[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27705-27709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12930]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 62

RIN 3067-AC92


National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Determining the Write-
Your-Own Expense Allowance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We (FEMA) are changing our method for establishing the Write-
Your-Own (WYO) expense allowance percentage for years beginning on or 
after October 1, 1999. We will use a new formula to derive the expense 
ratios in determining the operating portion of the expense allowance. 
This formula will use direct, as opposed to net, premium and expense 
information for the property/casualty industry and will have the effect 
of lowering the expense allowance. However, during arrangement year 
1999-2000 only we will set the expense allowance at the mid-point 
between the expense allowance calculated using direct as opposed to net 
premium and expense information.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on October 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward T. Pasterick, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 500 C Street SW., 
room 429, Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-3443, (facsimile) 202-646-3445, 
or (email) [email protected]. We will post at www.fema.gov/nfip 
the text of the 1999-2000 Arrangement by June 1, 1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 13, 1998, we proposed a rule at 
63 FR 63432 that would change the method for establishing the Write 
Your Own (WYO) expense allowance percentage for arrangement years 
beginning on or after October 1, 1999. We proposed using a new formula 
to derive the expense ratios used in determining the operating portion 
of the expense allowance. This new formula would use direct, as opposed 
to net, premium and expense information for the property and casualty 
industry. It would have the effect of lowering the expense allowance to 
participating companies.
    On Tuesday, February 9, 1999, we held a public meeting to discuss 
the proposed rule and other changes to the WYO expense allowance that 
were published in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking at 63 FR 
63431, November 13, 1998. Nineteen people representing fourteen WYO 
companies and vendors attended this meeting. Most of the comments made 
at the public meeting duplicated the written comments submitted in 
response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. This Supplementary 
Information also discusses new comments made at that meeting.

General Comments

    Concerns about reduced WYO company compensation. During the comment 
period, we received comments from ten WYO companies that opposed 
reducing the WYO expense allowance. The companies agreed that it is 
reasonable to use direct rather than net

[[Page 27706]]

data in order to establish the expense allowance percentage, but the 
overarching concern of the companies was that such a change would 
reduce company compensation. In every case where a commenter cited the 
differences or complexities of writing flood insurance, the underlying 
concern was not that we are creating a further complexity with this 
rule but that reducing the expense allowance will reduce profits. None 
of the companies, however, provided any data to support the assertion 
that their operating costs have increased during the fifteen years of 
operation of the WYO program. Nor has the WYO program ever guaranteed 
any set profit margin for participating companies.
    We want to continue the same basic approach that we have used for 
more than 15 years. That is, we will continue to use published 
property/casualty industry expense information to derive flood 
insurance expense allowances. But we base our new formula on 
statistical data that were not available fifteen years ago when we 
established the compensation formula, that is, direct versus net 
premium.
    Direct versus net premium. Our use of direct rather than net 
premium more accurately than before reflects the unique nature of the 
flood insurance partnership between the Government and industry where 
we assume liability for flood losses, and companies do not have to 
incur costs for reinsurance. A number of companies that commented on 
the proposed change agreed that this is a logical approach. At issue 
are the specifics of the formula we use to set compensation for 
participating companies.
    We believe that continuing to use net rather than direct premium 
for the property/casualty industry as basis for compensation would 
neglect more refined data now available to us and would also include 
components that do not apply to the NFIP. Fifteen years ago, the 
Insurance Expense Exhibit for the property and casualty insurers did 
not provide direct premium and expense information comparable to what 
is available today in Aggregates and Averages. The result was that we 
calculated an expense allowance that all found in the early days of the 
program to be reasonable and acceptable.
    Information on direct premiums, however, provides a superior 
indicator for computing the expense ratio. Direct premiums written 
represent the aggregate amount of recorded, originated premiums--other 
than reinsurance--written during a year after deducting all return 
premiums. Net premiums written include direct premiums written plus 
reinsurance assumed, less reinsurance ceded.
    Reinsurance is not, however, a part of the WYO company's flood 
business because the Federal Government assumes liability for all 
losses. Therefore, the expense allowance should not include reinsurance 
in the calculation of the expense ratio. Using net premium has the 
effect of including non-applicable reinsurance costs and has had the 
effect of providing a WYO company with a level of compensation that is 
too high, one that we can no longer justify. This rule appropriately 
changes the basis for compensating companies and is adequate to 
compensate companies for doing business under the NFIP.

Final Decision on Compensation for Arrangement Year 1999-2000

    At the February 9, 1999 public meeting, several companies asked us 
not to implement a change in the compensation formula from October 1, 
1999 to October 1, 2000 before we study the change in more detail. We 
do not believe such a study is necessary. The WYO companies agreed that 
using direct as opposed to net data published by A.M. Best is 
reasonable. We recognize that any decrease in compensation will require 
adjustments by the WYO companies. Therefore, we have decided to provide 
a transition phase before the change we proposed on November 13, 1998 
becomes effective.
    As an accommodation, we will set the WYO expense allowance for FY 
2000, which begins on October 1, 1999, at the mid-point between the 
expense allowance calculated using direct premium and expense 
information and the expense allowance calculated using net premium and 
expense information. This will give the companies a one-year adjustment 
period before they implement the new method for calculating the expense 
allowance.
    For the 1999-2000 arrangement year, the midpoint is 31.7 percent, 
which compares with the base allowance for the current arrangement year 
of 31.6 percent. For FY 2001, beginning October 1, 2000, we will 
calculate the WYO expense allowance using direct premium and expense 
information.
    We are working with the WYO companies to develop new incentives for 
rewarding companies' marketing efforts. These incentives will be in 
addition to the basic WYO expense allowance described above. We intend 
to put these new incentives in place on October 1, 1999.

Specific Comments

    During the comment period, a number of Write-Your-Own companies 
submitted comments for consideration. We believe that we have addressed 
many of the underlying concerns of the commenters in the light of the 
accommodation we are making with this final rule. Since these comments 
comprise the public record on this rulemaking action, we state our 
position on these comments.

No ``Built-In'' Profits

    Five companies expressed concerns that the proposed change in the 
expense allowance has no ``built-in'' profit margin for flood business 
and that companies may not accrue and retain interest on investment 
income--a potential source of profit. During the fifteen years of the 
WYO program, the expense allowance has never included a specific profit 
component in the expense allowance for participating companies. There 
is, however, an implicit profit margin because the program draws 
insurers whose costs are below the expense allowance. Hence, they earn 
a profit.
    Also, private WYO participants, appropriately, may not retain 
interest on their flood premium income. WYO companies participate in 
the program without risk, that is, the Arrangement guarantees 
reimbursement for all loss payments. The ability to earn a return on 
invested premiums to pay for losses in other lines of insurance is not 
a consideration in flood insurance. The proposed change in the expense 
allowance does not affect that long-standing and appropriate 
restriction.

Commissions

    One company believed that company profits decrease as companies 
compete for business by offering higher commissions as an incentive to 
attract agents. We have always maintained that what a company chooses 
to compensate agents is a matter between the company and the agent. We 
believe that fifteen percent is a reasonable compensation figure for 
agent commissions, which we account for in the expense allowance; 
however, if a company chooses to increase its commission as a business 
incentive, then that is the company's prerogative.

Reduced Expense Allowance May Reduce the Number of Participants

    Five companies expressed concern that a reduction in the expense 
allowance will hurt the WYO program-- marginal companies will withdraw 
and new companies will balk at joining the program. The result, these 
companies

[[Page 27707]]

believe, will be more business on the direct side and less growth in 
policies. One of our goals is to encourage insurers to participate and 
at the same time to hold the line on program costs which policyholders 
and taxpayers bear. But as with any industry, when competition 
increases, marginal participants may withdraw and new entrants can 
expect less profit. We do not believe that this is necessarily a 
negative consequence. We are also confident in our cost data, and we do 
not believe that the reduction in the expense allowance will cause 
withdrawals from the program by successful companies.

Reduced Expense Allowance May Result in Poor Customer and Agent 
Service

    Two companies believed that the proposed reduction in the expense 
allowance could lead to a deterioration of services to policyholders 
and agents. We strongly disagree with this position. The expense 
allowance accounts for the costs needed to provide and maintain 
adequate services to NFIP policyholders and a profit for efficient 
companies.

Inherent Differences Between Flood Insurance and Other Lines

    Eight companies said that the ``flood product'' is essentially 
different from other property/casualty insurance products because of 
the complexity in writing flood insurance. The companies claim that 
these complexities, for example, identifying risks ineligible for flood 
insurance under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, increase costs. 
There are clearly differences between flood insurance and other lines 
of property and casualty insurance. Therefore, we believe that the five 
lines of property/casualty insurance that we have been using are still 
the best proxy for compensating WYO companies. But we also believe that 
using direct rather than net premium data will provide WYO companies 
with adequate compensation for their costs.

Flood Insurance Rating

    Five companies also highlighted the difference in rating 
methodology for flood and for other lines of property and casualty 
insurance. The companies cited as an example flood maps, which they 
called ``antiquated.'' The companies also expressed concern over the 
use of ``non-standard'' forms such as the elevation certificate in the 
underwriting process. Because of these complexities, several of these 
companies have obtained the services of third parties to determine the 
flood zone on FEMA's maps for rating flood insurance policies. The 
companies expressed concern that these costs are not reimbursable under 
the program. While we do not reimburse companies specifically for 
outsourcing flood work, the method of determining the expense allowance 
by this rule is adequate to cover these costs.

Agent Training and Education

    Several companies also expressed concern that agents find the flood 
insurance program complicated, which complexity creates a demand for 
training. Training of company agents is the primary responsibility of 
the company, and the expense allowance accounts for the expenses of a 
WYO company to train its agents. Still, we have made a commitment to 
help WYO companies with their agent training in the past, and we will 
continue to do so in the future. By the end of the current arrangement 
year, we will have conducted 150 workshops for insurance agents 
interested in selling flood insurance. The workshops are open not only 
to independent agents but also the agents of our WYO partners. We plan 
to hold the same number of workshops for agents next year as well. We 
have also helped participating companies develop training delivery 
systems of their own by conducting, upon request, train-the-trainer 
sessions on the NFIP for company trainers. To give agents immediate 
access to underwriting and rating information about the NFIP, we 
provide on our web site (www.fema.gov/nfip):

 The flood insurance manual,
 Underwriting information,
 A list of WYO companies,
 Dates and locations of agents workshops, and
 Other program information.

Statistical Reporting

    Four companies expressed concern that the WYO program requires 
monthly statistical reporting whereas other lines of property and 
casualty insurance only require statistical reporting on a quarterly 
basis. This point is accurate. Most other lines require statistical 
reporting on a quarterly basis. Even so, the WYO program has been 
requiring statistical reporting on a monthly basis for fifteen years, 
and the method of setting the expense allowance under this rule is 
adequate to cover reporting costs as well.

Unique Adjuster Skills

    Four companies also pointed out that handling flood claims requires 
unique adjuster skills with the adjusters certified by the Federal 
Government. This is also accurate. Adjusters handling flood claims 
under the Write Your Own program have, for fifteen years, needed 
special training and certification to adjust flood claims. Reducing the 
expense allowance does not affect this aspect of a company's 
participation in the WYO program. Training adjusters is a cost 
necessary to do business under the flood insurance program, a cost that 
we have taken into consideration in setting the expense allowance.

Higher Company Costs

    Two companies commented that we used to provide forms, the flood 
insurance policy, manuals, and seminars free of charge to WYO 
companies. Companies must now cover the nominal costs to produce these 
materials and conduct training at their own expense. We recognize that 
companies are now paying for some products that were free; however, the 
general expense category of the WYO expense allowance compensates 
companies for these and other costs of selling and servicing flood 
insurance. Providing companies with free materials was for companies a 
further enrichment that we can no longer justify.

Acceptable Error and Reject Rates

    Two companies expressed concern that maintaining acceptable error 
and reject levels is costly. Company systems, they claimed, for 
standard property and casualty processing, do not lend themselves to 
handling flood business. Therefore, many companies either outsource 
this part of their flood business or develop stand-alone systems. This 
is accurate. But again outsourcing or operating stand-alone systems is 
no different today than it has been for fifteen years since the start 
of the WYO program. Outsourcing or developing stand-alone systems is a 
cost of doing business under the program, a cost that participating 
companies willingly assume when they choose to join the program.

Audits

    Two companies expressed concern that the WYO program requires an 
independent audit at the expense of the company. First, we always have 
required such an independent audit at the company's expense under this 
program. It is nothing new. In addition, independent audits of 
companies' financial statements are not a unique requirement of the 
flood insurance program. Any publicly traded company requires 
accountability to its shareholders in the form of financial statements 
that are subject to independent audits. Annual statements by insurance 
companies to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners are 
also subject to an independent audit.

[[Page 27708]]

Program Changes

    Four companies expressed concern that frequent program changes 
require additional computer programming, new printing and publications, 
more training and mailings, as well as more rewriting of policies. 
These companies offered no specific data to indicate the relationship 
between the program changes and cost increases to implement those 
changes. We believe our data, which justify a lower expense allowance, 
take into consideration systems and other program changes that 
participating companies must make each year.

Reducing Expenses

    One company suggested that we should conduct an analysis of ways to 
reduce expenses while improving service to policyholders before 
proposing to adjust the expense allowance formula. They contended that 
our proposal to reduce the expense allowance failed to consider how to 
reduce or eliminate operating costs. The responsibility to hold program 
costs to a minimum and to provide the highest service exists apart from 
the issue of the expense allowance. We agree that we must provide 
improved service at reduced costs, but our purpose in proposing the new 
expense allowance formula was to take advantage of data that were not 
available when we established the current formula. These new industry 
expense data support the proposed reduction in the expense allowance 
that, we believe, is adequate to cover companies' operating costs.

Alternative Formula

    One company proposed an alternative formula for calculating the 
expense allowance. They suggested that we only use cost data for 
participating WYO companies rather than data for five property 
insurance lines and that we replace the fixed 15 percent commission 
allowance in the current formula with the ``Commission & Brokerage'' 
expense published in A.M. Best. Under their proposal, the ``Commission 
& Brokerage'', ``Other Acq.'', ``General Exp.'' and ``Taxes'' would be 
combined and the expense allowance would be set at the mean of this 
amount plus one standard deviation which, would cover the operating 
costs of approximately two-thirds of the companies. The commenter 
recognized that companies would have to report their expenses 
associated with the NFIP and suggested that this be done on a mandatory 
separate statement line on the NAIC Insurance Expense Exhibit. This 
company also proposed reporting this information annually and updating 
the WYO expense allowance every three years.
    We have always favored using published average industry expense 
ratios for other acquisition, general expenses and taxes because 
neither we nor the WYO companies can affect those ratios. A 
disadvantage to the alternative approach to the proposed compensation 
formula is that it would impose an additional reporting requirement on 
the companies and require the NAIC to change the Insurance Expense 
Exhibit. We believe that for 15 years the formula for compensating the 
companies has been fair and that we should continue to use it in its 
current form based on the best available data.

Adverse Impact on Industry Ratios

    One company said that the adverse impact on industry ratios and 
ratings, as a result of an insurer's decision to join the WYO program, 
should be a factor in determining the expense allowance level. We 
recognize that companies must report flood insurance activities on 
their financial statements that are used to derive industry ratios and 
ratings. However, we believe that a company should evaluate the impacts 
that reporting flood business will have on their industry ratios and 
ratings before deciding to participate in the WYO program. The effect 
of reporting this information will vary significantly among the WYO 
companies and is not easily measured. We do not believe the impact on 
industry ratios and ratings should be a factor in our compensation to 
companies, nor should it be a deterrent to companies participating in 
the program.

The Expense Allowance and Marketing Incentives

    One company said that the expense allowance should recognize the 
marketing goals of the program, that is, to increase the policy base of 
the program. Part of that recognition, the company claimed, should 
include geographic distribution and retention of policyholders. In 
general, the marketing guidelines, which we have and will continue to 
develop in close coordination with the companies, address the overall 
issue of rewarding a company's growth. We have not included incentives 
designed to reward companies for selling and retaining policies in 
specific areas of the country because we do not have the data or 
indicators needed to target areas of the country for flood insurance 
marketing. When we have this capability, we will discuss whether and 
how to include geographic based marketing incentives in the 
compensation scheme with the WYO companies.

Use of Data Published by A. M. Best

    Three companies commented that since 1994 we have not based the 
expense allowance solely on data published in A. M. Best's Aggregates 
and Averages. As an incentive for companies to increase the number of 
flood insurance policies, we set the expense allowance below the amount 
indicated by Best's data, and companies had the chance to earn 
additional expense allowance. The companies noted that they believed 
this was not a true bonus but a penalty if a company did not meet the 
marketing goal.
    Granted, since 1994, we have not based the expense allowance 
strictly on Best's data. We did this because Best's was simply too high 
as a basis for company compensation. Beginning in arrangement year 
1994-1995, we determined that the exact amount that a company may 
retain would be the extent to which the company met its marketing goal 
for the arrangement year and this amount could exceed the calculated 
amount. For arrangement year 1996-1997, a company could withhold 32.6 
percent of written premium. If a company failed to meet its marketing 
goal, the percent of retained expense allowance decreased in proportion 
to the unmet goal but would not fall below 30.6 percent. If a company 
met its marketing goal, it would retain the entire 32.6 percent. If a 
company exceeded the goal, the exact amount of compensation depended on 
the extent to which the company exceeded its marketing goal, and the 
size of the company's flood business in relation to the total number of 
WYO policies. We are discussing alternative marketing incentives with 
the companies and plan to address this and other concerns in the next 
arrangement year.

Company Investments in Flood Business

    Four companies commented that they had made investments to simplify 
writing flood insurance, which they believed they could recover based 
on the current expense allowance. The companies claimed that a reduced 
expense allowance would jeopardize this recovery. We have always 
encouraged company investments in their flood insurance business, and 
we believe that the expense allowance, which this rule implements, is 
adequate to cover start-up costs and other operational improvements. 
Such investments, when made wisely, result in improvements in 
productivity that

[[Page 27709]]

reduce the cost of doing business for a company and ultimately increase 
its profits.

Summary

    We believe that basing the amount of compensation for companies 
participating in the WYO program on a formula using direct rather net 
premium simply takes advantage of statistical data unavailable fifteen 
years ago when we first established the compensation formula. This also 
better reflects the nature of the liability for companies because 
companies do not have to pay for reinsurance for their flood business 
since the Federal Government assumes the liability for flood losses. We 
believe however in the light of both the written comments and the 
comments we heard at the February 9, 1999 public hearing that a one-
year transition will serve the interests of the program better. This 
transition will give the NFIP's industry partners time to adjust to the 
change in how we calculate the level of compensation for participating 
in the WYO program. This rule reflects that decision and adjusts the 
effective date of the arrangement to coincide with the start of 
Arrangement Year 1999-2000.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR 
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. We have not prepared an 
environmental assessment.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning 
of sec. 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, 58 FR 51735, and the 
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it. Nevertheless, this 
rule adheres to the regulatory principles set forth in E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain a collection of information and is 
therefore not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

    This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of 
Executive Order 12778.

Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

    We have sent this final rule to the Congress and to the General 
Accounting Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking 
Act, Pub. L. 104-121. The rule is not a ``major rule'' within the 
meaning of that Act. It is an administrative action in support of 
normal day-to-day activities. It does not result in nor is it likely to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; it 
will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions; and it will not have ``significant adverse 
effects'' on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises. This final rule is exempt (1) 
from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and (2) from 
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule is not an unfunded Federal 
mandate within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
Pub. L. 104-4. It does not meet the $100,000,000 threshold of that Act, 
and any enforceable duties are imposed as a condition of Federal 
assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 62

    Claims, Flood insurance.

    Accordingly, we amend 44 CFR part 62, Appendix A, as follows:

PART 62--SALE OF INSURANCE AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS

    1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 
1978; 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 
1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

    2. We revise the Effective Date of Appendix A to part 62 to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Part 62--Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal 
Insurance Administration, Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement

* * * * *
    Effective Date: October 1, 1999.
* * * * *
    3. We revise the Article III.B of Appendix A to part 62, to read as 
follows:
* * * * *

Article III--Loss Costs, Expenses, Expense Reimbursement, and Premium 
Refunds

* * * * *
    B. The Company may withhold as operating and administrative 
expenses, other than agents' or brokers' commissions, an amount from 
the Company's written premium on the policies covered by this 
Arrangement in reimbursement of all of the Company's marketing, 
operating and administrative expenses, except for allocated and 
unallocated loss adjustment expenses described in C. of this 
article. This amount will equal the sum of the average of industry 
expense ratios for ``Other Acq.'', ``Gen. Exp.'' and ``Taxes'' 
calculated by aggregating premiums and expense amounts for each of 
five property coverages using direct, as opposed to net, premium and 
expense information to derive weighted average expense ratios. For 
this purpose, we (the Federal Insurance Administration) will use 
data for the property/casualty industry published, as of March 15 of 
the prior Arrangement year, in Part III of the Insurance Expense 
Exhibit in A.M. Best Company's Aggregates and Averages for the 
following five property coverages: Fire, Allied Lines, Farmowners 
Multiple Peril, Homeowners Multiple Peril, and Commercial Multiple 
Peril (non-liability portion). During the first year of this 
change--arrangement year 1999-2000--which begins October 1, 1999, 
the expense allowance is set at the mid-point between the expense 
allowance calculated using direct premium and the expense allowance 
calculated using net premium.
    The Company may retain 15 percent of the Company's written 
premium on the policies covered by this Arrangement as the 
commission allowance to meet commissions or salaries of their 
insurance agents, brokers, or other entities producing qualified 
flood insurance applications and other related expenses.
    The amount of expense allowance retained by the company may 
increase a maximum of 2 percent, depending on the extent to which 
the company meets the marketing goals for the Arrangement year 
contained in marketing guidelines established pursuant to Article 
II.G. We will pay the company the amount of any increase after the 
end of the Arrangement year.
    The Company, with the consent of the Administrator as to terms 
and costs, may use the services of a national rating organization, 
licensed under state law, to help us undertake and carry out such 
studies and investigations on a community or individual risk basis, 
and to determine equitable and accurate estimates of flood insurance 
risk premium rates as authorized under the National Flood Insurance 
Act of 1968, as amended. We will reimburse the Company for the 
charges or fees for such services under the provisions of the WYO 
Accounting Procedures Manual.
* * * * *
    Dated: May 20, 1999.
Jo Ann Howard,
Federal Insurance Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-12930 Filed 5-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-03-P