Proposed Exemptions Involving; General Motors Corporation and Its Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries (Together GM), 42828-42834 [E8-16713]
Download as PDF
42828
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
or faxed comments should be submitted
by August 7, 2008.
J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/
National Historic Landmarks Program.
North Carolina
Guilford County
Carter, Wilbur and Martha, House, 1012
Country Club Dr., Greensboro, 08000777
Jackson County
Monteith, Elias Brendle, House and
Outbuildings, 111 Hometown Place Rd.,
Dillsboro, 08000778
Madison County
Marshall High School, Blannahassett Island.
W. side Bridge St., Marshall, 08000779
Pennsylvania
Adams County
Thomas Brothers Store, 4 S. Main St.,
Biglerville, 08000780
Allegheny County
Century Building, 130 7th St., Pittsburgh,
08000781
Bucks County
Nakashima, George, House, Studio and
Workshop, 1847 and 1858 Aquetong Rd.,
Solebury, 08000782
Erie County
Hornby School, 10,000 Station Rd.,
Greenfield, 08000783
Montgomery County
Keefe-Mumbower Mill, NE. corner of
Swedesford and Township Line Rds. jct.,
North Wales, 08000784
Philadelphia County
Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania,
3300 Henry Ave., Philadelphia, 08000785
Puerto Rico
San Juan Municipality
La Giralda, 651 Jose Marti St., San Juan,
08000786
Wisconsin
Jefferson County
Carcajou Point Site, Address Restricted,
Sumner, 08000787
[FR Doc. E8–16806 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–70–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Notice of Public Comment Period for
Proposed Modification to Consent
Decree Under the Clean Air Act
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby
given that, for a period of 30 days, the
United States will receive public
comments on a proposed Modification
to Consent Decree in United States v.
Cargill, Incorporated, (Civil Action No.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
05–2037 JMR/FLN), which was lodged
with the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota on July 11,
2008.
This proposed Modification applies
only to Cargill’s Dayton, Ohio, corn mill
facility. The Dayton facility is one of 27
ethanol, corn mill and oilseed extraction
plants subject to the original Consent
Decree which was entered by the Court
on March 3, 2006. The settlement
resolved claims against the Dayton
facility, among others, pursuant to
Sections 113(b) and 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (‘‘CAA’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) &
7545(d).
This proposed Modification allows for
an 18-month extension of the deadline
for installing air pollution controls for
volatile organic compound (‘‘VOC’’)
emissions at the integrated bran/feed
drying process units, while accelerating
the installation of nitrous oxidereducing burners (‘‘low-NOX burners’’)
on the process boiler. Overall, EPA
estimates that the schedule change
proposed in the Modification will result
in a one-time net emission reduction of
147 tons from estimates based on the
original Decree requirements.
The Department of Justice will
receive, for thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication, comments
relating to the Modification. Comments
should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and either
e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O.
Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20044–7611. In either
case, the comments should refer to
United States v. Cargill, Inc., D.J. Ref.
90–5–2–1–07481/1.
During the public comment period,
the Modification may be examined on
the following Department of Justice Web
site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
Modification may also be obtained by
mail from the Consent Decree Library,
P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, or
by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia
Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),
fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone
confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In
requesting a copy from the Consent
Decree Library, please enclose a check
in the amount of $7.00 (25 cents per
page reproduction cost) payable to the
U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax,
forward a check in that amount to the
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Consent Decree Library at the stated
address.
Robert E. Maher Jr.,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. E8–16756 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
[Application No. L–11407]
Proposed Exemptions Involving;
General Motors Corporation and Its
Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries (Together
GM)
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains a
notice of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of
proposed exemption from certain of the
prohibited transaction restrictions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
Code).
Written Comments and Hearing
Requests
All interested persons are invited to
submit written comments or requests for
a hearing on the pending exemption,
unless otherwise stated in the Notice of
Proposed Exemption, within 60 days
from the date of publication of this
Federal Register Notice. Comments and
requests for a hearing should state: (1)
The name, address, and telephone
number of the person making the
comment or request, and (2) the nature
of the person’s interest in the exemption
and the manner in which the person
would be adversely affected by the
exemption. A request for a hearing must
also state the issues to be addressed and
include a general description of the
evidence to be presented at the hearing.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and
requests for a hearing (at least three
copies) should be sent to the Employee
Benefits Security Administration
(EBSA), Office of Exemption
Determinations, Room N–5700, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Attention: Application No. L–11407,
stated in the Notice of Proposed
Exemption. Interested persons are also
invited to submit comments and/or
hearing requests to EBSA via E-mail or
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
FAX. Any such comments or requests
should be sent either by E-mail to:
GM-DCVEBA@dol.gov, or by FAX to
(202) 219–0204 by the end of the
scheduled comment period. The
application for exemption and the
comments received will be available for
public inspection in the Public
Documents Room of the Employee
Benefits Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–1513,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemption
will be provided to all interested
persons in the manner agreed upon by
the applicant and the Department
within 30 days of the date of publication
in the Federal Register. Such notice
shall include a copy of the notice of
proposed exemption as published in the
Federal Register and shall inform
interested persons of their right to
comment and to request a hearing
(where appropriate).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed exemption was requested in
an application filed pursuant to section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in
accordance with procedures set forth in
29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR
32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Effective December 31, 1978, section
102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred
the authority of the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue exemptions of the type
requested to the Secretary of Labor.
Therefore, this notice of proposed
exemption is issued solely by the
Department.
The application contains
representations with regard to the
proposed exemption which is
summarized below. Interested persons
are referred to the application on file
with the Department for a complete
statement of the facts and
representations.
If the exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(B),
406(a)(1)(D), and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of
the Act shall not apply, effective
December 16, 2005, to: (1) Monthly cash
advances to GM by the DC VEBA to
reimburse GM for the estimated
mitigation of certain health care
expenses (the Mitigation) and for the
payment of dental expenses incurred by
participants in the DC VEBA; and (2) an
annual ‘‘true up’’ of the Mitigation
payments and dental expenses against
the actual expenses incurred, with the
result that (a) if GM has been underpaid
by the DC VEBA, GM receives the
balance outstanding from the DC VEBA
with interest, or (b) if the DC VEBA has
overpaid GM, GM reimburses the DC
VEBA for the amount overpaid, with
interest.
Section II. Conditions
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or
ERISA) and in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part
2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847,
August 10, 1990).1
This proposed exemption is
conditioned upon adherence to the
material facts and representations
described herein and upon satisfaction
of the following conditions:
(a) A committee (the Committee),
acting as a fiduciary independent of
GM, has represented and will continue
to represent the DC VEBA and its
participants and beneficiaries for all
purposes with respect to the Mitigation
process.
(b) The Committee for the DC VEBA
has discharged and will continue to
discharge its duties consistent with the
terms of the DC VEBA and the DC VEBA
Settlement Agreement.
(c) The Committee and actuaries
retained by the Committee have
reviewed and approved and will
continue to review and approve the
estimation process involved in the
Mitigation, which results in the monthly
Mitigation amount paid to GM.
(d) Outside auditors retained by the
Committee, along with an
administrative company that is partly
owned by the DC VEBA, will audit the
calculation of the true up to determine
whether there are any differences
between the estimated Mitigation and
actual Mitigation amounts and make
such information available to GM.
(e) GM has provided and will
continue to provide various reports and
records to the Committee concerning the
Mitigation and dental care
reimbursements, which are and will
continue to be subject to review and
audit by the Committee.
1 Because the Independent Health Care Trust for
UAW Retirees of General Motors Corporation (the
DC VEBA) is not qualified under section 401 of the
Code, there is no jurisdiction under Title II of the
Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code. However,
there is jurisdiction under Title I of the Act.
General Motors Corporation and Its
Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries (Together,
GM) Located in Detroit, MI
[Application No. L–11407]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Section I. Covered Transactions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42829
(f) The terms of the transactions are
no less favorable and will continue to be
no less favorable to the DC VEBA than
the terms negotiated at arm’s length
under similar circumstances between
unrelated third parties.
(g) The interest rate applied to any
true up payments is a reasonable rate, as
set forth in the DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement, and will continue to be a
reasonable rate that runs from the
beginning of the year being trued up and
does and will continue to not present a
windfall or detriment to either party.
(h) The DC VEBA has not incurred
and will continue not to incur any fees,
costs or other charges (other than those
described in the DC VEBA and the DC
VEBA Settlement Agreement) as a result
of the covered transactions described
herein.
(i) GM and the Committee have
maintained and will continue to
maintain for a period of six years from
the date of any of the covered
transactions, any and all records
necessary to enable the persons
described in paragraph (j) below to
determine whether conditions of this
exemption have been and will continue
to be met, except that (1) a prohibited
transaction will not be considered to
have occurred if, due to circumstances
beyond the control of GM or the
Committee, the records are lost or
destroyed prior to the end of the sixyear period, and (2) no party in interest
other than GM or the Committee shall
be subject to the civil penalty that may
be assessed under section 502(i) of the
Act if the records are not maintained, or
are not available for examination as
required by paragraph (j) below.
(j)(1) Except as provided in section (2)
of this paragraph and notwithstanding
any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and
(b) of section 504 of the Act, the records
referred to in paragraph (i) above have
been or will be unconditionally
available at their customary location
during normal business hours to:
(A) Any duly authorized employee
representative of the Department;
(B) The UAW or any duly authorized
representative of the UAW;
(C) GM or any duly authorized
representative of GM; and
(D) Any participant or beneficiary of
the DC VEBA, or any duly authorized
representative of such participant or
beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described
above in subparagraphs (1)(B) or (D) of
this paragraph (j) is authorized to
examine the trade secrets of GM, or
commercial or financial information
that is privileged or confidential.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
42830
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
Section III. Definitions
For purposes of this proposed
exemption, the term—
(a) ‘‘GM’’ means General Motors
Corporation and its wholly owned
subsidiaries.
(b) ‘‘Affiliate’’ means:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly,
through one or more intermediaries,
controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with such other
person;
(2) Any officer, director, or partner,
employee or relative (as defined in
section 3(15) of the Act) of such other
person; or
(3) Any corporation, partnership or
other entity of which such other person
is an officer, director or partner. (For
purposes of this definition, the term
‘‘control’’ means the power to exercise
a controlling influence over the
management or policies of a person
other than an individual.)
(c) ‘‘Class Members’’ mean all persons
other than active employees who, as of
the ratification date of the GM–UAW
Memorandum of Understanding,
November 11, 2005 (the Ratification
Date) were (1) GM/UAW hourly
employees who had retired from GM
with eligibility for the General Motors
Health Care Program for Hourly
Employees (the Original Plan) as in
effect prior to the Ratification Date or (2)
the spouses, surviving spouses and
dependents of GM/UAW hourly
employees, who, as of the Ratification
Date, were eligible for post-retirement or
surviving spouse health care coverage
under the Original Plan as a
consequence of a GM/UAW hourly
employee’s retirement from GM or death
prior to retirement.
(d) ‘‘Committee’’ means the seven
individuals, consisting of two classes:
(1) the United Auto Workers Class
(UAW) with three members, and (2) the
Public Class with four members, who
act as the named fiduciary and
administrator of the DC VEBA.
(e) ‘‘Court’’ or ‘‘Michigan District
Court’’ means the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
(f) ‘‘DC VEBA’’ means the
Independent Health Care Trust for UAW
Retirees of General Motors Corporation.
(g) ‘‘DC VEBA Settlement Agreement’’
means the agreement, dated December
16, 2005, which was entered into
between GM, the UAW, and Class
Representatives, on behalf of a Class of
plaintiffs in the Henry case (2006 WL
891151 (E.D. Mi. March 31, 2006)), aff’d
2007 WL 2239208, (6th Cir. August 7,
2007).
(h) ‘‘Mitigation’’ means the reduction
of retirees’ monthly contributions,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
annual deductibles, and other retirees’
out-of-pocket costs to the extent
payments from the DC VEBA are made,
as directed by the Committee, to GM
and/or to providers, insurance carriers
and other agreed-upon entities.
(i) ‘‘OPEB’’ means Other PostEmployment Benefits. The OPEB
Valuation is an actuarially developed
annual valuation of a company’s post
employment benefit obligations, other
than for pension and other retirement
income plans. The OPEB Valuation is
based on a set of uniform financial
reporting standards promulgated by the
Financial Accounting Standards Board
and embodied in Financial Accounting
Standard 106, as revised from time to
time. The types of benefits addressed in
an OPEB Valuation typically are retiree
healthcare (medical, dental, vision,
hearing) life insurance, tuition
assistance, day care, legal services, and
the like.
(j) ‘‘Shares’’ or ‘‘Stock’’ refers to
shares of common stock of reorganized
GM, par value $.01 per share.
(k) ‘‘UAW’’ means the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America or the United Auto Workers, if
shortened.
(l) ‘‘VEBA’’ means a voluntary
employees’ beneficiary association.
Effective Date: If granted, this
proposed exemption will be effective as
of December 16, 2005.
Summary of Facts and Representations
The Applicant
1. GM is primarily engaged in
automotive production and marketing,
and financing and insurance operations.
GM designs, manufactures, and markets
vehicles worldwide, and it has its
largest operating presence in North
America. As of June 30, 2007, GM had
approximately 118,539 active
employees in the United States, of
whom approximately 81,689 are
represented by the UAW and other
unions. Approximately 717,432 retirees
and dependents in the U.S. receive GM
retiree health benefits in whole or in
part. GM maintains its headquarters in
Detroit, Michigan. As of December 31,
2006, GM had total assets on its
consolidated balance sheet of $186.192
billion.
The DC VEBA Settlement Agreement
and GM’s Negotiations
2. The DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement, dated December 16, 2005,
was entered into between GM, the
UAW, and Class Representatives, on
behalf of a Class of plaintiffs (i.e., the
Class Members), in the Henry case (2006
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
WL 891151 (E.D. Mi. March 31, 2006)),
aff’d 2007 WL 2239208, (6th Cir. August
7, 2007). The case was brought in a
declaratory judgment motion to contest
whether GM had the right to unilaterally
modify hourly retiree welfare benefits
under its existing GM retiree plans. The
DC VEBA Settlement Agreement was
approved by the Michigan District Court
in an opinion dated March 31, 2006.
3. Throughout much of 2005, GM and
the UAW engaged in extended
discussions concerning the impact of
rising health care costs on GM’s
financial condition. During these
discussions, GM asserted that it had the
right to unilaterally modify and/or
terminate the health care benefits
applicable to its hourly retirees and that,
if no agreement was reached to address
GM’s health care burden, GM would act
unilaterally. The UAW disagreed with
GM’s position and asserted that the
benefits were vested and that GM did
not have the right to modify or
terminate such benefits.
4. The UAW, the Class
Representatives and Class Counsel
reviewed GM’s current and projected
financial condition and, as a result,
concluded that, among other things, a
significant reduction in GM’s retiree
health care costs under the existing
plans would substantially improve its
financial condition. Without such an
improvement, the ability of GM to
provide health care benefits over the
long term to Class Members at or near
the level provided by the DC VEBA
Settlement Agreement would be placed
in doubt. All parties believed that a
settlement would be advantageous.
The DC VEBA
5. The DC VEBA was created on
December 16, 2005 as a result of the DC
VEBA Settlement Agreement. Under its
terms, GM is required to make certain
contributions—both mandatory and
contingent—to the DC VEBA, which is
controlled by an independent seven
member Committee. In April 2006, GM
contributed $1 billion to the DC VEBA.
The DC VEBA has been established
through a trust agreement between State
Street Bank and Trust Company (the
Trustee) and GM. The DC VEBA does
not replace any existing welfare plans
that are sponsored by GM for the
retirees. The DC VEBA also intends to
qualify as a ‘‘voluntary employees’
beneficiary association’’ within the
meaning of section 501(c)(9) of the
Code. As of August 31, 2007, the DC
VEBA had total assets of $1.74 billion.
Fidelity Investments operates a call
center, administers eligibility
requirements, and handles certain other
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
administrative tasks on behalf of the DC
VEBA.
6. The objective of the DC VEBA is to
mitigate the financial impact of certain
modifications in health care benefits on
the Class Members. If GM’s financial
condition and operating results
improve, and as more fully described
below, additional contributions to the
DC VEBA that relate to appreciation of
GM common stock, profit sharing
payments and increases in GM’s regular
quarterly cash dividend will increase
the DC VEBA funds available and
thereby further lessen the adverse
impact of these health care
modifications on Class Members.
The Committee
7. The DC VEBA is administered by
the Committee, all of whose members
are independent of GM. GM has no
appointment power, and the Committee
functions independently of GM. The
Committee acts as the named fiduciary
and administrator of the DC VEBA, and
appoints the Trustee and all investment
managers of the DC VEBA’s assets.
The Committee is comprised of seven
individuals, consisting of two classes,
the ‘‘UAW Class’’ with three members,
and the ‘‘Public Class’’ with four
members. Robert Naftaly, one of the
members of the Public Class, serves as
the Chair of the Committee. The Public
Class members of the Committee were
appointed by the Court when it
approved the DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement. The UAW Class members
were appointed by the UAW.
No member of the Committee may be
an affiliate of GM, including a current
or former officer, director or salaried
employee of GM. No member of the
Public Class may be an active employee
or retiree of the UAW, nor may any
member of the Public Class have any
financial or institutional relationship
with GM or the Committee that the
Committee, in its sole discretion,
determines to be material.
8. The members of the UAW Class
serve at the discretion of the UAW and
may be removed or replaced, and a
successor designated, at any time by
written notice by the President of the
UAW to the members of the Committee.
The members of the Public Class serve
terms of four years. In the event of a
vacancy in the Public Class, whether by
expiration of a term, resignation,
removal, incapacity, death or otherwise
of a Public Class member, the Public
Class will elect a new member of the
Public Class by majority vote of the
continuing Public Class members,
excluding such member vacating his or
her seat. A Public Class member can be
removed by the affirmative vote of any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
five other members of the Committee at
any time. The Committee Chair serves
for a term of two years, and may be
removed from office. Any successor
Committee Chair will be elected by a
majority vote of the Committee as a
whole then in office.
Mitigation
9. The DC VEBA will provide
Mitigation for monthly contributions by
retirees to health care, deductibles, out
of pocket maximums, and some coinsurance required under GM’s existing
plans. The initial levels of Mitigation
are set forth in the DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement, and may be modified later
by the Committee in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement
and the Trust Agreement for the DC
VEBA.
10. The initial Mitigation levels
provide for Mitigation of monthly
retiree contributions to a maximum of
$10 per individual and $21 per family.
Initial Mitigation limits deductibles to
an annual maximum of $150 per
individual subject to an aggregate $300
per family. Initial Mitigation caps outof-pocket costs at $250 per individual
per year and $500 per family per year
for in network services, and $500 per
individual per year and $1,000 per
family per year for out of network
benefits. In effect, the Mitigation
provides a significant benefit to retired
GM participants of the DC VEBA who
would otherwise be required to make
these payments out of pocket.
Mitigation Process
11. The Mitigation process involves
GM initially providing payment for the
health care services that the DC VEBA
or the participants would otherwise be
responsible for paying and then being
reimbursed for the cost by the DC
VEBA. The process operates as follows:
No later than May 1 of the year prior to the
year for which Mitigation is to be provided,
the Committee will inform GM of the
Mitigation levels for the following year. By
September 1 of the prior year, GM will
provide a preliminary estimate of the
Mitigation amount and the basis for such
estimate, along with supporting
documentation to the Committee. The
Committee then has until October 15 to
notify GM that it agrees to the Mitigation
level. In January of the following year, GM
must provide the Committee with a
preliminary estimate of monthly amounts
owed by the DC VEBA for the year, which
amounts will be paid monthly to GM, unless
disputed by the Committee. After the OPEB
valuation in January, but no later than
February 1 of the Mitigation year, GM must
provide a final estimated annual Mitigation
amount for the Mitigation year, along with
the basis for the estimate and supporting
documentation. If this final estimate differs
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42831
from the preliminary estimate by more than
5%, GM will update the monthly installment
amounts.
By September 1 of each Mitigation year,
GM will provide the Committee with a report
prepared by its actuaries containing the
actual annual Mitigation amount paid by GM
in the prior year, and the amount of any true
up for the prior year.
The prior year actual Mitigation will be
developed consistent with the OPEB
valuation process, and will represent
incurred claims data with actuarially
developed completion factors. Actual
incurred claims and Mitigation will then be
calculated. Any true up amounts owed to
either party will be paid by October 1 of the
year following the year in which Mitigation
took place.
If there is a dispute as to the amount of the
true up payment, undisputed amounts will
be paid and the parties will enter into a
dispute procedure set forth in the DC VEBA
Settlement Agreement involving independent
parties, including outside auditors retained
by the Committee along with an
administrative company this is partially
owned by the DC VEBA. Such information
will be made available to GM. Interest for any
late payments or any underpayments will be
paid at the OPEB discount rate.2 The interest
rate will run from the beginning of the year
being trued up.3 In addition, GM is required
to provide detailed quarterly reports to the
Committee concerning the Mitigation
process.
The Mitigation process does not apply
to dental care expenses. These costs
have been handled differently. The DC
VEBA Settlement Agreement
contemplated that GM would continue
to provide 100% of dental care to
retirees until December 31, 2006 but
that the costs of such dental care after
the Effective Date would be paid in the
form of monthly reimbursements to GM
by the DC VEBA. In this regard, GM
invoiced the Committee and the DC
VEBA made monthly reimbursements to
GM until December 31, 2006, at which
time, such reimbursements ceased.
Between June 30, 2006 and September
16, 2007, the DC VEBA made
reimbursement payments to GM for both
health care and dental expenses of
approximately $355,334,463.50 and
2 The OPEB Discount Rate is a rate used to
discount projected future OPEB benefits payment
cash flows to determine the present value of the
OPEB obligation. The OPEB discount rate is
established as of the annual valuation date,
pursuant to FASB accounting guidelines.
3 Because interest is calculated at the beginning
of the year, the principal on which the January
interest is calculated would be 1/12 of the total true
up for the year, for February, it would be 2/12 of
the total true up for the year, for March, it would
be 3/12 of the total true up for the year, until
December, the last month of the year, where the
time period fraction would be 12/12. If payment is
not made by that date, interest is calculated for each
additional month until payment is made based on
2/12 of the total true up amount for the year in
question.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
42832
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
$100,258,523.56,4 respectively. On
October 1, 2007, GM made a true up
payment to the DC VEBA in the amount
of $17,934,072.46, plus $1,126,156.83 in
interest (total: $19,060,229.29). The DC
VEBA has questioned GM’s calculations
with respect to a small portion of the
actual Mitigation and if the DC VEBA
prevails, GM will make an additional,
small true up payment.
Funding Arrangements for the DC VEBA
12. In addition to the Mitigation
process, GM is required to fund the DC
VEBA. As noted above, in April 2006,
GM contributed $1 billion to the DC
VEBA. Also, GM is required to make
cash contributions to the DC VEBA
based on the increase in the notional
value of eight (8) million Shares of GM
common stock. This Contribution
Obligation is a means of measuring the
amount GM must contribute to the DC
VEBA. It is not a contract right that has
been transferred to the DC VEBA. The
contributions are staged over time, as
determined by the Committee, and are
based on the increase in trading price of
a GM Share over the trading price on
October 14, 2005 (or $26.75 per Share).
The Contribution Obligation will
ultimately be settled only in cash by its
termination date in 2011. The
Contribution Obligation will not carry
voting or dividend rights and it is not
transferable. Further, the Contribution
Obligation will be adjusted upon the
occurrence of certain ‘‘dilution
events.’’ 5 Finally, the amount of cash
payments under the Contribution
Obligation will be readily determinable
pursuant to a fixed formula. Therefore,
no independent valuation will be
required. The actual calculation will be
made by the Committee.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Administrative Exemptive Relief
13. GM requests an administrative
exemption from the Department with
respect to: (a) Monthly cash advances to
GM by the DC VEBA to reimburse GM
for the estimated Mitigation of certain
health care expenses and for the
payment of dental expenses incurred by
participants in the DC VEBA; and (b) an
annual ‘‘true up’’ of the Mitigation
payments and dental expenses. In this
regard, if GM has been underpaid by the
DC VEBA, it would receive the balance
outstanding from the DC VEBA, with
4 All dental reimbursements made by the DC
VEBA to GM during 2007 represent GM’s dental
costs attributable to the period ending December 31,
2006.
5 A dilution event is any merger, reorganization,
consolidation, exchange offer, asset spin-off, stock
split, reverse stock split, extraordinary dividend, or
other change in GM’s corporate structure on or after
the Ratification Date (November 11, 2005) that
dilutes any class of GM stock.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
interest. Conversely, if the DC VEBA has
overpaid GM, GM would reimburse the
DC VEBA for the amount overpaid, with
interest. GM explains, and the
Department concurs with GM’s analysis,
that the Mitigation and the payments
made for dental expenses would violate
sections 406(a)(1)(B), 406(a)(1)(D), and
406(b) of the Act because the
reimbursements with interest could be
deemed to constitute the lending of
money or extension of credit between
the DC VEBA and GM, a party in
interest, in violation of section
406(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or could be
viewed as the use by or for the benefit
of a party in interest of plan assets in
violation of section 406(a)(1)(D). In
addition, the covered transactions
would result in a prohibited act of selfdealing on the part of GM in violation
of section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act.
If granted, the exemption would be
effective as of December 16, 2005.
The Department is not providing
exemptive relief herein with respect to
the Contribution Obligation because, in
the view of the Department, the
Contribution Obligation is merely a
contractual provision evidenced in the
DC VEBA Settlement Agreement which
is designed to determine the amount of
additional cash contributions that must
be made to the DC VEBA.6
Rationale for Exemptive Relief
14. Without an administrative
exemption, GM states that the DC VEBA
would be required to establish a costly
administrative scheme to reimburse
participants in the DC VEBA. In this
regard, GM retirees’ would be charged
the full costs of the contributions, copays and deductibles. These retirees
would then have to apply for
reimbursement payments, via a claim
form, from the DC VEBA.7
6 The Department further believes that the
Contribution obligation is not an ‘‘employer
security’’ within the meaning of section 407(d)(1) of
the Act. Since it appears that the Contribution
Obligation does not result in the acquisition or
holding by the DC VEBA of an ‘‘employer security,’’
the Department has not proposed separate
exemptive relief herein with respect to such
obligation.
7 For example, the DC VEBA would need to have
claims examiners ready to receive this claim,
review it, request additional information if
necessary, and finally pay the retiree the money
(probably through a paper check). If the same retiree
had additional medical services later in the year,
more claims would be sent to the DC VEBA for
additional reimbursement. In addition to claim
examiners, the DC VEBA would need to have
customer service representatives ready to answer
questions regarding retiree claim submissions, filing
deadlines, missing documentation or lost checks.
The financial benefit of the Mitigation would be
received by the retiree only if he or she filed a
proper claim for reimbursement and would be
delayed pending completion of the claim
submission process.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15. Under the Mitigation process, the
hourly medical carriers set up their
claim systems to administer claims
using the net value (after the DC VEBA
offset) for all cost sharing elements of
the Modified Plan, as applicable to
retirees, and receive payment through
the system set up for the Mitigation
process.8
Thus, there is no need for the DC
VEBA to hire claims examiners or
customer service representatives, as
under the other alternative. The selected
approach will reduce the administrative
cost of providing reimbursement by the
DC VEBA since the DC VEBA will only
have to deal with GM to pay its health
care reimbursement, instead of dealing
directly with hundreds of thousands of
retirees. The Mitigation process also
makes it much more likely that
Mitigation of all appropriate amounts
will take place because it reduces the
possibility that individual retirees will
fail to file for reimbursement, fail to
document legitimate health care
expenses (due to lost paperwork,
untimely filing, lost mail, etc.), or can
not mentally or physically follow the
administrative steps necessary to
receive reimbursement directly from the
DC VEBA.
16. Records relating to participants
and beneficiaries will be retained by
GM, its contractor, or Blue Cross Blue
Shield Michigan (BCBSM). GM’s
contractor will reprocess, on an
unmitigated basis, the claims that
BCBSM processed on a mitigated basis
on behalf of GM, and then GM or its
contractor will determine the true up
amount. Outside auditors retained by
the Committee will audit the calculation
and make their findings available to
GM. However, all of the records will be
maintained at GM, BCBSM or GM’s
contractor.
Termination of the DC VEBA
17. Ultimately, the DC VEBA will be
terminated and its assets transferred to
a new VEBA (the New VEBA). However,
several steps will occur before this
happens. Currently, these steps are
8 For example, assume that a retiree’s first
medical service of the year had an associated
reimbursement amount of $200. Since under the
Mitigation process the medical careers have set up
a $150 deductible in their claims system, and since
the reimbursement associated with this medical
service is $50 more than the deductible, GM would
pay $50 (ignoring, for purposes of this example, the
10% co-payment applicable after the deductible) for
this service, and the retiree would be required to
pay the provider the remaining $150 owed. In this
example, since the retiree payment of $150 equals
the net deductible of $150, the DC VEBA does not
owe the retiree anything related to this medical
service. Nevertheless, since GM paid the
incremental $50 owed for this service, the DC VEBA
owes GM the incremental $50.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
described in a Memorandum of
Understanding on Post-Retirement
Medical Care, agreed to by GM and the
UAW (MOU, September 26, 2007) as
part of recent collective bargaining that
culminated in a new, 4-year national
labor agreement.9 The covered group
(the Covered Group) under the new
retiree health care plan and funded by
the New VEBA will consist of (a) all
class members from the Henry case; (b)
all future retirees, as defined in the
Henry settlement who are retired as of
September 14, 2007; (c) all active GM
UAW-represented employees who are
on the rolls and have attained seniority
as of September 14, 2007 and who retire
with eligibility for Retiree Medical
Benefits pursuant to the eligibility
provisions of the 2003 GM–UAW
National Agreement; (d) certain Delphi
UAW retirees and active employees
eligible to receive retiree medical
benefits from GM; and (e) certain UAW
retirees and active employees of other
GM closed or divested operations who
are eligible to receive retiree medical
benefits from GM; as well as (f) eligible
surviving spouses and dependents of
those in the Covered Group.
In the negotiations leading to the
MOU, GM advised the UAW of its intent
to terminate the DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement in accordance with its terms
in 2011 and exercise its right to
terminate or modify retiree health
coverage for all UAW retirees and their
dependents, and the UAW reasserted its
position that post-retirement medical
coverage for current UAW retirees is
vested and unalterable.
18. The MOU defines the
‘‘Implementation Date’’ (the beginning
of coverage and operations) for the New
VEBA. It is the later of January 1, 2010,
or the date on which any appeals from,
or challenges to, an order of the
Michigan District Court approving
settlement on a class-wide basis
applicable to the Covered Group of any
litigation arising over the terms of the
MOU and the final settlement
documentation, have been exhausted or
when applicable periods during which
such appeal or challenge must be
brought have expired; if (a) the
Approval Order has not been
disapproved or modified, and (b) GM is
reasonably satisfied by its discussions
with the staff from the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that the
desired accounting treatment with
regard to OPEB will be obtained.
19. With regard to the DC VEBA, the
MOU states that the New VEBA
9 Eventually, the terms of the MOU will be
embodied in a settlement agreement for the New
VEBA (the new VEBA Settlement Agreement).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Settlement Agreement 10 will provide
that the Approval Order will require
that: (a) The DC VEBA Committee shall
amend the DC VEBA to permit the
transfer of its assets to, and the
assumption of its liabilities by, the New
VEBA; (b) the Committee shall instruct
the DC VEBA Trustee to transfer the
entire balance of its assets to the New
VEBA; and (c) the DC VEBA be
terminated after its assets are transferred
to the New VEBA. It also states that the
Approval Order will provide that on the
Implementation Date the New VEBA
shall assume all GM responsibilities and
liabilities for the provision of retiree
medical benefits for the Covered Group
for claims incurred on or after the
Implementation Date, as well as all
responsibilities and liabilities of the DC
VEBA on that Date. Thus, GM’s
obligations under the DC VEBA
Settlement Agreement will cease on the
Implementation Date (although there
may be one or more subsequent true
ups). In addition, if the Implementation
Date occurs before the date on which
the ‘‘Third Contribution’’ is due to be
made to the DC VEBA, the MOU
provides that GM shall make that
contribution to the New VEBA. Finally,
the MOU provides that it is subject to
satisfaction of several conditions 11 and
shall terminate if those conditions are
not satisfied by December 31, 2011 (or
such later date as GM and the UAW may
agree upon).
20. In summary, GM represents that
the transactions have satisfied and will
continue to satisfy the statutory criteria
for an exemption under section 408(a) of
the Act because:
(a) The Committee has represented
and will continue to represent the DC
VEBA and its participants and
beneficiaries for all purposes with
respect to the Mitigation.
(b) The Committee for the DC VEBA
has discharged and will continue to
discharge its duties consistent with the
terms of the DC VEBA and the DC VEBA
Settlement Agreement.
(c) The Committee and actuaries
retained by the Committee have
10 On October 26, 2007, the UAW and the Henry
class filed a new class action (E.D. Mich. 2:07–cv–
14074–RHC–VMM), in the Michigan District Court
challenging GM’s assertion that it will be free to
terminate retiree health coverage for UAW retirees,
at the latest, on and after September 14, 2011. In
a Scheduling Order dated November 21, 2007,
Judge Cleland scheduled a status call for January
31, 2008, the filing of a motion for provisional class
certification by February 11, 2008, and a fairness
hearing on a proposed settlement for June 3, 2008.
11 Chief among these conditions are that: (a) The
Approval Order has been issued and the time for
an appeal from or a challenge to the Approval Order
has expired; and (b) GM is reasonably satisfied that
it will obtain favorable accounting treatment on the
OPEB issue.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42833
reviewed and approved and will
continue to review and approve the
estimation process involved in the
Mitigation, which results in the monthly
Mitigation amount paid to GM.
(d) Outside auditors retained by the
Committee, along with an
administrative company that is partly
owned by the DC VEBA, will audit the
calculation of the true up to determine
whether there is any difference between
the estimated Mitigation and actual
Mitigation amounts and make such
information available to GM.
(e) GM has provided and will
continue to provide various reports and
records to the Committee concerning the
Mitigation and dental care
reimbursements, which are and will
continue to be subject to review and
audit by the Committee.
(f) The terms of the transactions have
been no less favorable and will continue
to be no less favorable to the DC VEBA
than the terms negotiated at arm’s
length under similar circumstances
between unrelated third parties.
(g) The interest rate applied to any
true up payments will be a reasonable
rate that runs from the beginning of the
year being trued up and does not or will
not present a windfall or detriment to
either party.
(h) The DC VEBA has not incurred
and will continue not to incur any fees,
costs or other charges (other than those
described in the DC VEBA and the DC
VEBA Settlement Agreement) as a result
of the transactions.
(i) GM and the Committee have
maintained and will continue to
maintain for a period of six years from
the date of any of the covered
transactions, the records necessary to
enable certain persons, such as the
UAW, DC VEBA participants, GM or
any authorized employee or
representative of the Department, to
determine whether the terms and
conditions of this exemption have been
met.
Notice To Interested Persons
GM will provide notice of the
proposed exemption to interested
persons within 30 days of the
publication of the notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register. Such
notice will be provided to interested
persons by first-class mail and will
include a copy of the notice of proposed
exemption as published in the Federal
Register as well as a supplemental
statement, as required pursuant to 29
CFR 2570.43(b)(2). The supplemental
statement will inform interested persons
of their right to comment on and/or to
request a hearing. Comments and
requests for a hearing with respect to the
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
42834
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 23, 2008 / Notices
proposed exemption are due within 60
days of the publication of this pendency
notice in the Federal Register.
If you decide to submit written comments
to the Department, your comments should be
limited to the transactions described in the
exemption proposed by the Department.
However, if you have concerns about benefits
or any other matter, you should contact the
appropriate office at GM for further
assistance.
Mrs.
Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the
Department by E-mail at GMDCVEBA@dol.gov or at telephone
number (202) 693–8553. (This is not a
toll-free number.)
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
of the Act, which, among other things,
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be
granted under section 408(a) of the Act
and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,
the Department must find that the
exemption is administratively feasible,
in the interests of the plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries, and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemption, if
granted, will be supplemental to, and
not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemption, if
granted, will be subject to the express
condition that the material facts and
representations contained in each
application are true and complete, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:14 Jul 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
that each application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
July, 2008.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department Of Labor.
[FR Doc. E8–16713 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation,
Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia; City of Dalton, GA
[Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366 ]
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment To Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
57 and NPF–5 issued to the licensee for
operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (HNP) located
in Appling County, Georgia. The
proposed amendment includes two
actions, as follows.
First, the proposed amendment would
respond to existing license condition
2.C(8), ‘‘Design Bases Accident
Radiological Consequences Analyses,’’
by revising the licensing and design
basis, including the Technical
Specifications (TS), for four design basis
accidents (DBAs): the loss-of-coolant,
main steamline break, control rod drop
and fuel handling accidents. The
radiological consequences of these
DBAs are reanalyzed using an
alternative source term (AST)
methodology, pursuant to Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section
50.67, ‘‘Accident Source Term,’’ (10
CFR 50.67) and allowing credit in the
analyses for the function of certain
systems such as the turbine building
ventilation system, standby liquid
control system, the main steam isolation
valve alternate leakage treatment (ALT)
path, and residual heat removal drywell
spray system. The licensee states that
the AST analyses include determination
of the on-site radiological doses,
specifically the main control room,
technical support center and off-site
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
radiological doses resulting from the
DBA analyses. The licensee states that
the analyses demonstrate that, using
AST methodologies, the post-accident
onsite and offsite doses remain within
regulatory acceptance limits. Notice of
this action was previously published in
the Federal Register on May 6, 2008 (73
FR 25046). This renoticing of this action
is provided to include further
supplements to the licensee’s August
29, 2006 application, that are dated
April 1, May 5, June 25 and July 14,
2008, that were submitted subsequent to
the Federal Register Notice of May 6,
2008. This renotice replaces and
supersedes the Federal Register Notice
of May 6, 2008, in its entirety. The
second action would be modification of
license condition 2.C(8) to extend the
implementation date of May 31, 2010
until May 31, 2012 for HNP unit 1 and
until May 31, 2011 for HNP unit 2, as
discussed in the licensee’s letter of July
2, 2008.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS (10 CFR), Section 50.92,
this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. Based on the following
information as provided in the
licensee’s submittals for the first action
identified above, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff proposes to
determine the following with respect to
the three criteria above:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Adoption of the AST methodology and
allowing credit in the accident analyses for
those plant systems affected by implementing
AST are not expected to initiate DBAs. The
revised accident source term is an input to
the radiological consequence analyses. The
implementation of the AST and changed TS
have been incorporated in the analyses for
the limiting DBAs at HNP. The structures,
systems, and components affected by the
proposed change are mitigative in nature and
would be relied upon after an accident has
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42828-42834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16713]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
[Application No. L-11407]
Proposed Exemptions Involving; General Motors Corporation and Its
Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries (Together GM)
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a notice of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemption from certain
of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
Written Comments and Hearing Requests
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or
requests for a hearing on the pending exemption, unless otherwise
stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 60 days from the
date of publication of this Federal Register Notice. Comments and
requests for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2)
the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in
which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A
request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and
include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the
hearing.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least
three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security
Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5700,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. Attention: Application No. L-11407, stated in the Notice of
Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit
comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via E-mail or
[[Page 42829]]
FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by E-mail to:
GM-DCVEBA@dol.gov, or by FAX to (202) 219-0204 by the end of the
scheduled comment period. The application for exemption and the
comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public
Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemption will be provided to all interested
persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department
within 30 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register. Such
notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as
published in the Federal Register and shall inform interested persons
of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed exemption was requested in an
application filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in
29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4
of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to
the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, this notice of proposed exemption is
issued solely by the Department.
The application contains representations with regard to the
proposed exemption which is summarized below. Interested persons are
referred to the application on file with the Department for a complete
statement of the facts and representations.
General Motors Corporation and Its Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries (Together,
GM) Located in Detroit, MI [Application No. L-11407]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and in accordance
with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR
32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because the Independent Health Care Trust for UAW Retirees
of General Motors Corporation (the DC VEBA) is not qualified under
section 401 of the Code, there is no jurisdiction under Title II of
the Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code. However, there is
jurisdiction under Title I of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section I. Covered Transactions
If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(B), 406(a)(1)(D), and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act shall
not apply, effective December 16, 2005, to: (1) Monthly cash advances
to GM by the DC VEBA to reimburse GM for the estimated mitigation of
certain health care expenses (the Mitigation) and for the payment of
dental expenses incurred by participants in the DC VEBA; and (2) an
annual ``true up'' of the Mitigation payments and dental expenses
against the actual expenses incurred, with the result that (a) if GM
has been underpaid by the DC VEBA, GM receives the balance outstanding
from the DC VEBA with interest, or (b) if the DC VEBA has overpaid GM,
GM reimburses the DC VEBA for the amount overpaid, with interest.
Section II. Conditions
This proposed exemption is conditioned upon adherence to the
material facts and representations described herein and upon
satisfaction of the following conditions:
(a) A committee (the Committee), acting as a fiduciary independent
of GM, has represented and will continue to represent the DC VEBA and
its participants and beneficiaries for all purposes with respect to the
Mitigation process.
(b) The Committee for the DC VEBA has discharged and will continue
to discharge its duties consistent with the terms of the DC VEBA and
the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement.
(c) The Committee and actuaries retained by the Committee have
reviewed and approved and will continue to review and approve the
estimation process involved in the Mitigation, which results in the
monthly Mitigation amount paid to GM.
(d) Outside auditors retained by the Committee, along with an
administrative company that is partly owned by the DC VEBA, will audit
the calculation of the true up to determine whether there are any
differences between the estimated Mitigation and actual Mitigation
amounts and make such information available to GM.
(e) GM has provided and will continue to provide various reports
and records to the Committee concerning the Mitigation and dental care
reimbursements, which are and will continue to be subject to review and
audit by the Committee.
(f) The terms of the transactions are no less favorable and will
continue to be no less favorable to the DC VEBA than the terms
negotiated at arm's length under similar circumstances between
unrelated third parties.
(g) The interest rate applied to any true up payments is a
reasonable rate, as set forth in the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement, and
will continue to be a reasonable rate that runs from the beginning of
the year being trued up and does and will continue to not present a
windfall or detriment to either party.
(h) The DC VEBA has not incurred and will continue not to incur any
fees, costs or other charges (other than those described in the DC VEBA
and the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement) as a result of the covered
transactions described herein.
(i) GM and the Committee have maintained and will continue to
maintain for a period of six years from the date of any of the covered
transactions, any and all records necessary to enable the persons
described in paragraph (j) below to determine whether conditions of
this exemption have been and will continue to be met, except that (1) a
prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due
to circumstances beyond the control of GM or the Committee, the records
are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and (2)
no party in interest other than GM or the Committee shall be subject to
the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act
if the records are not maintained, or are not available for examination
as required by paragraph (j) below.
(j)(1) Except as provided in section (2) of this paragraph and
notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section
504 of the Act, the records referred to in paragraph (i) above have
been or will be unconditionally available at their customary location
during normal business hours to:
(A) Any duly authorized employee representative of the Department;
(B) The UAW or any duly authorized representative of the UAW;
(C) GM or any duly authorized representative of GM; and
(D) Any participant or beneficiary of the DC VEBA, or any duly
authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described above in subparagraphs (1)(B) or
(D) of this paragraph (j) is authorized to examine the trade secrets of
GM, or commercial or financial information that is privileged or
confidential.
[[Page 42830]]
Section III. Definitions
For purposes of this proposed exemption, the term--
(a) ``GM'' means General Motors Corporation and its wholly owned
subsidiaries.
(b) ``Affiliate'' means:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more
intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with such other person;
(2) Any officer, director, or partner, employee or relative (as
defined in section 3(15) of the Act) of such other person; or
(3) Any corporation, partnership or other entity of which such
other person is an officer, director or partner. (For purposes of this
definition, the term ``control'' means the power to exercise a
controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other
than an individual.)
(c) ``Class Members'' mean all persons other than active employees
who, as of the ratification date of the GM-UAW Memorandum of
Understanding, November 11, 2005 (the Ratification Date) were (1) GM/
UAW hourly employees who had retired from GM with eligibility for the
General Motors Health Care Program for Hourly Employees (the Original
Plan) as in effect prior to the Ratification Date or (2) the spouses,
surviving spouses and dependents of GM/UAW hourly employees, who, as of
the Ratification Date, were eligible for post-retirement or surviving
spouse health care coverage under the Original Plan as a consequence of
a GM/UAW hourly employee's retirement from GM or death prior to
retirement.
(d) ``Committee'' means the seven individuals, consisting of two
classes: (1) the United Auto Workers Class (UAW) with three members,
and (2) the Public Class with four members, who act as the named
fiduciary and administrator of the DC VEBA.
(e) ``Court'' or ``Michigan District Court'' means the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
(f) ``DC VEBA'' means the Independent Health Care Trust for UAW
Retirees of General Motors Corporation.
(g) ``DC VEBA Settlement Agreement'' means the agreement, dated
December 16, 2005, which was entered into between GM, the UAW, and
Class Representatives, on behalf of a Class of plaintiffs in the Henry
case (2006 WL 891151 (E.D. Mi. March 31, 2006)), aff'd 2007 WL 2239208,
(6th Cir. August 7, 2007).
(h) ``Mitigation'' means the reduction of retirees' monthly
contributions, annual deductibles, and other retirees' out-of-pocket
costs to the extent payments from the DC VEBA are made, as directed by
the Committee, to GM and/or to providers, insurance carriers and other
agreed-upon entities.
(i) ``OPEB'' means Other Post-Employment Benefits. The OPEB
Valuation is an actuarially developed annual valuation of a company's
post employment benefit obligations, other than for pension and other
retirement income plans. The OPEB Valuation is based on a set of
uniform financial reporting standards promulgated by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board and embodied in Financial Accounting
Standard 106, as revised from time to time. The types of benefits
addressed in an OPEB Valuation typically are retiree healthcare
(medical, dental, vision, hearing) life insurance, tuition assistance,
day care, legal services, and the like.
(j) ``Shares'' or ``Stock'' refers to shares of common stock of
reorganized GM, par value $.01 per share.
(k) ``UAW'' means the International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America or the United
Auto Workers, if shortened.
(l) ``VEBA'' means a voluntary employees' beneficiary association.
Effective Date: If granted, this proposed exemption will be
effective as of December 16, 2005.
Summary of Facts and Representations
The Applicant
1. GM is primarily engaged in automotive production and marketing,
and financing and insurance operations. GM designs, manufactures, and
markets vehicles worldwide, and it has its largest operating presence
in North America. As of June 30, 2007, GM had approximately 118,539
active employees in the United States, of whom approximately 81,689 are
represented by the UAW and other unions. Approximately 717,432 retirees
and dependents in the U.S. receive GM retiree health benefits in whole
or in part. GM maintains its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. As of
December 31, 2006, GM had total assets on its consolidated balance
sheet of $186.192 billion.
The DC VEBA Settlement Agreement and GM's Negotiations
2. The DC VEBA Settlement Agreement, dated December 16, 2005, was
entered into between GM, the UAW, and Class Representatives, on behalf
of a Class of plaintiffs (i.e., the Class Members), in the Henry case
(2006 WL 891151 (E.D. Mi. March 31, 2006)), aff'd 2007 WL 2239208, (6th
Cir. August 7, 2007). The case was brought in a declaratory judgment
motion to contest whether GM had the right to unilaterally modify
hourly retiree welfare benefits under its existing GM retiree plans.
The DC VEBA Settlement Agreement was approved by the Michigan District
Court in an opinion dated March 31, 2006.
3. Throughout much of 2005, GM and the UAW engaged in extended
discussions concerning the impact of rising health care costs on GM's
financial condition. During these discussions, GM asserted that it had
the right to unilaterally modify and/or terminate the health care
benefits applicable to its hourly retirees and that, if no agreement
was reached to address GM's health care burden, GM would act
unilaterally. The UAW disagreed with GM's position and asserted that
the benefits were vested and that GM did not have the right to modify
or terminate such benefits.
4. The UAW, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel reviewed
GM's current and projected financial condition and, as a result,
concluded that, among other things, a significant reduction in GM's
retiree health care costs under the existing plans would substantially
improve its financial condition. Without such an improvement, the
ability of GM to provide health care benefits over the long term to
Class Members at or near the level provided by the DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement would be placed in doubt. All parties believed that a
settlement would be advantageous.
The DC VEBA
5. The DC VEBA was created on December 16, 2005 as a result of the
DC VEBA Settlement Agreement. Under its terms, GM is required to make
certain contributions--both mandatory and contingent--to the DC VEBA,
which is controlled by an independent seven member Committee. In April
2006, GM contributed $1 billion to the DC VEBA. The DC VEBA has been
established through a trust agreement between State Street Bank and
Trust Company (the Trustee) and GM. The DC VEBA does not replace any
existing welfare plans that are sponsored by GM for the retirees. The
DC VEBA also intends to qualify as a ``voluntary employees' beneficiary
association'' within the meaning of section 501(c)(9) of the Code. As
of August 31, 2007, the DC VEBA had total assets of $1.74 billion.
Fidelity Investments operates a call center, administers eligibility
requirements, and handles certain other
[[Page 42831]]
administrative tasks on behalf of the DC VEBA.
6. The objective of the DC VEBA is to mitigate the financial impact
of certain modifications in health care benefits on the Class Members.
If GM's financial condition and operating results improve, and as more
fully described below, additional contributions to the DC VEBA that
relate to appreciation of GM common stock, profit sharing payments and
increases in GM's regular quarterly cash dividend will increase the DC
VEBA funds available and thereby further lessen the adverse impact of
these health care modifications on Class Members.
The Committee
7. The DC VEBA is administered by the Committee, all of whose
members are independent of GM. GM has no appointment power, and the
Committee functions independently of GM. The Committee acts as the
named fiduciary and administrator of the DC VEBA, and appoints the
Trustee and all investment managers of the DC VEBA's assets.
The Committee is comprised of seven individuals, consisting of two
classes, the ``UAW Class'' with three members, and the ``Public Class''
with four members. Robert Naftaly, one of the members of the Public
Class, serves as the Chair of the Committee. The Public Class members
of the Committee were appointed by the Court when it approved the DC
VEBA Settlement Agreement. The UAW Class members were appointed by the
UAW.
No member of the Committee may be an affiliate of GM, including a
current or former officer, director or salaried employee of GM. No
member of the Public Class may be an active employee or retiree of the
UAW, nor may any member of the Public Class have any financial or
institutional relationship with GM or the Committee that the Committee,
in its sole discretion, determines to be material.
8. The members of the UAW Class serve at the discretion of the UAW
and may be removed or replaced, and a successor designated, at any time
by written notice by the President of the UAW to the members of the
Committee. The members of the Public Class serve terms of four years.
In the event of a vacancy in the Public Class, whether by expiration of
a term, resignation, removal, incapacity, death or otherwise of a
Public Class member, the Public Class will elect a new member of the
Public Class by majority vote of the continuing Public Class members,
excluding such member vacating his or her seat. A Public Class member
can be removed by the affirmative vote of any five other members of the
Committee at any time. The Committee Chair serves for a term of two
years, and may be removed from office. Any successor Committee Chair
will be elected by a majority vote of the Committee as a whole then in
office.
Mitigation
9. The DC VEBA will provide Mitigation for monthly contributions by
retirees to health care, deductibles, out of pocket maximums, and some
co-insurance required under GM's existing plans. The initial levels of
Mitigation are set forth in the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement, and may
be modified later by the Committee in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Trust Agreement for the DC VEBA.
10. The initial Mitigation levels provide for Mitigation of monthly
retiree contributions to a maximum of $10 per individual and $21 per
family. Initial Mitigation limits deductibles to an annual maximum of
$150 per individual subject to an aggregate $300 per family. Initial
Mitigation caps out-of-pocket costs at $250 per individual per year and
$500 per family per year for in network services, and $500 per
individual per year and $1,000 per family per year for out of network
benefits. In effect, the Mitigation provides a significant benefit to
retired GM participants of the DC VEBA who would otherwise be required
to make these payments out of pocket.
Mitigation Process
11. The Mitigation process involves GM initially providing payment
for the health care services that the DC VEBA or the participants would
otherwise be responsible for paying and then being reimbursed for the
cost by the DC VEBA. The process operates as follows:
No later than May 1 of the year prior to the year for which
Mitigation is to be provided, the Committee will inform GM of the
Mitigation levels for the following year. By September 1 of the
prior year, GM will provide a preliminary estimate of the Mitigation
amount and the basis for such estimate, along with supporting
documentation to the Committee. The Committee then has until October
15 to notify GM that it agrees to the Mitigation level. In January
of the following year, GM must provide the Committee with a
preliminary estimate of monthly amounts owed by the DC VEBA for the
year, which amounts will be paid monthly to GM, unless disputed by
the Committee. After the OPEB valuation in January, but no later
than February 1 of the Mitigation year, GM must provide a final
estimated annual Mitigation amount for the Mitigation year, along
with the basis for the estimate and supporting documentation. If
this final estimate differs from the preliminary estimate by more
than 5%, GM will update the monthly installment amounts.
By September 1 of each Mitigation year, GM will provide the
Committee with a report prepared by its actuaries containing the
actual annual Mitigation amount paid by GM in the prior year, and
the amount of any true up for the prior year.
The prior year actual Mitigation will be developed consistent
with the OPEB valuation process, and will represent incurred claims
data with actuarially developed completion factors. Actual incurred
claims and Mitigation will then be calculated. Any true up amounts
owed to either party will be paid by October 1 of the year following
the year in which Mitigation took place.
If there is a dispute as to the amount of the true up payment,
undisputed amounts will be paid and the parties will enter into a
dispute procedure set forth in the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement
involving independent parties, including outside auditors retained
by the Committee along with an administrative company this is
partially owned by the DC VEBA. Such information will be made
available to GM. Interest for any late payments or any underpayments
will be paid at the OPEB discount rate.\2\ The interest rate will
run from the beginning of the year being trued up.\3\ In addition,
GM is required to provide detailed quarterly reports to the
Committee concerning the Mitigation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The OPEB Discount Rate is a rate used to discount projected
future OPEB benefits payment cash flows to determine the present
value of the OPEB obligation. The OPEB discount rate is established
as of the annual valuation date, pursuant to FASB accounting
guidelines.
\3\ Because interest is calculated at the beginning of the year,
the principal on which the January interest is calculated would be
1/12 of the total true up for the year, for February, it would be 2/
12 of the total true up for the year, for March, it would be 3/12 of
the total true up for the year, until December, the last month of
the year, where the time period fraction would be 12/12. If payment
is not made by that date, interest is calculated for each additional
month until payment is made based on 2/12 of the total true up
amount for the year in question.
The Mitigation process does not apply to dental care expenses.
These costs have been handled differently. The DC VEBA Settlement
Agreement contemplated that GM would continue to provide 100% of dental
care to retirees until December 31, 2006 but that the costs of such
dental care after the Effective Date would be paid in the form of
monthly reimbursements to GM by the DC VEBA. In this regard, GM
invoiced the Committee and the DC VEBA made monthly reimbursements to
GM until December 31, 2006, at which time, such reimbursements ceased.
Between June 30, 2006 and September 16, 2007, the DC VEBA made
reimbursement payments to GM for both health care and dental expenses
of approximately $355,334,463.50 and
[[Page 42832]]
$100,258,523.56,\4\ respectively. On October 1, 2007, GM made a true up
payment to the DC VEBA in the amount of $17,934,072.46, plus
$1,126,156.83 in interest (total: $19,060,229.29). The DC VEBA has
questioned GM's calculations with respect to a small portion of the
actual Mitigation and if the DC VEBA prevails, GM will make an
additional, small true up payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ All dental reimbursements made by the DC VEBA to GM during
2007 represent GM's dental costs attributable to the period ending
December 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Arrangements for the DC VEBA
12. In addition to the Mitigation process, GM is required to fund
the DC VEBA. As noted above, in April 2006, GM contributed $1 billion
to the DC VEBA. Also, GM is required to make cash contributions to the
DC VEBA based on the increase in the notional value of eight (8)
million Shares of GM common stock. This Contribution Obligation is a
means of measuring the amount GM must contribute to the DC VEBA. It is
not a contract right that has been transferred to the DC VEBA. The
contributions are staged over time, as determined by the Committee, and
are based on the increase in trading price of a GM Share over the
trading price on October 14, 2005 (or $26.75 per Share).
The Contribution Obligation will ultimately be settled only in cash
by its termination date in 2011. The Contribution Obligation will not
carry voting or dividend rights and it is not transferable. Further,
the Contribution Obligation will be adjusted upon the occurrence of
certain ``dilution events.'' \5\ Finally, the amount of cash payments
under the Contribution Obligation will be readily determinable pursuant
to a fixed formula. Therefore, no independent valuation will be
required. The actual calculation will be made by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A dilution event is any merger, reorganization,
consolidation, exchange offer, asset spin-off, stock split, reverse
stock split, extraordinary dividend, or other change in GM's
corporate structure on or after the Ratification Date (November 11,
2005) that dilutes any class of GM stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Exemptive Relief
13. GM requests an administrative exemption from the Department
with respect to: (a) Monthly cash advances to GM by the DC VEBA to
reimburse GM for the estimated Mitigation of certain health care
expenses and for the payment of dental expenses incurred by
participants in the DC VEBA; and (b) an annual ``true up'' of the
Mitigation payments and dental expenses. In this regard, if GM has been
underpaid by the DC VEBA, it would receive the balance outstanding from
the DC VEBA, with interest. Conversely, if the DC VEBA has overpaid GM,
GM would reimburse the DC VEBA for the amount overpaid, with interest.
GM explains, and the Department concurs with GM's analysis, that the
Mitigation and the payments made for dental expenses would violate
sections 406(a)(1)(B), 406(a)(1)(D), and 406(b) of the Act because the
reimbursements with interest could be deemed to constitute the lending
of money or extension of credit between the DC VEBA and GM, a party in
interest, in violation of section 406(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or could be
viewed as the use by or for the benefit of a party in interest of plan
assets in violation of section 406(a)(1)(D). In addition, the covered
transactions would result in a prohibited act of self-dealing on the
part of GM in violation of section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act. If
granted, the exemption would be effective as of December 16, 2005.
The Department is not providing exemptive relief herein with
respect to the Contribution Obligation because, in the view of the
Department, the Contribution Obligation is merely a contractual
provision evidenced in the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement which is
designed to determine the amount of additional cash contributions that
must be made to the DC VEBA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Department further believes that the Contribution
obligation is not an ``employer security'' within the meaning of
section 407(d)(1) of the Act. Since it appears that the Contribution
Obligation does not result in the acquisition or holding by the DC
VEBA of an ``employer security,'' the Department has not proposed
separate exemptive relief herein with respect to such obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale for Exemptive Relief
14. Without an administrative exemption, GM states that the DC VEBA
would be required to establish a costly administrative scheme to
reimburse participants in the DC VEBA. In this regard, GM retirees'
would be charged the full costs of the contributions, co-pays and
deductibles. These retirees would then have to apply for reimbursement
payments, via a claim form, from the DC VEBA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, the DC VEBA would need to have claims examiners
ready to receive this claim, review it, request additional
information if necessary, and finally pay the retiree the money
(probably through a paper check). If the same retiree had additional
medical services later in the year, more claims would be sent to the
DC VEBA for additional reimbursement. In addition to claim
examiners, the DC VEBA would need to have customer service
representatives ready to answer questions regarding retiree claim
submissions, filing deadlines, missing documentation or lost checks.
The financial benefit of the Mitigation would be received by the
retiree only if he or she filed a proper claim for reimbursement and
would be delayed pending completion of the claim submission process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Under the Mitigation process, the hourly medical carriers set
up their claim systems to administer claims using the net value (after
the DC VEBA offset) for all cost sharing elements of the Modified Plan,
as applicable to retirees, and receive payment through the system set
up for the Mitigation process.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, assume that a retiree's first medical service
of the year had an associated reimbursement amount of $200. Since
under the Mitigation process the medical careers have set up a $150
deductible in their claims system, and since the reimbursement
associated with this medical service is $50 more than the
deductible, GM would pay $50 (ignoring, for purposes of this
example, the 10% co-payment applicable after the deductible) for
this service, and the retiree would be required to pay the provider
the remaining $150 owed. In this example, since the retiree payment
of $150 equals the net deductible of $150, the DC VEBA does not owe
the retiree anything related to this medical service. Nevertheless,
since GM paid the incremental $50 owed for this service, the DC VEBA
owes GM the incremental $50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, there is no need for the DC VEBA to hire claims examiners or
customer service representatives, as under the other alternative. The
selected approach will reduce the administrative cost of providing
reimbursement by the DC VEBA since the DC VEBA will only have to deal
with GM to pay its health care reimbursement, instead of dealing
directly with hundreds of thousands of retirees. The Mitigation process
also makes it much more likely that Mitigation of all appropriate
amounts will take place because it reduces the possibility that
individual retirees will fail to file for reimbursement, fail to
document legitimate health care expenses (due to lost paperwork,
untimely filing, lost mail, etc.), or can not mentally or physically
follow the administrative steps necessary to receive reimbursement
directly from the DC VEBA.
16. Records relating to participants and beneficiaries will be
retained by GM, its contractor, or Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan
(BCBSM). GM's contractor will reprocess, on an unmitigated basis, the
claims that BCBSM processed on a mitigated basis on behalf of GM, and
then GM or its contractor will determine the true up amount. Outside
auditors retained by the Committee will audit the calculation and make
their findings available to GM. However, all of the records will be
maintained at GM, BCBSM or GM's contractor.
Termination of the DC VEBA
17. Ultimately, the DC VEBA will be terminated and its assets
transferred to a new VEBA (the New VEBA). However, several steps will
occur before this happens. Currently, these steps are
[[Page 42833]]
described in a Memorandum of Understanding on Post-Retirement Medical
Care, agreed to by GM and the UAW (MOU, September 26, 2007) as part of
recent collective bargaining that culminated in a new, 4-year national
labor agreement.\9\ The covered group (the Covered Group) under the new
retiree health care plan and funded by the New VEBA will consist of (a)
all class members from the Henry case; (b) all future retirees, as
defined in the Henry settlement who are retired as of September 14,
2007; (c) all active GM UAW-represented employees who are on the rolls
and have attained seniority as of September 14, 2007 and who retire
with eligibility for Retiree Medical Benefits pursuant to the
eligibility provisions of the 2003 GM-UAW National Agreement; (d)
certain Delphi UAW retirees and active employees eligible to receive
retiree medical benefits from GM; and (e) certain UAW retirees and
active employees of other GM closed or divested operations who are
eligible to receive retiree medical benefits from GM; as well as (f)
eligible surviving spouses and dependents of those in the Covered
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Eventually, the terms of the MOU will be embodied in a
settlement agreement for the New VEBA (the new VEBA Settlement
Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the negotiations leading to the MOU, GM advised the UAW of its
intent to terminate the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement in accordance with
its terms in 2011 and exercise its right to terminate or modify retiree
health coverage for all UAW retirees and their dependents, and the UAW
reasserted its position that post-retirement medical coverage for
current UAW retirees is vested and unalterable.
18. The MOU defines the ``Implementation Date'' (the beginning of
coverage and operations) for the New VEBA. It is the later of January
1, 2010, or the date on which any appeals from, or challenges to, an
order of the Michigan District Court approving settlement on a class-
wide basis applicable to the Covered Group of any litigation arising
over the terms of the MOU and the final settlement documentation, have
been exhausted or when applicable periods during which such appeal or
challenge must be brought have expired; if (a) the Approval Order has
not been disapproved or modified, and (b) GM is reasonably satisfied by
its discussions with the staff from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that the desired accounting treatment with regard to OPEB
will be obtained.
19. With regard to the DC VEBA, the MOU states that the New VEBA
Settlement Agreement \10\ will provide that the Approval Order will
require that: (a) The DC VEBA Committee shall amend the DC VEBA to
permit the transfer of its assets to, and the assumption of its
liabilities by, the New VEBA; (b) the Committee shall instruct the DC
VEBA Trustee to transfer the entire balance of its assets to the New
VEBA; and (c) the DC VEBA be terminated after its assets are
transferred to the New VEBA. It also states that the Approval Order
will provide that on the Implementation Date the New VEBA shall assume
all GM responsibilities and liabilities for the provision of retiree
medical benefits for the Covered Group for claims incurred on or after
the Implementation Date, as well as all responsibilities and
liabilities of the DC VEBA on that Date. Thus, GM's obligations under
the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement will cease on the Implementation Date
(although there may be one or more subsequent true ups). In addition,
if the Implementation Date occurs before the date on which the ``Third
Contribution'' is due to be made to the DC VEBA, the MOU provides that
GM shall make that contribution to the New VEBA. Finally, the MOU
provides that it is subject to satisfaction of several conditions \11\
and shall terminate if those conditions are not satisfied by December
31, 2011 (or such later date as GM and the UAW may agree upon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ On October 26, 2007, the UAW and the Henry class filed a
new class action (E.D. Mich. 2:07-cv-14074-RHC-VMM), in the Michigan
District Court challenging GM's assertion that it will be free to
terminate retiree health coverage for UAW retirees, at the latest,
on and after September 14, 2011. In a Scheduling Order dated
November 21, 2007, Judge Cleland scheduled a status call for January
31, 2008, the filing of a motion for provisional class certification
by February 11, 2008, and a fairness hearing on a proposed
settlement for June 3, 2008.
\11\ Chief among these conditions are that: (a) The Approval
Order has been issued and the time for an appeal from or a challenge
to the Approval Order has expired; and (b) GM is reasonably
satisfied that it will obtain favorable accounting treatment on the
OPEB issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. In summary, GM represents that the transactions have satisfied
and will continue to satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The Committee has represented and will continue to represent
the DC VEBA and its participants and beneficiaries for all purposes
with respect to the Mitigation.
(b) The Committee for the DC VEBA has discharged and will continue
to discharge its duties consistent with the terms of the DC VEBA and
the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement.
(c) The Committee and actuaries retained by the Committee have
reviewed and approved and will continue to review and approve the
estimation process involved in the Mitigation, which results in the
monthly Mitigation amount paid to GM.
(d) Outside auditors retained by the Committee, along with an
administrative company that is partly owned by the DC VEBA, will audit
the calculation of the true up to determine whether there is any
difference between the estimated Mitigation and actual Mitigation
amounts and make such information available to GM.
(e) GM has provided and will continue to provide various reports
and records to the Committee concerning the Mitigation and dental care
reimbursements, which are and will continue to be subject to review and
audit by the Committee.
(f) The terms of the transactions have been no less favorable and
will continue to be no less favorable to the DC VEBA than the terms
negotiated at arm's length under similar circumstances between
unrelated third parties.
(g) The interest rate applied to any true up payments will be a
reasonable rate that runs from the beginning of the year being trued up
and does not or will not present a windfall or detriment to either
party.
(h) The DC VEBA has not incurred and will continue not to incur any
fees, costs or other charges (other than those described in the DC VEBA
and the DC VEBA Settlement Agreement) as a result of the transactions.
(i) GM and the Committee have maintained and will continue to
maintain for a period of six years from the date of any of the covered
transactions, the records necessary to enable certain persons, such as
the UAW, DC VEBA participants, GM or any authorized employee or
representative of the Department, to determine whether the terms and
conditions of this exemption have been met.
Notice To Interested Persons
GM will provide notice of the proposed exemption to interested
persons within 30 days of the publication of the notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register. Such notice will be provided to
interested persons by first-class mail and will include a copy of the
notice of proposed exemption as published in the Federal Register as
well as a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR
2570.43(b)(2). The supplemental statement will inform interested
persons of their right to comment on and/or to request a hearing.
Comments and requests for a hearing with respect to the
[[Page 42834]]
proposed exemption are due within 60 days of the publication of this
pendency notice in the Federal Register.
If you decide to submit written comments to the Department, your
comments should be limited to the transactions described in the
exemption proposed by the Department. However, if you have concerns
about benefits or any other matter, you should contact the
appropriate office at GM for further assistance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the
Department by E-mail at GM-DCVEBA@dol.gov or at telephone number (202)
693-8553. (This is not a toll-free number.)
General Information
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code
does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified
person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption
does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of
section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary
to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of
the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion
in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect
the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer
maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the
Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find
that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of
the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of
the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemption, if granted, will be supplemental to,
and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the
Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional
rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an
administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the
transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemption, if granted, will be subject to the
express condition that the material facts and representations contained
in each application are true and complete, and that each application
accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the
subject of the exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of July, 2008.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, U.S. Department Of Labor.
[FR Doc. E8-16713 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P