing one’s TSP account, and was heralded at the time by TSP as a great improvement to the system. The justification provided by FRTIB to date for modifying this rule is clearly insufficient for making such a severe change. Until a much more complete accounting of TSP expenses is provided, and alternative solutions to any perceived problems are explored (including soliciting input from TSP members), this proposal must be withdrawn. Further, no letters should be sent to so-called frequent traders warning them of impending restrictions on their ability to make interfund transfers.
For all of the reasons cited above, I hereby request that this Interim Rule be withdrawn.
Sncerely,
XXXXXXXX
