Selection of Annuity Providers-Safe Harbor for Individual Account Plans, 58447-58450 [E8-23427]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets.
■
2. Section 2509.95–1 is amended by
revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
§ 2509.95–1 Interpretive bulletin relating to
the fiduciary standards under ERISA when
selecting an annuity provider for a defined
benefit pension plan.
For purposes of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), the final rule does not include
any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, or impose an annual
burden exceeding $100 million on the
private sector.
Federalism Statement
Executive Order 13132 (August 4,
1999) outlines fundamental principles
of federalism and requires Federal
agencies to adhere to specific criteria in
the process of their formulation and
implementation of policies that have
substantial direct effects on the States,
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. This final rule
does not have federalism implications
because it has no substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Section
514 of ERISA provides, with certain
exceptions specifically enumerated, that
the provisions of Titles I and IV of
ERISA supersede any and all laws of the
States as they relate to any employee
benefit plan covered under fundamental
provisions of the statute with respect to
employee benefit plans, and as such
would have no implications for the
States or the relationship or distribution
of power between the national
government and the States.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2509
Employee benefit plans, Pensions.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department amends
Chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
■
PART 2509—INTERPRETIVE
BULLETINS RELATING TO THE
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
SECURITY ACT OF 1974
1. The authority citation for part 2509
is revised to read as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135. Secretary of
Labor’s Order 1–2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3,
2003). Sections 2509.75–10 and 2509.75–2
issued under 29 U.S.C. 1052, 1053, 1054. Sec.
2509.75–5 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1002.
Sec. 2509.95–1 also issued under sec. 625,
Pub. L. 109–280, 120 Stat. 780.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
(a) Scope. This Interpretive Bulletin
provides guidance concerning certain
fiduciary standards under part 4 of title
I of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
1104–1114, applicable to the selection
of an annuity provider for the purpose
of benefit distributions from a defined
benefit pension plan (hereafter ‘‘pension
plan’’) when the pension plan intends to
transfer liability for benefits to an
annuity provider. For guidance
applicable to the selection of an annuity
provider for benefit distributions from
an individual account plan see 29 CFR
2550.404a–4.
*
*
*
*
*
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
September, 2008.
Bradford P. Campbell,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. E8–23433 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2550
RIN 1210–AB19
Selection of Annuity Providers—Safe
Harbor for Individual Account Plans
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains a
final regulation that establishes a safe
harbor for the selection of annuity
providers for the purpose of benefit
distributions from individual account
plans covered by title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). This regulation will affect plan
sponsors and fiduciaries of individual
account plans and the participants and
beneficiaries covered by such plans.
Also appearing in today’s Federal
Register is a final rule amending
Interpretive Bulletin 95–1 to limit the
application of the Bulletin to the
selection of annuity providers for
defined benefit plans.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
December 8, 2008.
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet A. Walters or Allison E. Wielobob,
Office of Regulations and
Interpretations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC
20210, (202) 693–8510. This is not a
toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On September 12, 2007, the
Department published an interim final
regulation (72 FR 52004) limiting the
scope of Interpretive Bulletin 95–1,
relating to the selection of annuity
providers, to defined benefit plans, as
directed by section 625 of the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (the PPA) (Pub.
L. 109–280, 120 Stat. 780). On the same
date, the Department published a
proposed rule (72 FR 52021) that would
establish a safe harbor for the selection
of annuity providers for individual
account plans. The Department received
10 comment letters in response to its
request for comments. Set forth below is
an overview of the final rule and the
public comments submitted on the
proposed rule. A final rule amending
Interpretive Bulletin 95–1 also appears
in today’s Federal Register.
B. Overview of Final Rule and
Comments
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PO 00000
58447
Sfmt 4700
As discussed below, the substance of
the final rule is very similar to the
Department’s proposed rule. The
Department, however, has made
changes to the proposed rule that clarify
and simplify the safe harbor conditions,
consistent with the suggestions of the
commenters.
Scope of the Final Rule
Although restructured to simplify and
clarify the rule, paragraph (a)(1) of
§ 2550.404a–4 of the final rule, like the
proposed rule, describes the scope of
the regulation. As described in
paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule, the
regulation establishes a safe harbor for
satisfying the fiduciary duties under
section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA in
selecting an annuity provider and
contract for benefit distributions from
an individual account plan. Paragraph
(a)(1) also includes a reference to
§ 2509.95–1 for guidance concerning the
selection of annuity providers for
defined benefit plans.
Several commenters expressed
concerns about a safe harbor structure.
Some suggested that a safe harbor is
inconsistent with the prudent person
standard and that the prudent person
standard alone would more effectively
reduce impediments to annuities as a
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
58448
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
distribution option under an individual
account plan.
Other commenters asserted that the
regulation should explicitly state that
the generally applicable fiduciary
standards apply outside the safe harbor
and that a fiduciary can discharge its
fiduciary duties in ways other than
those prescribed by the regulation. In
this regard, some commenters expressed
concerns that fiduciaries may believe
that they must meet the safe harbor
conditions in order to satisfy their
fiduciary duties if the regulation is not
clearly identified as a safe harbor.
Others argued that the safe harbor has
the effect of establishing a heightened
standard of review for the selection and
monitoring of annuities that is unduly
stringent and has limited relevance to
many annuity investment and
distribution options.
After careful consideration of these
comments, the Department continues to
believe that the safe harbor criteria will
be useful to many plan fiduciaries when
selecting annuity providers and
contracts. The Department agrees,
however, that a clearer statement
concerning the nature of the safe harbor
would be beneficial. Accordingly, the
Department has modified paragraph (a)
of the safe harbor to add new
subparagraph (a)(2), clarifying that the
regulation does not establish minimum
requirements or the exclusive means for
satisfying the responsibilities under
section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA with
respect to the selection of an annuity
provider or contract for benefit
distributions. Further, in an effort to
minimize confusion concerning the
scope of the safe harbor, as well as to
simplify the regulation generally, the
Department has eliminated paragraph
(b) of the proposal, which discussed the
general fiduciary standards of section
404(a)(1).
Safe Harbor
Paragraph (b) of § 2550.404a–4 of the
final rule sets forth the conditions of the
safe harbor. While the conditions for
relief under the final safe harbor
regulation are essentially the same as
those contained in the proposal, some
changes have been made to the ordering
and language of the conditions for
purposes of clarifying and simplifying
the overall regulation.
As with the proposal, the first
condition for safe harbor relief is that
the plan fiduciary engage in an
objective, thorough and analytical
search for the purpose of identifying
and selecting providers from which to
purchase annuities. See paragraph (b)(1)
of § 2550.404a–4 of the final rule.
Consistent with other guidance from the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Department, this process must avoid self
dealing, conflicts of interest or other
improper influence, and should, to the
extent feasible, involve consideration of
competing annuity providers.
Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule,
consistent with the proposal, requires
that the fiduciary appropriately consider
information sufficient to assess the
ability of the annuity provider to make
all future payments under the annuity
contract.
Paragraph (b)(3), requires that the
fiduciary appropriately consider the
cost of the annuity contract, including
fees and commissions, in relation to the
benefits and administrative services to
be provided under the contract. This
paragraph is also consistent with the
proposal, except that a reference to ‘‘fees
and commissions’’ has been added to
emphasize their importance to the
fiduciary’s decision making process.
Paragraph (b)(4), also like the
proposal, requires that the fiduciary
appropriately conclude that, at the time
of the selection, the annuity provider is
financially able to make all future
payments under the annuity contract
and the cost of the annuity contract is
reasonable in relation to the benefits
and services to be provided under the
contract.
Paragraph (b)(5) provides that, if
necessary, the fiduciary should consult
with an appropriate expert or experts for
purposes of complying with the
requirements of the safe harbor as set
forth in paragraph (b). The proposal
included as a condition that a fiduciary
appropriately determine either that he
or she had, at the time of the selection,
the appropriate expertise to evaluation
the selection of an annuity provider or
that the advice of a qualified,
independent expert was necessary. A
number of commenters expressed
concern that this requirement, as
framed, would require all employers to
engage independent experts to conduct
an analysis of the provider and contract,
even those that believed they had the
requisite knowledge to make a prudent
decision. Commenters believed this
would be a particularly onerous
requirement for small employers. As
modified, the regulation makes clear
that engaging an independent expert is
not required in all cases. Rather,
whether and to what extent, if at all, an
expert may be needed is a determination
to be made by the plan fiduciary taking
into account what, if any, assistance the
fiduciary needs to satisfy the conditions
in paragraphs (b)(1)–(4) of the
regulation.
Paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed
regulation provided additional guidance
concerning what information a fiduciary
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
should consider in meeting the
requirements for the safe harbor. A
number of commenters argued that the
provisions of paragraph (c)(2) were
duplicative, confusing and unnecessary.
The Department agrees that the
paragraph, as part of the safe harbor, is
not necessary and, in some instances,
may be confusing. Accordingly, the final
safe harbor does not include the listing
of supplemental considerations set forth
in paragraph (c)(2) of the proposal.
The Department believes that the
general safe harbor conditions in the
final regulation will be more useful for
fiduciaries. Further, although an
annuity provider’s ratings by insurance
ratings services are not part of the final
safe harbor, in many instances,
fiduciaries may want to consider them,
particularly if the ratings raise questions
regarding the provider’s ability to make
future payments under the annuity
contract. The Department also believes
that some information regarding
additional protections that might be
available through a state guaranty
association for an annuity provider also
would be useful information to a plan
fiduciary, even if limited to that
information which is generally available
to the public and easily accessible
through such associations, state
insurance departments, or elsewhere.
Time of Selection
Commenters expressed concern that
plan fiduciaries would have to comply
with the conditions of the proposed safe
harbor merely because they offered
investment options through an annuity
contract, without regard to whether a
participant or plan fiduciary actually
exercised the annuity feature of the
contract. If so, commenters argued,
investment products offered by insurers
would be subject to what they perceived
as a different, if not higher, fiduciary
standard than that applied to the
selection of other investment products.
The Department does not intend, by
virtue of the safe harbor, to establish
different fiduciary standards for the
selection of investment products.
Rather, the safe harbor conditions apply
solely to a fiduciary’s decision to
purchase a distribution annuity for an
individual account plan. To clarify this
point, the final regulation includes a
new paragraph (c) that affords plan
fiduciaries flexibility concerning when
they must meet the safe harbor
conditions in order to take advantage of
the safe harbor. Paragraph (c)(1) of the
final regulation provides that, under the
safe harbor, the time of selection may be
the time that the fiduciary selects the
annuity provider and contract for
distribution of benefits to a specific
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
participant or beneficiary. Paragraph
(c)(2) provides, in the alternative, that
the fiduciary may meet the safe harbor
conditions when the fiduciary selects an
annuity provider to provide annuity
contracts at future dates to participants
or beneficiaries, provided that the
selecting fiduciary periodically reviews
the continuing appropriateness of the
conclusion that the annuity provider is
financially able to make all future
payments under the annuity contract
and the cost of the annuity contract is
reasonable in relation to the benefits
and services to be provided under the
contract, taking into account the factors
described in paragraphs (b)(2), (3) and
(5) of § 2550.404a–4 of the final rule. For
purposes of paragraph (c)(2), a fiduciary
is not required to review the
appropriateness of this conclusion with
respect to any annuity contract
purchased for any specific participant or
beneficiary.
C. Effective Date
This final regulation will be effective
60 days after the date of its publication
in the Federal Register.
D. Regulatory Impact Analysis
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Executive Order 12866 Statement
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735), the Department must determine
whether a regulatory action is
‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of the
Executive Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action that is
likely to result in a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also
referred to as ‘‘economically
significant’’); (2) creating serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfering
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially altering
the budgetary impacts of entitlement
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Pursuant to the terms of the
Executive Order, it has been determined
that this action is not ‘‘significant’’
within the meaning of section 3(f) of the
Executive Order, and, therefore, is not
subject to review by OMB.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes
certain requirements with respect to
Federal rules that are subject to the
notice and comment requirements of
section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 551 et seq.) and
that are likely to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Section 604 of
the RFA requires that the agency present
a final regulatory flexibility analysis of
the publication of the notice of final
rulemaking describing the impact of the
rule on small entities. The Department
has considered the likely impact of the
final rule on small entities in
connection with its assessment under
Executive Order 12866, described
above, and believes this rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking is not subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 301 et
seq.), because it does not contain
‘‘collection of information’’
requirements as defined in 44 U.S.C.
3502(3). Accordingly, the final rule is
not being submitted to the OMB for
review under the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Congressional Review Act
This notice of final rulemaking is
subject to the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and therefore
has been transmitted to the Congress
and the Comptroller General for review.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For purposes of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4), the final rule does not include
any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, or impose an annual
burden exceeding $100 million on the
private sector.
Federalism Statement
Executive Order 13132 (August 4,
1999) outlines fundamental principles
of federalism and requires Federal
agencies to adhere to specific criteria in
the process of their formulation and
implementation of policies that have
substantial direct effects on the States,
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. This final rule
does not have federalism implications
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58449
because it has no substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Section
514 of ERISA provides, with certain
exceptions specifically enumerated, that
the provisions of Titles I and IV of
ERISA supersede any and all laws of the
States as they relate to any employee
benefit plan covered under ERISA. The
requirements implemented in the final
rule do not alter the fundamental
provisions of the statute with respect to
employee benefit plans, and as such
would have no implications for the
States or the relationship or distribution
of power between the national
government and the States.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2550
Annuities, Employee benefit plans,
Fiduciaries, Pensions.
■ For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department amends
Chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
Title 29—Labor
SUBCHAPTER F—FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF
1974
PART 2550—RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY
1. The authority citation for Part 2550
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135; and Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb.
3, 2003). Sec. 2550.401c–1 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 1101. Sec. 2550.404a–1 also issued
under sec. 657, Pub. L. 107–16, 115 Stat. 38.
Sections 2550.404c–1 and 2550.404c–5 also
issued under 29 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 2550.408b–
1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(1) and
sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978,
5 U.S.C. App. 1. Sec. 2550.408b–19 also
issued under sec. 611, Pub. L. 109–280, 120
Stat. 780, 972, and sec. 102, Reorganization
Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1. Sec.
2550.412–1 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1112.
2. Add § 2550.404a–4 to read as
follows:
■
§ 2550.404a–4 Selection of annuity
providers—safe harbor for individual
account plans.
(a) Scope. (1) This section establishes
a safe harbor for satisfying the fiduciary
duties under section 404(a)(1)(B) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1104–
1114, in selecting an annuity provider
and contract for benefit distributions
from an individual account plan. For
guidance concerning the selection of an
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
58450
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
annuity provider for defined benefit
plans see 29 CFR 2509.95–1.
(2) This section sets forth an optional
means for satisfying the fiduciary
responsibilities under section
404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA with respect to the
selection of an annuity provider or
contract for benefit distributions. This
section does not establish minimum
requirements or the exclusive means for
satisfying these responsibilities.
(b) Safe harbor. The selection of an
annuity provider for benefit
distributions from an individual
account plan satisfies the requirements
of section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA if the
fiduciary:
(1) Engages in an objective, thorough
and analytical search for the purpose of
identifying and selecting providers from
which to purchase annuities;
(2) Appropriately considers
information sufficient to assess the
ability of the annuity provider to make
all future payments under the annuity
contract;
(3) Appropriately considers the cost
(including fees and commissions) of the
annuity contract in relation to the
benefits and administrative services to
be provided under such contract;
(4) Appropriately concludes that, at
the time of the selection, the annuity
provider is financially able to make all
future payments under the annuity
contract and the cost of the annuity
contract is reasonable in relation to the
benefits and services to be provided
under the contract; and
(5) If necessary, consults with an
appropriate expert or experts for
purposes of compliance with the
provisions of this paragraph (b).
(c) Time of selection. For purposes of
paragraph (b) of this section, the ‘‘time
of selection’’ may be either:
(1) The time that the annuity provider
and contract are selected for distribution
of benefits to a specific participant or
beneficiary; or
(2) The time that the annuity provider
is selected to provide annuity contracts
at future dates to participants or
beneficiaries, provided that the selecting
fiduciary periodically reviews the
continuing appropriateness of the
conclusion described in paragraph (b)(4)
of this section, taking into account the
factors described in paragraphs (b)(2),
(3) and (5) of this section. For purposes
of this paragraph (c)(2), a fiduciary is
not required to review the
appropriateness of this conclusion with
respect to any annuity contract
purchased for any specific participant or
beneficiary.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
September, 2008.
Bradford P. Campbell,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. E8–23427 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2550
RIN 1210–AB17
Statutory Exemption for Cross-Trading
of Securities
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains a
final rule that implements the content
requirements for the written crosstrading policies and procedures
required under section 408(b)(19)(H) of
the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act).
Section 611(g) of the Pension Protection
Act of 2006, Public Law No. 109–280,
120 Stat. 780, 972, amended section
408(b) of ERISA by adding a new
subsection (19) that exempts the
purchase and sale of a security between
a plan and any other account managed
by the same investment manager if
certain conditions are satisfied. Among
other requirements, section
408(b)(19)(H) stipulates that the
investment manager must adopt, and
effect cross-trades in accordance with,
written cross-trading policies and
procedures that are fair and equitable to
all accounts participating in the crosstrading program. This final rule affects
employee benefit plans, investment
managers, plan fiduciaries and plan
participants and beneficiaries.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective February 4, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.
Christopher Cosby or Brian Buyniski,
Office of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Room N–5700, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC
20210, telephone (202) 693–8540. This
is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 611(g)(1) of the Pension
Protection Act of 2006, Public Law No.
109–280, 120 Stat. 780, 972 (PPA),
which was enacted on August 17, 2006,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
amended ERISA by adding a new
section 408(b)(19), which exempts from
the prohibitions of sections 406(a)(1)(A)
and 406(b)(2) of the Act those
transactions involving the purchase and
sale of a security between a plan and
any other account managed by the same
investment manager, provided that
certain conditions are satisfied.1 Among
other requirements, an investment
manager must adopt, and cross-trades
must be effected in accordance with,
written cross-trading policies and
procedures that are fair and equitable to
all accounts participating in the crosstrading program. The policies and
procedures must include descriptions of
(i) the investment manager’s policies
and procedures relating to pricing, and
(ii) the investment manager’s policies
and procedures for allocating crosstrades in an objective manner among
accounts participating in the crosstrading program.
The investment manager also must
designate an individual (a compliance
officer) who is responsible for
periodically reviewing purchases and
sales of securities made pursuant to the
exemption to ensure compliance with
the foregoing policies and procedures.
Following such review, the compliance
officer must provide, on an annual
basis, a written report describing the
steps performed during the course of the
review, the level of compliance with the
foregoing policies and procedures, and
any specific instances of
noncompliance. The report must be
provided to the plan fiduciary who
authorized the cross-trading no later
than 90 days following the period to
which it relates. Additionally, the
written report must notify the plan
fiduciary of the plan’s right to terminate
participation in the investment
manager’s cross-trading program at any
time and must be signed by the
compliance officer under penalty of
perjury.
Section 611(g)(3) of the PPA provides
that the Secretary of Labor, after
consultation with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), shall, no
later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the PPA, issue regulations
1 Section 611(g)(2) of the PPA added a parallel
provision under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(Code), section 4975(d)(22), which provides relief
from the prohibitions described in section 4975(c)
of the Code in connection with the cross-trading of
securities. Under Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978,
effective December 31, 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 214
(2000)), the authority of the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue interpretations regarding section
4975 of the Code has been transferred, with certain
exceptions not here relevant, to the Secretary of
Labor, and the Secretary of the Treasury is bound
by the interpretations of the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to such authority.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58447-58450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23427]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
29 CFR Part 2550
RIN 1210-AB19
Selection of Annuity Providers--Safe Harbor for Individual
Account Plans
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a final regulation that establishes a
safe harbor for the selection of annuity providers for the purpose of
benefit distributions from individual account plans covered by title I
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This regulation
will affect plan sponsors and fiduciaries of individual account plans
and the participants and beneficiaries covered by such plans. Also
appearing in today's Federal Register is a final rule amending
Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 to limit the application of the Bulletin to
the selection of annuity providers for defined benefit plans.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 8, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet A. Walters or Allison E.
Wielobob, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC
20210, (202) 693-8510. This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On September 12, 2007, the Department published an interim final
regulation (72 FR 52004) limiting the scope of Interpretive Bulletin
95-1, relating to the selection of annuity providers, to defined
benefit plans, as directed by section 625 of the Pension Protection Act
of 2006 (the PPA) (Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780). On the same date,
the Department published a proposed rule (72 FR 52021) that would
establish a safe harbor for the selection of annuity providers for
individual account plans. The Department received 10 comment letters in
response to its request for comments. Set forth below is an overview of
the final rule and the public comments submitted on the proposed rule.
A final rule amending Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 also appears in
today's Federal Register.
B. Overview of Final Rule and Comments
As discussed below, the substance of the final rule is very similar
to the Department's proposed rule. The Department, however, has made
changes to the proposed rule that clarify and simplify the safe harbor
conditions, consistent with the suggestions of the commenters.
Scope of the Final Rule
Although restructured to simplify and clarify the rule, paragraph
(a)(1) of Sec. 2550.404a-4 of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
describes the scope of the regulation. As described in paragraph (a)(1)
of the final rule, the regulation establishes a safe harbor for
satisfying the fiduciary duties under section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA in
selecting an annuity provider and contract for benefit distributions
from an individual account plan. Paragraph (a)(1) also includes a
reference to Sec. 2509.95-1 for guidance concerning the selection of
annuity providers for defined benefit plans.
Several commenters expressed concerns about a safe harbor
structure. Some suggested that a safe harbor is inconsistent with the
prudent person standard and that the prudent person standard alone
would more effectively reduce impediments to annuities as a
[[Page 58448]]
distribution option under an individual account plan.
Other commenters asserted that the regulation should explicitly
state that the generally applicable fiduciary standards apply outside
the safe harbor and that a fiduciary can discharge its fiduciary duties
in ways other than those prescribed by the regulation. In this regard,
some commenters expressed concerns that fiduciaries may believe that
they must meet the safe harbor conditions in order to satisfy their
fiduciary duties if the regulation is not clearly identified as a safe
harbor. Others argued that the safe harbor has the effect of
establishing a heightened standard of review for the selection and
monitoring of annuities that is unduly stringent and has limited
relevance to many annuity investment and distribution options.
After careful consideration of these comments, the Department
continues to believe that the safe harbor criteria will be useful to
many plan fiduciaries when selecting annuity providers and contracts.
The Department agrees, however, that a clearer statement concerning the
nature of the safe harbor would be beneficial. Accordingly, the
Department has modified paragraph (a) of the safe harbor to add new
subparagraph (a)(2), clarifying that the regulation does not establish
minimum requirements or the exclusive means for satisfying the
responsibilities under section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA with respect to
the selection of an annuity provider or contract for benefit
distributions. Further, in an effort to minimize confusion concerning
the scope of the safe harbor, as well as to simplify the regulation
generally, the Department has eliminated paragraph (b) of the proposal,
which discussed the general fiduciary standards of section 404(a)(1).
Safe Harbor
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 2550.404a-4 of the final rule sets forth the
conditions of the safe harbor. While the conditions for relief under
the final safe harbor regulation are essentially the same as those
contained in the proposal, some changes have been made to the ordering
and language of the conditions for purposes of clarifying and
simplifying the overall regulation.
As with the proposal, the first condition for safe harbor relief is
that the plan fiduciary engage in an objective, thorough and analytical
search for the purpose of identifying and selecting providers from
which to purchase annuities. See paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 2550.404a-4
of the final rule. Consistent with other guidance from the Department,
this process must avoid self dealing, conflicts of interest or other
improper influence, and should, to the extent feasible, involve
consideration of competing annuity providers.
Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule, consistent with the proposal,
requires that the fiduciary appropriately consider information
sufficient to assess the ability of the annuity provider to make all
future payments under the annuity contract.
Paragraph (b)(3), requires that the fiduciary appropriately
consider the cost of the annuity contract, including fees and
commissions, in relation to the benefits and administrative services to
be provided under the contract. This paragraph is also consistent with
the proposal, except that a reference to ``fees and commissions'' has
been added to emphasize their importance to the fiduciary's decision
making process.
Paragraph (b)(4), also like the proposal, requires that the
fiduciary appropriately conclude that, at the time of the selection,
the annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments
under the annuity contract and the cost of the annuity contract is
reasonable in relation to the benefits and services to be provided
under the contract.
Paragraph (b)(5) provides that, if necessary, the fiduciary should
consult with an appropriate expert or experts for purposes of complying
with the requirements of the safe harbor as set forth in paragraph (b).
The proposal included as a condition that a fiduciary appropriately
determine either that he or she had, at the time of the selection, the
appropriate expertise to evaluation the selection of an annuity
provider or that the advice of a qualified, independent expert was
necessary. A number of commenters expressed concern that this
requirement, as framed, would require all employers to engage
independent experts to conduct an analysis of the provider and
contract, even those that believed they had the requisite knowledge to
make a prudent decision. Commenters believed this would be a
particularly onerous requirement for small employers. As modified, the
regulation makes clear that engaging an independent expert is not
required in all cases. Rather, whether and to what extent, if at all,
an expert may be needed is a determination to be made by the plan
fiduciary taking into account what, if any, assistance the fiduciary
needs to satisfy the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1)-(4) of the
regulation.
Paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed regulation provided additional
guidance concerning what information a fiduciary should consider in
meeting the requirements for the safe harbor. A number of commenters
argued that the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) were duplicative,
confusing and unnecessary. The Department agrees that the paragraph, as
part of the safe harbor, is not necessary and, in some instances, may
be confusing. Accordingly, the final safe harbor does not include the
listing of supplemental considerations set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of
the proposal.
The Department believes that the general safe harbor conditions in
the final regulation will be more useful for fiduciaries. Further,
although an annuity provider's ratings by insurance ratings services
are not part of the final safe harbor, in many instances, fiduciaries
may want to consider them, particularly if the ratings raise questions
regarding the provider's ability to make future payments under the
annuity contract. The Department also believes that some information
regarding additional protections that might be available through a
state guaranty association for an annuity provider also would be useful
information to a plan fiduciary, even if limited to that information
which is generally available to the public and easily accessible
through such associations, state insurance departments, or elsewhere.
Time of Selection
Commenters expressed concern that plan fiduciaries would have to
comply with the conditions of the proposed safe harbor merely because
they offered investment options through an annuity contract, without
regard to whether a participant or plan fiduciary actually exercised
the annuity feature of the contract. If so, commenters argued,
investment products offered by insurers would be subject to what they
perceived as a different, if not higher, fiduciary standard than that
applied to the selection of other investment products. The Department
does not intend, by virtue of the safe harbor, to establish different
fiduciary standards for the selection of investment products. Rather,
the safe harbor conditions apply solely to a fiduciary's decision to
purchase a distribution annuity for an individual account plan. To
clarify this point, the final regulation includes a new paragraph (c)
that affords plan fiduciaries flexibility concerning when they must
meet the safe harbor conditions in order to take advantage of the safe
harbor. Paragraph (c)(1) of the final regulation provides that, under
the safe harbor, the time of selection may be the time that the
fiduciary selects the annuity provider and contract for distribution of
benefits to a specific
[[Page 58449]]
participant or beneficiary. Paragraph (c)(2) provides, in the
alternative, that the fiduciary may meet the safe harbor conditions
when the fiduciary selects an annuity provider to provide annuity
contracts at future dates to participants or beneficiaries, provided
that the selecting fiduciary periodically reviews the continuing
appropriateness of the conclusion that the annuity provider is
financially able to make all future payments under the annuity contract
and the cost of the annuity contract is reasonable in relation to the
benefits and services to be provided under the contract, taking into
account the factors described in paragraphs (b)(2), (3) and (5) of
Sec. 2550.404a-4 of the final rule. For purposes of paragraph (c)(2),
a fiduciary is not required to review the appropriateness of this
conclusion with respect to any annuity contract purchased for any
specific participant or beneficiary.
C. Effective Date
This final regulation will be effective 60 days after the date of
its publication in the Federal Register.
D. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866 Statement
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Department must
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section
3(f) of the Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of the
Executive Order, it has been determined that this action is not
``significant'' within the meaning of section 3(f) of the Executive
Order, and, therefore, is not subject to review by OMB.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes
certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to
the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 551 et seq.) and that are likely
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Section 604 of the RFA requires that the agency present a
final regulatory flexibility analysis of the publication of the notice
of final rulemaking describing the impact of the rule on small
entities. The Department has considered the likely impact of the final
rule on small entities in connection with its assessment under
Executive Order 12866, described above, and believes this rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), because it does not
contain ``collection of information'' requirements as defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3). Accordingly, the final rule is not being submitted to
the OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Congressional Review Act
This notice of final rulemaking is subject to the Congressional
Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and therefore has been
transmitted to the Congress and the Comptroller General for review.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4), the final rule does not include any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or
impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.
Federalism Statement
Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999) outlines fundamental
principles of federalism and requires Federal agencies to adhere to
specific criteria in the process of their formulation and
implementation of policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. This final rule does not have federalism
implications because it has no substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Section 514 of ERISA provides, with certain
exceptions specifically enumerated, that the provisions of Titles I and
IV of ERISA supersede any and all laws of the States as they relate to
any employee benefit plan covered under ERISA. The requirements
implemented in the final rule do not alter the fundamental provisions
of the statute with respect to employee benefit plans, and as such
would have no implications for the States or the relationship or
distribution of power between the national government and the States.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2550
Annuities, Employee benefit plans, Fiduciaries, Pensions.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends
Chapter XXV of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Title 29--Labor
SUBCHAPTER F--FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974
PART 2550--RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY
0
1. The authority citation for Part 2550 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135; and Secretary of Labor's Order No.
1-2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3, 2003). Sec. 2550.401c-1 also issued
under 29 U.S.C. 1101. Sec. 2550.404a-1 also issued under sec. 657,
Pub. L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38. Sections 2550.404c-1 and 2550.404c-5
also issued under 29 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 2550.408b-1 also issued under
29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(1) and sec. 102, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1. Sec. 2550.408b-19 also issued under sec. 611,
Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780, 972, and sec. 102, Reorganization
Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1. Sec. 2550.412-1 also issued
under 29 U.S.C. 1112.
0
2. Add Sec. 2550.404a-4 to read as follows:
Sec. 2550.404a-4 Selection of annuity providers--safe harbor for
individual account plans.
(a) Scope. (1) This section establishes a safe harbor for
satisfying the fiduciary duties under section 404(a)(1)(B) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
1104-1114, in selecting an annuity provider and contract for benefit
distributions from an individual account plan. For guidance concerning
the selection of an
[[Page 58450]]
annuity provider for defined benefit plans see 29 CFR 2509.95-1.
(2) This section sets forth an optional means for satisfying the
fiduciary responsibilities under section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA with
respect to the selection of an annuity provider or contract for benefit
distributions. This section does not establish minimum requirements or
the exclusive means for satisfying these responsibilities.
(b) Safe harbor. The selection of an annuity provider for benefit
distributions from an individual account plan satisfies the
requirements of section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA if the fiduciary:
(1) Engages in an objective, thorough and analytical search for the
purpose of identifying and selecting providers from which to purchase
annuities;
(2) Appropriately considers information sufficient to assess the
ability of the annuity provider to make all future payments under the
annuity contract;
(3) Appropriately considers the cost (including fees and
commissions) of the annuity contract in relation to the benefits and
administrative services to be provided under such contract;
(4) Appropriately concludes that, at the time of the selection, the
annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments under
the annuity contract and the cost of the annuity contract is reasonable
in relation to the benefits and services to be provided under the
contract; and
(5) If necessary, consults with an appropriate expert or experts
for purposes of compliance with the provisions of this paragraph (b).
(c) Time of selection. For purposes of paragraph (b) of this
section, the ``time of selection'' may be either:
(1) The time that the annuity provider and contract are selected
for distribution of benefits to a specific participant or beneficiary;
or
(2) The time that the annuity provider is selected to provide
annuity contracts at future dates to participants or beneficiaries,
provided that the selecting fiduciary periodically reviews the
continuing appropriateness of the conclusion described in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section, taking into account the factors described in
paragraphs (b)(2), (3) and (5) of this section. For purposes of this
paragraph (c)(2), a fiduciary is not required to review the
appropriateness of this conclusion with respect to any annuity contract
purchased for any specific participant or beneficiary.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of September, 2008.
Bradford P. Campbell,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration,
Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. E8-23427 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
