Methods for Computing Withdrawal Liability; Reallocation Liability Upon Mass Withdrawal; Pension Protection Act of 2006, 79628-79637 [E8-31015]
Download as PDF
79628
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Include All of the Following Provisions That
Are Applicable
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Mitigated Sales
Sales of energy and capacity are
permissible under this tariff in all balancing
authority areas where the Seller has been
granted market-based rate authority. Sales of
energy and capacity under this tariff are also
permissible at the metered boundary between
the Seller’s mitigated balancing authority
area and a balancing authority area where the
Seller has been granted market-based rate
authority provided: (i) Legal title of the
power sold transfers at the metered boundary
of the balancing authority area; (ii) if the
Seller wants to sell at the metered boundary
of a mitigated balancing authority area at
market-based rates, then neither it nor its
affiliates can sell into that mitigated
balancing authority area from the outside.
Seller must retain, for a period of five years
from the date of the sale, all data and
information related to the sale that
demonstrates compliance with items (i) and
(ii) above.
Ancillary Services
RTO/ISO Specific—Include All Services the
Seller Is Offering
PJM: Seller offers regulation and frequency
response service, energy imbalance service,
and operating reserve service (which
includes spinning, 10-minute, and 30-minute
reserves) for sale into the market
administered by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(‘‘PJM’’) and, where the PJM Open Access
Transmission Tariff permits, the self-supply
of these services to purchasers for a bilateral
sale that is used to satisfy the ancillary
services requirements of the PJM Office of
Interconnection.
New York: Seller offers regulation and
frequency response service, and operating
reserve service (which include 10-minute
non-synchronous, 30-minute operating
reserves, 10-minute spinning reserves, and
10-minute non-spinning reserves) for sale to
purchasers in the market administered by the
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
New England: Seller offers regulation and
frequency response service (automatic
generator control), operating reserve service
(which includes 10-minute spinning reserve,
10-minute non-spinning reserve, and 30minute operating reserve service) to
purchasers within the markets administered
by the ISO New England, Inc.
California: Seller offers regulation service,
spinning reserve service, and non-spinning
reserve service to the California Independent
System Operator Corporation (‘‘CAISO’’) and
to others that are self-supplying ancillary
services to the CAISO.
Midwest ISO: Seller offers regulation
service and operating reserve service (which
include a 10-minute spinning reserve and 10minute supplemental reserve) for sale to the
Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and to others
that are self-supplying ancillary services to
Midwest ISO.
Third Party Provider
Third-party Ancillary Services: Seller offers
[include all of the following that the seller is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
offering: Regulation Service, Energy
Imbalance Service, Spinning Reserves, and
Supplemental Reserves]. Sales will not
include the following: (1) Sales to an RTO or
an ISO, i.e., where that entity has no ability
to self-supply ancillary services but instead
depends on third parties; (2) sales to a
traditional, franchised public utility affiliated
with the third-party supplier, or sales where
the underlying transmission service is on the
system of the public utility affiliated with the
third-party supplier; and (3) sales to a public
utility that is purchasing ancillary services to
satisfy its own open access transmission tariff
requirements to offer ancillary services to its
own customers.
[FR Doc. E8–30757 Filed 12–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM08–1–001; Order No.
712–A]
Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity
Release Market
December 22, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
The Federal Regulatory
Commission (FERC) is correcting a final
rule that appeared in the Federal
Register of December 1, 2008 (73 FR
72692). The document revised
regulations governing interstate natural
gas pipelines to reflect changes in the
market for short-term transportation
services on pipelines and to improve the
efficiency of the Commission’s capacity
release program.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will
become effective December 31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Murrell, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
William.Murrell@ferc.gov, (202) 502–
8703.
Robert McLean, Office of General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,
Robert.McLean@ferc.gov, (202) 502–
8156.
David Maranville, Office of the
General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
David.Maranville@ferc.gov, (202) 502–
6351.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
In FR Doc.
E8–28217 appearing on page 72692 in
the Federal Register of Monday,
December 1, 2008, the following
corrections are made:
§ 284.8(h) [Corrected]
1. On page 72714, in the first column,
in § 284.8 Release of Capacity by
Interstate Pipelines, in paragraph
(h)(1)(i), ‘‘A release of capacity to an
asset manager as defined in paragraph
(h)(4) of this section’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘A release of capacity to an asset
manager as defined in paragraph (h)(3)
of this section;’’
§ 284.8(h) [Corrected]
2. On page 72714 in the first and
second columns, in § 284.8 Release of
Capacity by Interstate Pipelines, in
paragraph (h)(1)(ii), ‘‘A release of
capacity to a marketer participating in a
state-regulated retail access program as
defined in paragraph (h)(5) of this
section’’ is corrected to read ‘‘A release
of capacity to a marketer participating in
a state-regulated retail access program as
defined in paragraph (h)(4) of this
section’’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–30910 Filed 12–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
29 CFR Parts 4001, 4211, and 4219
RIN 1212–AB07
Methods for Computing Withdrawal
Liability; Reallocation Liability Upon
Mass Withdrawal; Pension Protection
Act of 2006
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends
PBGC’s regulation on Allocating
Unfunded Vested Benefits to
Withdrawing Employers (29 CFR part
4211) to implement provisions of the
Pension Protection Act of 2006 that
provide for changes in the allocation of
unfunded vested benefits to
withdrawing employers from a
multiemployer pension plan, and that
require adjustments in determining an
employer’s withdrawal liability when a
multiemployer plan is in critical status.
Pursuant to PBGC’s authority under
section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA to prescribe
standard approaches for alternative
withdrawal liability methods, the final
rule also amends this regulation to
provide additional modifications to the
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
statutory methods for determining an
employer’s allocable share of unfunded
vested benefits. In addition, pursuant to
PBGC’s authority under section
4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA, this final rule
amends PBGC’s regulation on Notice,
Collection, and Redetermination of
Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219)
to improve the process of fully
allocating a plan’s total unfunded vested
benefits among all liable employers in a
mass withdrawal. Finally, this final rule
amends PBGC’s regulation on
Terminology (29 CFR part 4001) to
reflect the definition of a
‘‘multiemployer plan’’ added by the
Pension Protection Act of 2006.
DATES: Effective January 29, 2009. See
Applicability in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
H. Hanley, Director; Catherine B. Klion,
Manager; or Constance Markakis,
Attorney; Legislative and Regulatory
Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005–4026; 202–326–
4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the
Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–
877–8339 and ask to be connected to
202–326–4024.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4201 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(‘‘ERISA’’), as amended by the
Multiemployer Pension Plan
Amendments Act of 1980, an employer
that withdraws from a multiemployer
pension plan may incur withdrawal
liability to the plan. Withdrawal
liability represents the employer’s
allocable share of the plan’s unfunded
vested benefits determined under
section 4211 of ERISA, and adjusted in
accordance with other provisions in
sections 4201 through 4225 of ERISA.
Section 4211 prescribes four methods
that a plan may use to allocate a share
of unfunded vested benefits to a
withdrawing employer, and also
provides for possible modifications of
those methods and for the use of
allocation methods other than those
prescribed. In general, changes to a
plan’s allocation methods are subject to
the approval of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’).
Under section 4211(b)(1) of ERISA
(which sets forth the ‘‘presumptive
method’’ for determining withdrawal
liability), the amount of unfunded
vested benefits allocable to a
withdrawing employer is the sum of the
employer’s proportional share of—
• The unamortized amount of the
change in the plan’s unfunded vested
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
benefits for each plan year ending after
September 25, 1980, for which the
employer has an obligation to contribute
under the plan (i.e., multiple-year
liability pools) ending with the plan
year preceding the plan year of the
employer’s withdrawal;
• The unamortized amount of the
unfunded vested benefits at the end of
the last plan year ending before
September 26, 1980, with respect to
employers who had an obligation to
contribute under the plan for the first
plan year ending after such date; and
• The unamortized amount of the
reallocated unfunded vested benefits
(amounts the plan sponsor determines
to be uncollectible or unassessible) for
each plan year ending before the
employer’s withdrawal.
Each amount described above is
reduced by 5 percent for each plan year
after the plan year for which it arose. An
employer’s proportional share is based
on a fraction equal to the sum of the
contributions required to be made under
the plan by the employer over total
contributions made by all employers
who had an obligation to contribute
under the plan, for the five plan years
ending with the plan year in which such
change arose, the five plan years
preceding September 26, 1980, and the
five plan years ending with the plan
year such reallocation liability arose,
respectively (the ‘‘allocation fraction’’).
Section 4211(c)(1) of ERISA generally
prohibits the adoption of any allocation
method other than the presumptive
method by a plan that primarily covers
employees in the building and
construction industry (‘‘construction
plan’’), subject to regulations that allow
certain adjustments in the denominator
of an allocation fraction.
Under section 4211(c)(2) of ERISA
(which sets forth the ‘‘modified
presumptive method’’), a withdrawing
employer is liable for a proportional
share of—
• The plan’s unfunded vested
benefits as of the end of the plan year
preceding the withdrawal (less
outstanding claims for withdrawal
liability that can reasonably be expected
to be collected and the amounts set forth
in the item below allocable to employers
obligated to contribute in the plan year
preceding the employer’s withdrawal
and who had an obligation to contribute
in the first plan year ending after
September 26, 1980); and
• The plan’s unfunded vested
benefits as of the end of the last plan
year ending before September 26, 1980
(amortized over 15 years), if the
employer had an obligation to
contribute under the plan for the first
plan year ending on or after such date.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79629
An employer’s proportional share is
based on the employer’s share of total
plan contributions over the five plan
years preceding the plan year of the
employer’s withdrawal and over the five
plan years preceding September 26,
1980, respectively. Plans that use this
method fully amortize their first pool as
of 1995. Then, employers that withdraw
after 1995 are subject to the allocation
of unfunded vested benefits as if the
plan used the ‘‘rolling-5 method’’
discussed below.
Under section 4211(c)(3) of ERISA
(which sets forth the ‘‘rolling-5
method’’), a withdrawing employer is
liable for a share of the plan’s unfunded
vested benefits as of the end of the plan
year preceding the employer’s
withdrawal (less outstanding claims for
withdrawal liability that can reasonably
be expected to be collected), allocated in
proportion to the employer’s share of
total plan contributions for the last five
plan years ending before the
withdrawal.
Under section 4211(c)(4) of ERISA
(which sets forth the ‘‘direct attribution
method’’), an employer’s withdrawal
liability is based generally on the
benefits and assets attributable to
participants’ service with the employer,
as of the end of the plan year preceding
the employer’s withdrawal; the
employer is also liable for a
proportional share of any unfunded
vested benefits that are not attributable
to service with employers who have an
obligation to contribute under the plan
in the plan year preceding the
withdrawal.
Section 4211(c)(5)(B) of ERISA
authorizes PBGC to prescribe by
regulation standard approaches for
alternative methods for determining an
employer’s allocable share of unfunded
vested benefits, and adjustments in any
denominator of an allocation fraction
under the withdrawal liability methods.
PBGC has prescribed, in § 4211.12 of its
regulation on Allocating Unfunded
Vested Benefits to Withdrawing
Employers, changes that a plan may
adopt, without PBGC approval, in the
denominator of the allocation fractions
used to determine a withdrawing
employer’s share of unfunded vested
benefits under the presumptive,
modified presumptive and rolling-5
methods.
Pension Protection Act of 2006 Changes
The Pension Protection Act of 2006,
Public Law 109–280 (‘‘PPA 2006’’),
which became law on August 17, 2006,
makes various changes to ERISA’s
withdrawal liability provisions. Section
204(c)(2) of PPA 2006 added section
4211(c)(5)(E) of ERISA, which permits a
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
79630
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
plan, including a construction plan, to
adopt an amendment that applies the
presumptive method by substituting a
different plan year for which the plan
has no unfunded vested benefits for the
plan year ending before September 26,
1980. Such an amendment would
enable a plan to erase a large part of the
plan’s unfunded vested benefits
attributable to plan years before the end
of the designated plan year, and to start
fresh with liabilities that arise in plan
years after the designated plan year.
Additionally, sections 202(a) and
212(a) of PPA 2006 create new funding
rules for multiemployer plans in
‘‘critical’’ status, allowing these plans to
reduce benefits and making the plans’
contributing employers subject to
surcharges. New section 305(e)(9) of
ERISA and section 432(e)(9) of the
Internal Revenue Code (‘‘Code’’) provide
that such benefit adjustments and
employer surcharges are disregarded in
determining a plan’s unfunded vested
benefits and allocation fraction for
purposes of determining an employer’s
withdrawal liability, and direct PBGC to
prescribe simplified methods for the
application of these provisions in
determining withdrawal liability.
PPA 2006 also makes other changes
affecting the withdrawal liability
provisions under ERISA that are not
addressed in this final rule.
Proposed Rule
On March 19, 2008 (at 73 FR 14735),
PBGC published a proposed rule to
amend parts 4001, 4211, and 4219 to
implement the PPA 2006 changes and
make other changes under its regulatory
authority. PBGC received two comments
on the proposed rule, one from a chain
of food stores, and the other from a
member organization representing food
retail and wholesale companies. One
commenter suggested that PBGC
eliminate or limit the ‘‘fresh start’’
options proposed under PBGC’s
regulatory authority. The other
commenter suggested that PBGC modify
the proposed rule regarding the
allocation fraction for reallocation
liability. These points are discussed
below with the topics to which they
relate.
The final regulation is the same as the
proposed regulation, with a few minor
exceptions, including a clarification to
the language describing the reallocation
liability formula for a plan terminated
by mass withdrawal. (See Discussion,
Reallocation Liability Upon Mass
Withdrawal.) In response to a comment,
the final rule eliminates an
inconsistency between the fraction for
reallocation liability under the proposed
regulation and the current regulation,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
and updates a citation to a Code
provision under PPA 2006.
Overview of Final Rule
This final rule amends PBGC’s
regulation on Allocating Unfunded
Vested Benefits to Withdrawing
Employers (29 CFR part 4211) to
implement the above-described changes
made by PPA 2006.
The final rule also makes changes
unrelated to PPA 2006. Under its
authority to prescribe alternatives to the
statutory methods for determining an
employer’s allocable share of unfunded
vested benefits, the final rule also
amends part 4211 to broaden the rules
and provide more flexibility in applying
the statutory methods. PBGC has
identified certain modifications that
may be advantageous to plans because
they reduce administrative burdens for
plans using the presumptive method
and may assist plans in attracting new
employers in the case of the modified
presumptive method.
In addition, in the case of a plan
termination by mass withdrawal,
section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA provides
that the total unfunded vested benefits
of the plan must be fully allocated
among all liable employers in a manner
not inconsistent with regulations
prescribed by PBGC. PBGC has
determined that the fraction for
allocating this ‘‘reallocation liability’’
under PBGC’s regulation on Notice,
Collection, and Redetermination of
Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219)
does not adequately capture the liability
of employers who had little or no initial
withdrawal liability. Accordingly, this
final rule amends part 4219 to revise the
allocation fraction for reallocation
liability.
A detailed discussion of the final rule
follows.
Discussion
Withdrawal Liability Methods—Fresh
Start Option
Under section 4211(c)(5)(E) of ERISA,
added by PPA 2006, a plan using the
presumptive withdrawal liability
method in section 4211(b) of ERISA,
including a construction plan, may be
amended to substitute a plan year that
is designated in a plan amendment and
for which the plan has no unfunded
vested benefits, for the plan year ending
before September 26, 1980. (This
provision is referred to as the statutory
‘‘fresh start’’ option.) For plan years
ending before the designated plan year
and for the designated plan year, the
plan will be relieved of the burden of
calculating changes in unfunded vested
benefits separately for each plan year
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and allocating those changes to the
employers that contributed to the plan
in the year of the change. As the plan
has no unfunded vested benefits for the
designated plan year, employers
withdrawing from the plan after the
modification is effective will have no
liability for unfunded vested benefits
arising in plan years ending before the
designated plan year. PBGC is amending
§ 4211.12 of its regulation on Allocating
Unfunded Vested Benefits to
Withdrawing Employers to reflect this
new statutory modification to the
presumptive method.
In addition, PBGC is expanding
§ 4211.12 to permit plans to substitute a
new plan year for the plan year ending
before September 26, 1980, without
regard to the amount of a plan’s
unfunded vested benefits at the end of
the newly designated plan year. (This
amendment is referred to as a regulatory
‘‘fresh start’’ option.) This change will
allow plans using the presumptive
method to aggregate the multiple
liability pools attributable to prior plan
years and the designated plan year. It
will thus allow such plans to allocate
the plan’s unfunded vested benefits as
of the end of the designated plan year
among the employers that have an
obligation to contribute under the plan
for the first plan year ending on or after
such date. The plan will allocate
unfunded vested benefits based on the
employer’s share of the plan’s
contributions for the five-year period
ending with the designated plan year.
Thereafter, such plans would apply the
regular rules under the presumptive
method to segregate changes in the
plan’s unfunded vested benefits by plan
year and to allocate individual plan year
liabilities among the employers
obligated to contribute under the plan in
that plan year.
PBGC believes this modification to
the presumptive method will ease the
administrative burdens of plans that
have difficulty obtaining the actuarial
and contributions data necessary to
compute each employer’s allocable
share of annual changes in unfunded
vested benefits occurring in plan years
as far back as 1980. However this
modification does not apply to a
construction plan, because PBGC’s
authority is limited to adjustments in
the denominators of the allocation
fractions for such plans.1
1 Under ERISA section 4211(c)(1), construction
plans are limited to the presumptive method,
except that PBGC may by regulation permit
adjustments in any denominator under section 4211
(including the denominator of a fraction used in the
presumptive method by construction industry
plans) where such adjustment would be appropriate
to ease the administrative burdens of plan sponsors.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
PBGC is also amending § 4211.12 to
permit plans using the modified
presumptive method to designate a plan
year that would substitute for the last
plan year ending before September 26,
1980, thus providing another regulatory
‘‘fresh start’’ option. This amendment
provides for the allocation of
substantially all of a plan’s unfunded
vested benefits among employers that
have an obligation to contribute under
the plan, while enabling plans to split
a single liability pool for plan years
ending after September 25, 1980, into
two liability pools. The first pool would
be based on the plan’s unfunded vested
benefits as of the end of the newly
designated plan year, allocated among
employers who have an obligation to
contribute under the plan for the plan
year immediately following the
designated plan year. The second pool
would be based on the unfunded vested
benefits as of the end of the plan year
prior to the withdrawal (offset in the
manner described above for the
modified presumptive method). For a
period of time, this modification would
reduce new employers’ liability for
unfunded vested benefits of the plan
before the employer’s participation,
which could assist plans in attracting
new employers and preserving the
plan’s contribution base. The
modification would not require PBGC
approval for adoption.
For each of these modifications, the
final rule clarifies that a plan’s
unfunded vested benefits, determined
with respect to plan years ending after
the plan year designated in the plan
amendment, are reduced by the value of
the outstanding claims for withdrawal
liability that can reasonably be expected
to be collected for employers who
withdrew from the plan in or before the
designated plan year.
One commenter suggested that the
final rule eliminate the regulatory ‘‘fresh
start’’ options due to the commenter’s
concern that plans may use these
options to maximize withdrawal
liability and to unfairly shift the
allocation of withdrawal liability among
employers. Alternatively, the
commenter suggested that the regulation
be clarified to restrict a plan’s ability to
change repeatedly the ‘‘fresh start’’ date.
The commenter also suggested limiting
the application of the ‘‘fresh start’’
options to employers that begin
contributing to a plan after the effective
date of the final regulation, or to
contributions made by employers after a
‘‘fresh start’’ date is determined.
See ERISA section 4211(c)(5)(D) and 29 CFR
4211.11(b) and 4211.12.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
Specifically, the commenter noted
that section 4211(c)(5)(E) of ERISA, as
added by PPA 2006, allows a plan to be
amended with a ‘‘fresh start’’ option if
the designated plan year in the
amendment has no unfunded vested
benefits. The commenter objected to the
regulatory ‘‘fresh start’’ options because
they permit a designated plan year to be
a plan year for which the plan has
unfunded vested benefits—resulting in
liability allocated in a pool at the end
of the designated plan year—unlike the
‘‘fresh start’’ permitted by section
4211(c)(5)(E).
As explained below, the ‘‘fresh start’’
provisions in the final regulation are
unchanged from those in the proposed
regulation.
First, contrary to the commenter’s
concern, the ‘‘fresh start’’ rule does not
alter the amount of withdrawal liability
assessed in the aggregate and, therefore,
does not work to maximize withdrawal
liability. Rather, the ‘‘fresh start’’ rule
allows a plan to amend the method for
allocating substantially all of a plan’s
unfunded vested benefits among
employers who have an obligation to
contribute under the plan and does not
increase the amount of the unfunded
vested benefits to be allocated.
Second, section 4211(c)(5)(E) is
intended to provide flexibility to
construction plans. Pursuant to section
4211(c)(1)(A) of ERISA, construction
plans must use the presumptive method
under section 4211(b) of ERISA, and
may not adopt any of the three
alternative allocation methods described
by the statute (the modified
presumptive, rolling-5, or direct
attribution methods under sections
4211(c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of ERISA), or
adopt any other alternative methods of
determining an employer’s allocable
share of unfunded vested benefits under
section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA.
In contrast, non-construction plans
have broad discretion to amend their
withdrawal liability methods. Such
plans may, for example, replace the
presumptive method with the rolling-5
method, without PBGC approval,2 or
adopt an alternative non-statutory
method designed by the plan to provide
2 PBGC has published a class approval of any
plan amendment that adopts one of the three
alternative allocation methods described in sections
4211(c)(2), (c)(3) or (c)(4) of ERISA, without the
need to obtain PBGC approval. PBGC determined
that such amendments would not have the effect of
creating an unreasonable risk of loss to plan
participants and beneficiaries or to the PBGC (49 FR
37686). It is not important which allocation method
is being used before the change, or whether the
method in use before the change is one of the
statutory methods or some other method. (See
PBGC Opinion Letter 86–22, available on PBGC’s
Web site https://www.pbgc.gov.)
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79631
for the allocation of the plan’s unfunded
vested benefits, subject to PBGC
approval.
Third, for non-construction plans,
section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA gives PBGC
authority to regulate the adoption of
modifications to the four statutory
methods and the adoption of other
allocation methods. In this regulation,
PBGC is simply exercising its authority
under section 4211(c)(5)(B) to prescribe
standard approaches for alternative
methods that may be adopted by plan
amendment, for which PBGC approval
requirements may be waived or
modified. In developing the ‘‘fresh
start’’ options, PBGC relied upon its
experience with alternative withdrawal
liability methods, as proposed by plans
or developed or approved by PBGC,
since the inception of the withdrawal
liability provisions in 1980 under Title
IV of ERISA.
The regulatory ‘‘fresh start’’ options
satisfy the requirement under section
4211(c)(5)(B) of ERISA. Specifically,
each ‘‘fresh start’’ option provides for
the allocation of substantially all of a
plan’s unfunded vested benefits among
employers who have an obligation to
contribute under the plan. Each ‘‘fresh
start’’ option is similar in effect to a
plan’s change from one statutory
method to another statutory method—
which plans are free to adopt without
PBGC approval.
For example, in the case of a plan
replacing the presumptive method with
the rolling-5 method or a plan adopting
the ‘‘fresh start’’ option under the
presumptive method, the plan may
erase all of the negative or positive
changes in unfunded vested benefits for
any plan year through the plan year of
the change or the designated plan year,
respectively. Although the two plans
may allocate different amounts to
individual employers, each method
apportions liability based on the
withdrawing employer’s participation in
the plan measured by that employer’s
contributions relative to the total
contributions to the plan. Thus, each
method results in the allocation of
substantially all of a plan’s unfunded
vested benefits among employers who
have an obligation to contribute under
the plan.
Similarly, there is no significant
difference in the degree of allocation of
a plan’s unfunded vested benefits
between a plan that changes from the
modified presumptive to the
presumptive method or a plan that
adopts a ‘‘fresh start’’ option under the
modified presumptive method and
determines liability based on the plan’s
unfunded vested benefits as of a
designated plan year or as of the plan
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
79632
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
year preceding the year of withdrawal.
In addition, while PBGC does not
contemplate that plans will repeatedly
change the ‘‘fresh start’’ date, a plan’s
decision to adopt a new ‘‘fresh start’’
date that might result in a greater
liability for a particular employer would
have a similar effect on the employer as
a decision by the plan to adopt instead
the rolling-5 method.
Finally, the regulatory ‘‘fresh start’’
options are designed to provide
additional flexibility in the methods
available to non-construction plans for
allocating a plan’s unfunded vested
benefits among withdrawing employers,
without PBGC approval. The decision,
however, to adopt a ‘‘fresh start’’ option
is discretionary and made by the plan
sponsor, which is generally a joint board
of trustees with an equal number of
employer and employee representatives.
Under section 4214 of ERISA, any plan
rule or amendment may not be applied
to any employer that withdrew before
the amendment was adopted without
that employer’s consent and any rule or
amendment must be uniformly applied
to each employer.
Withdrawal Liability Computations for
Plans in Critical Status—Adjustable
Benefits
PPA 2006 establishes additional
funding rules for multiemployer plans
in ‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘critical’’ status
under section 305 of ERISA and section
432 of the Code. The sponsor of a plan
in critical status (less than 65 percent
funded and/or meets any of the other
defined tests) is required to adopt a
rehabilitation plan that will enable the
plan to cease to be in critical status
within a specified period of time or to
forestall possible insolvency.
Notwithstanding section 204(g) of
ERISA or section 411(d)(6) of the Code,
as deemed appropriate by the plan
sponsor, based upon the outcome of
collective bargaining over benefit and
contribution schedules, the
rehabilitation plan may include
reductions to ‘‘adjustable benefits,’’
within the meaning of section 305(e)(8)
of ERISA and section 432(e)(8) of the
Code. New section 305(e)(9) of ERISA
and section 432(e)(9) of the Code
provide, however, that any benefit
reductions under subsection (e) must be
disregarded in determining a plan’s
unfunded vested benefits for purposes
of an employer’s withdrawal liability
under section 4201 of ERISA. (Also,
under ERISA sections 305(f)(2) and
(f)(3), and Code sections 432(f)(2) and
(f)(3), a plan is limited in its payment of
lump sums and similar benefits after a
notice of the plan’s critical status is
sent, but any such benefit limits must be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
disregarded in determining a plan’s
unfunded vested benefits for purposes
of determining an employer’s
withdrawal liability.)
Adjustable benefits under section
305(e)(8) of ERISA and section 432(e)(8)
of the Code include benefits, rights and
features under the plan, such as postretirement death benefits, 60-month
guarantees, disability benefits not yet in
pay status; certain early retirement
benefits, retirement-type subsidies and
benefit payment options; and benefit
increases that would not be eligible for
a guarantee under section 4022A of
ERISA on the first day of the initial
critical year because the increases were
adopted (or, if later, took effect) less
than 60 months before such date. An
amendment reducing adjustable benefits
may not affect the benefits of any
participant or beneficiary whose benefit
commencement date is before the date
on which the plan provides notice that
the plan is or will be in critical status
for a plan year; the level of a
participant’s accrued benefit at normal
retirement age also is protected.
Under section 4213 of ERISA, a plan
actuary must use actuarial assumptions
that, in the aggregate, are reasonable
and, in combination, offer the actuary’s
best estimate of anticipated experience
in determining the plan’s unfunded
vested benefits for purposes of
determining an employer’s withdrawal
liability (absent regulations setting forth
such methods and assumptions).
Section 4213(c) provides that, for
purposes of determining withdrawal
liability, the term ‘‘unfunded vested
benefits’’ means the amount by which
the value of nonforfeitable benefits
under the plan exceeds the value of plan
assets.
The final rule amends the definition
of ‘‘nonforfeitable benefits’’ in § 4211.2
of PBGC’s regulation on Allocating
Unfunded Vested Benefits to
Withdrawing Employers, and the
definition of ‘‘unfunded vested
benefits’’ in § 4219.2 of PBGC’s
regulation on Notice, Collection, and
Redetermination of Withdrawal
Liability, to include adjustable benefits
that have been reduced by a plan
sponsor pursuant to ERISA section
305(e)(8) or Code section 432(e)(8), to
the extent such benefits would
otherwise be nonforfeitable benefits.
Section 305(e)(9)(C) of ERISA and
section 432(e)(9)(C) of the Code direct
PBGC to prescribe simplified methods
for the application of this provision in
determining withdrawal liability. PBGC
intends to issue guidance on simplified
methods at a later date.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Withdrawal Liability Computations for
Plans in Critical Status—Employer
Surcharges
Under section 305(e)(7) of ERISA,
added by section 202(a) of PPA 2006,
and under section 432(e)(7) of the Code,
added by section 212(a) of PPA 2006,
each employer otherwise obligated to
make contributions for the initial plan
year and any subsequent plan year that
a plan is in critical status must pay a
surcharge to the plan for such plan year,
until the effective date of a collective
bargaining agreement (or other
agreement pursuant to which the
employer contributes) that includes
terms consistent with the rehabilitation
plan adopted by the plan sponsor.
Section 305(e)(9) of ERISA and section
432(e)(9) of the Code provide, however,
that any employer surcharges under
paragraph (7) must be disregarded in
determining an employer’s withdrawal
liability under section 4211 of ERISA,
except for purposes of determining the
unfunded vested benefits attributable to
an employer under section 4211(c)(4)
(the direct attribution method) or a
comparable method approved under
section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA.
The presumptive, modified
presumptive and rolling-5 methods of
allocating unfunded vested benefits
allocate the liability pools among
participating employers based on the
employers’ contribution obligations for
the five-year period ending with the
date the liability pool arose or the plan
year immediately preceding the plan
year of the employer’s withdrawal
(depending on the method or liability
pool). Under section 4211 of ERISA, the
numerator of the allocation fraction is
the total amount required to be
contributed by the withdrawing
employer for the five-year period, and
the denominator of the allocation
fraction is the total amount contributed
by all employers under the plan for the
five-year period.
The final rule amends PBGC’s
regulation on Allocating Unfunded
Vested Benefits to Withdrawing
Employers (part 4211) by adding a new
§ 4211.4 that excludes amounts
attributable to the employer surcharge
under section 305(e)(7) of ERISA and
section 432(e)(7) of the Code from the
contributions that are otherwise
includable in the numerator and the
denominator of the allocation fraction
under the presumptive, modified
presumptive and rolling-5 methods.
Pursuant to section 305(e)(9) of ERISA
and section 432(e)(9) of the Code, a
simplified method for the application of
this principle is provided below in the
form of an illustration of the exclusion
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
79633
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
of employer surcharge amounts from the
allocation fraction.
Example: Plan X is a multiemployer
plan that has vested benefit liabilities of
$200 million and assets of $130 million
as of the end of its 2015 plan year.
During the 2015 plan year, there were
three contributing employers. Two of
three employers were in the plan for the
entire five-year period ending with the
2015 plan year. One employer was in
the plan during the 2014 and 2015 plan
years only. Each employer had a $4
million contribution obligation each
year under a collective bargaining
agreement. In addition, for the 2011,
2012, and 2013 plan years, employers
were liable for the automatic employer
surcharge under section 305(e)(7) of
ERISA and section 432(e)(7) of the Code,
at a rate of 5% of required contributions
in 2011 and 10% of required
contributions in 2012 and 2013. The
following table shows the contributions
and surcharges owed for the five-year
period.
[In millions]
Employer A
Employer B
Employer C
Year
Contribution
2011 .....................................................
2012 .....................................................
2013 .....................................................
2014 .....................................................
2015 .....................................................
5-year total ....................................
$4
4
4
4
4
20
Employers A, B and C contributed $48
million during the five-year period,
excluding surcharges, and $50 million
including surcharges. Under the rolling5 method, the unfunded vested benefits
allocable to an employer are equal to the
plan’s unfunded vested benefits as of
the end of the last plan year preceding
the withdrawal, multiplied by a fraction
equal to the amount the employer was
required to contribute to the plan for the
last five plan years preceding the
withdrawal over the total amount
contributed by all employers for those
five plan years (other adjustments are
also required).
Employer A’s share of the plan’s
unfunded vested benefits in the event it
withdraws in 2016 is $29.17 million,
determined by multiplying $70 million
(the plan’s unfunded vested benefits at
the end of 2015) by the ratio of $20
million to $48 million. Employer B’s
allocable unfunded vested benefits are
identical to Employer A’s, and the
amount allocable to Employer C is
$11.66 million ($70 million multiplied
by the ratio of $8 million over $48
million). The $2.0 million attributable to
the automatic employer surcharge is
excluded from contributions in the
allocation fraction.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Reallocation Liability Upon Mass
Withdrawal
Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA
applies special withdrawal liability
rules when a multiemployer plan
terminates because of mass withdrawal
(i.e., the withdrawal of every employer
under the plan) or when substantially
all employers withdraw pursuant to an
agreement or arrangement to withdraw,
including a requirement that the total
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
Surcharge
Contribution
$0.2
0.4
0.4
0
0
1.0
$4
4
4
4
4
20
unfunded vested benefits of the plan be
fully allocated among all employers in
a manner not inconsistent with PBGC
regulations. To ensure that all unfunded
vested benefits are fully allocated
among all liable employers, § 4219.15(b)
of PBGC’s regulation on Notice,
Collection, and Redetermination of
Withdrawal Liability requires a
determination of the plan’s unfunded
vested benefits as of the end of the plan
year in which the plan terminates, based
on the value of the plan’s nonforfeitable
benefits as of that date less the value of
plan assets (benefits and assets valued
in accordance with assumptions
specified by PBGC), less the outstanding
balance of any initial withdrawal
liability (assessments without regard to
the occurrence of a mass withdrawal)
and redetermination liability
(assessments for de minimis and 20-year
cap reduction amounts) that can
reasonably be expected to be collected.
Pursuant to § 4219.15(c)(1), each
liable employer’s share of this
‘‘reallocation liability’’ is equal to the
amount of the reallocation liability
multiplied by a fraction—
(i) The numerator of which is the sum
of the employer’s initial withdrawal
liability and any redetermination
liability, and
(ii) The denominator of which is the
sum of all initial withdrawal liabilities
and all the redetermination liabilities of
all liable employers.
PBGC believes the current allocation
fraction for reallocation liability must be
modified to address those situations in
which employers—who would
otherwise be liable for reallocation
liability—have little or no initial
withdrawal liability or redetermination
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Surcharge
$0.2
0.4
0.4
0
0
1.0
Contribution
$4
4
8
Surcharge
$0
0
0
liability and, therefore, have a zero (or
understated) reallocation liability. Such
situations may arise, for example, where
an employer withdraws from the plan
before the mass withdrawal valuation
date, but has no withdrawal liability
under the modified presumptive and
rolling-5 methods because either (i) the
plan has no unfunded vested benefits as
of the end of the plan year preceding the
plan year in which the employer
withdrew, or (ii) the plan did not
require the employer to make
contributions for the five-year period
preceding the plan year of withdrawal.
In these cases, if the employer’s
withdrawal is later determined to be
part of a mass withdrawal for which
reallocation liability applies under
section 4219 of ERISA, the employer
would not be liable for any portion of
the reallocation liability.
A plan’s status may change from
funded to underfunded between the end
of the plan year before the employer
withdraws and the mass withdrawal
valuation date as a result of differences
in the actuarial assumptions used by the
plan’s actuary in determining unfunded
vested benefits under sections 4211 and
4219 of ERISA, or due to investment
losses that reduce the value of the plan’s
assets, among other reasons. Likewise,
an employer may not have paid
contributions for purposes of the
allocation fraction used to determine the
employer’s initial withdrawal liability if
the plan provided for a ‘‘contribution
holiday’’ under which employers were
not required to make contributions.
PBGC believes the absence of initial
withdrawal liability should not
generally exempt an otherwise liable
employer from reallocation liability. By
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
79634
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
shifting reallocation liability away from
some employers, the current regulation
increases the allocable share of other
employers in a mass withdrawal,
increases the risk of loss of benefits to
participants, and increases the financial
risk to PBGC. To ensure that
reallocation liability is allocated broadly
among all liable employers, PBGC is
amending § 4219.15(c) of the Notice,
Collection, and Redetermination of
Withdrawal Liability regulation to
replace the current allocation fraction
based on initial withdrawal liability
with a new allocation fraction for
determining an employer’s allocable
share of reallocation liability.
The new fraction allocates the plan’s
unfunded vested benefits based on the
average of the employer’s contribution
base units relative to the combined
averages of the plan’s total contribution
base units for the three plan years
preceding each employer’s withdrawal
from the plan. The numerator consists
of the withdrawing employer’s average
contribution base units during the three
plan years preceding the employer’s
withdrawal (i.e., the employer’s total
contribution base units over the three
plan years divided by three). The final
rule clarifies that the denominator is the
sum of the averages of all withdrawing
employers’ contribution base units for
the three plan years preceding each
employer’s withdrawal. This is not a
substantive change from the proposed
regulation.
Section 4001(a)(11) of ERISA defines
a ‘‘contribution base unit’’ as a unit with
respect to which an employer has an
obligation to contribute under a
multiemployer plan, e.g., an hour
worked. PBGC is adding a similar
definition for purposes of § 4219.15 of
the Notice, Collection, and
Redetermination of Withdrawal
Liability regulation.
One commenter suggested that the
final rule modify the allocation fraction
for reallocation liability under the
proposed rule to reflect variations in
contribution rates among employers.
The commenter proposed that a fraction
be based on the product of the
employer’s contribution base units and
contribution rates (e.g, the highest rate
in effect under the collective bargaining
agreement) for the three plan years
preceding the employer’s withdrawal. In
the case of an employer that contributes
at different contribution rates under
different collective bargaining
agreements or for different groups of
employees, the numerator of the fraction
would be the sum of the separate
products for each agreement or group.
The commenter suggested that the
purpose of this change would be to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
allocate reallocation liability in a
manner that takes into account
employers’ relative contribution rates;
for example, in a plan with two
employers that each have average
contribution base units of 1000, and
contribution rates of $1.50 and $2.00,
respectively, the employers would have
different allocation fractions.
PBGC did not adopt the commenter’s
suggestion. A plan may adopt the
variation proposed by the commenter,
or another variation needed by the plan,
pursuant to § 4219.15(d) of the current
regulation. This provision under the
current regulation allows plans to adopt
rules for calculating an employer’s
initial allocable share of the plan’s
unfunded vested benefits in a manner
other than that prescribed by the
regulation.
The commenter also noted an
inconsistency between the allocation
fraction under the proposed regulation
and § 4219.15(c)(3) of the current
regulation, which creates a special rule
for certain employers with no or
reduced initial withdrawal liability.
Because the allocation fraction under
§ 4219.15(c)(1) will no longer be based
on initial withdrawal liability, the final
rule eliminates current § 4219.15(c)(3).
The commenter identified a reference
in the regulation to section 412(b)(3)(A)
of the Code that should be updated to
reflect PPA 2006 section 431(b)(3)(A).
The final regulation reflects this change
and makes conforming changes in the
regulation.
PBGC is also amending § 4219.1 of the
regulation on Notice, Collection and
Redetermination of Withdrawal
Liability to implement a provision
under new section 4221(g) of ERISA,
added by section 204(d)(1) of PPA 2006,
which relieves an employer in certain
narrowly defined circumstances of the
obligation to make withdrawal liability
payments until a final decision in the
arbitration proceeding, or in court,
upholds the plan sponsor’s
determination that the employer is
liable for withdrawal liability based in
part or in whole on section 4212(c) of
ERISA. The regulation states that an
employer that complies with the
specific procedures of section 4221(g)
(or a similar provision in section 4221(f)
of ERISA, added by Pub. L. 108–218) is
not in default under section
4219(c)(5)(A).
Definition of Multiemployer Plan
Section 1106 of PPA 2006 amended
the definition of a ‘‘multiemployer’’
plan in section 3(37)(G) of ERISA and
section 414(f)(6) of the Code to allow
certain plans to elect to be
multiemployer plans for all purposes
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under ERISA and the Code, pursuant to
procedures prescribed by PBGC. PBGC
is amending the definition of a
‘‘multiemployer plan’’ under § 4001.2 of
its regulation on Terminology (29 CFR
part 4001) to add a definition that is
parallel to the definition in section
3(37)(G) of ERISA and section 414(f)(6)
of the Code.
Applicability
The changes relating to modifications
to the statutory methods prescribed by
PBGC for determining an employer’s
share of unfunded vested benefits are
applicable to employer withdrawals
from a plan that occur on or after
January 29, 2009, subject to section 4214
of ERISA (relating to plan amendments).
Changes in the fraction for allocating
reallocation liability are applicable to
plan terminations by mass withdrawals
(or by withdrawals of substantially all
employers pursuant to an agreement or
arrangement to withdraw) that occur on
or after January 29, 2009.
The change relating to the
presumptive method made by PPA 2006
is applicable to employer withdrawals
occurring on or after January 1, 2007,
subject to section 4214 of ERISA.
The changes relating to the effect of
PPA 2006 benefit adjustments and
employer surcharges for purposes of
determining an employer’s withdrawal
liability are applicable to employer
withdrawals from a plan and plan
terminations by mass withdrawals (or
withdrawals of substantially all
employers pursuant to an agreement or
arrangement to withdraw) occurring in
plan years beginning on or after January
1, 2008.
The change in the definition of a
multiemployer plan is effective August
17, 2006. The change in section 4221(g)
of ERISA made by PPA 2006 is effective
for any person that receives a
notification under ERISA section
4219(b)(1) on or after August 17, 2006,
with respect to a transaction that
occurred after December 31, 1998.
Compliance With Rulemaking
Requirements
E.O. 12866
The PBGC has determined, in
consultation with the Office of
Management and Budget, that this final
rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866.
PBGC identifies the following specific
problems that warrant this agency
action:
• This regulatory action implements
the PPA 2006 amendment to section
4211(c)(5) of ERISA that permits a plan
using the presumptive method to
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
substitute a specified plan year for
which the plan has no unfunded vested
benefits for the plan year ending before
September 26, 1980. The final rule
provides necessary guidance on the
application of this modification to the
specific provisions of the presumptive
method under section 4211(b) of ERISA.
Also, because the statutory amendment
lacks specificity in describing how to
compute unfunded vested benefits, the
rule clarifies the need to reduce the
plan’s unfunded vested benefits for plan
years ending on or after the last day of
the designated plan year by the value of
all outstanding claims for withdrawal
liability reasonably expected to be
collected from withdrawn employers as
of the end of the designated plan year.
• Existing modifications to the
statutory withdrawal liability methods
not subject to PBGC approval are
outmoded and restrictive and an
expansion of the modifications is
consistent with statutory changes under
PPA 2006. This problem is significant
because the current rules impose
significant administrative burdens on
plans and impede flexibility needed by
multiemployer plans to attract new
employers.
• This regulatory action implements
the PPA 2006 amendment to section
305(e)(9) of ERISA and section 432(e)(9)
of the Code requiring plans in critical
status to disregard reductions in
adjustable benefits and employer
surcharges in determining a plan’s
unfunded vested benefits for purposes
of an employer’s withdrawal liability.
The rule is necessary to conform the
definition of nonforfeitable benefits and
the allocation fraction based on
employer contributions under PBGC’s
regulations to the statutory changes.
• The rule revises the allocation
fraction for reallocation liability, which
applies when a multiemployer plan
terminates by mass withdrawal, to
ensure that reallocation liability is
allocated broadly among all liable
employers.
other withdrawal liability calculations.
Under these amendments, plans may
avoid costly and burdensome year-byyear calculations of unfunded vested
benefits and employers’ allocable shares
of such benefits for years as far back as
1980; alternatively, these amendments
may help plans attract new employers
by shielding them from unfunded
liabilities that arose in the past. Any
changes to a plan’s withdrawal liability
method are adopted at the discretion of
each plan’s governing board of trustees.
Accordingly, there is no cost to
compliance.
• A statutory change under PPA
requires plans in ‘‘critical’’ status to
disregard reductions in adjustable
benefits and employer surcharges in
determining an employer’s withdrawal
liability. This rule clarifies the
exclusion of any surcharges from the
allocation fraction consisting of
employer contributions, and the
exclusion of the cost of any reduced
benefits from the plan’s unfunded
vested benefits. The rule simply applies
the statutory provisions and imposes no
significant burden beyond the burden
imposed by statute. Furthermore, more
than 88 percent of all multiemployer
pension plans have 250 or more
participants.
• Another amendment in the rule
revises the fraction for allocating
reallocation liability (unfunded vested
benefits as of the end of the plan year
of a plan’s termination) among
employers when a plan terminates in a
mass withdrawal. Plans routinely
maintain the contribution records
necessary to apply the new fraction in
place of the old fraction for this
purpose. Moreover, a majority of all
plans that terminate in a mass
withdrawal have more than 250
participants at the time of termination.
Accordingly, as provided in section
605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), sections 603 and 604
do not apply.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) that the amendments in this
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Specifically,
the amendments will have the following
effect:
• A statutory change under PPA 2006
provides plans with a ‘‘fresh start’’
option in determining withdrawal
liability when an employer withdraws
from a multiemployer plan. This rule
clarifies the application of this fresh
start option and extends the option to
List of Subjects
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
29 CFR Part 4001
Business and industry, Organization
and functions (Government agencies),
Pension insurance, Pensions, Small
businesses.
29 CFR Part 4211
Pension insurance, Pensions,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
29 CFR Part 4219
Pensions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79635
For the reasons above, PBGC is
amending 29 CFR parts 4001, 4211 and
4219 as follows.
■
PART 4001—TERMINOLOGY
1. The authority citation for part 4001
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301, 1302(b)(3).
2. In § 4001.2, the definition of
Multiemployer plan is amended by
adding at the end the sentence
‘‘Multiemployer plan also means a plan
that elects to be a multiemployer plan
under ERISA section 3(37)(G) and Code
section 414(f)(6), pursuant to procedures
prescribed by PBGC.’’
■
PART 4211—ALLOCATING UNFUNDED
VESTED BENEFITS TO WITHDRAWING
EMPLOYERS
3. The authority citation for part 4211
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3); 1391(c)(1),
(c)(2)(D), (c)(5)(A), (c)(5)(B), (c)(5)(D), and (f).
4. In § 4211.2—
a. The first sentence is amended by
removing the words ‘‘nonforfeitable
benefit,’’.
■ b. The definition of Unfunded vested
benefits is amended to add the words
‘‘, as defined for purposes of this
section,’’ between the words ‘‘plan’’ and
‘‘exceeds’’.
■ c. A new definition is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
■
§ 4211.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Nonforfeitable benefit means a benefit
described in § 4001.2 of this chapter
plus, for purposes of this part, any
adjustable benefit that has been reduced
by the plan sponsor pursuant to section
305(e)(8) of ERISA or section 432(e)(8)
of the Code that would otherwise have
been includable as a nonforfeitable
benefit for purposes of determining an
employer’s allocable share of unfunded
vested benefits.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. A new § 4211.4 is added to read as
follows:
§ 4211.4 Contributions for purposes of the
numerator and denominator of the
allocation fractions.
Each of the allocation fractions used
in the presumptive, modified
presumptive and rolling-5 methods is
based on contributions that certain
employers have made to the plan for a
five-year period.
(a) The numerator of the allocation
fraction, with respect to a withdrawing
employer, is based on the ‘‘sum of the
contributions required to be made’’ or
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
79636
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the ‘‘total amount required to be
contributed’’ by the employer for the
specified period. For purposes of these
methods, this means the amount that is
required to be contributed under one or
more collective bargaining agreements
or other agreements pursuant to which
the employer contributes under the
plan, other than withdrawal liability
payments or amounts that an employer
is obligated to pay to the plan pursuant
to section 305(e)(7) of ERISA or section
432(e)(7) of the Code (automatic
employer surcharge). Employee
contributions, if any, shall be excluded
from the totals.
(b) The denominator of the allocation
fraction is based on contributions that
certain employers have made to the plan
for a specified period. For purposes of
these methods, and except as provided
in § 4211.12, ‘‘the sum of all
contributions made’’ or ‘‘total amount
contributed’’ by employers for a plan
year means the amounts considered
contributed to the plan for purposes of
section 412(b)(3)(A) or section
431(b)(3)(A) of the Code, other than
withdrawal liability payments or
amounts that an employer is obligated
to pay to the plan pursuant to section
305(e)(7) of ERISA or section 432(e)(7)
of the Code (automatic employer
surcharge). For plan years before section
412 applies to the plan, ‘‘the sum of all
contributions made’’ or ‘‘total amount
contributed’’ means the amount
reported to the IRS or the Department of
Labor as total contributions for the plan
year; for example, for the plan years in
which the plan filed the Form 5500, the
amount reported as total contributions
on that form. Employee contributions, if
any, shall be excluded from the totals.
■ 6. In § 4211.12—
■ a. Paragraph (a) is removed;
■ b. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are
redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b);
■ c. Newly designated paragraph (a)
introductory text is amended by
removing the words ‘‘(b)(4)’’ and adding
in their place the words ‘‘(a)(4)’’;
■ d. Newly designated paragraph (a)(1)
is amended by adding the words ‘‘or
section 431(b)(3)(A)’’ after the words
‘‘section 412(b)(3)(A)’’;
■ e. Newly designated paragraphs (a)(2)
and (a)(3) are amended by adding the
words ‘‘or section 431(c)(8)’’ after the
words ‘‘section 412(c)(10)’’;
■ f. Newly designated paragraph
(a)(4)(ii) is amended by removing the
words ‘‘paragraph (a) of this section, or
the amount described in paragraph
(b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section’’ and
adding in their place the words
‘‘§ 4211.4(b), or the amount described in
paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
section’’;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
g. Newly designated paragraph (b)
introductory text is amended by
removing the words ‘‘(c)(1)’’ and adding
in their place the words ‘‘(b)(1)’’;
■ h. Newly designated paragraph (b)(2)
introductory text is amended by
removing the words ‘‘(c)’’ and adding in
their place the words ‘‘(b)’’;
■ i. Newly designated paragraph (b)(3)
introductory text is amended by
removing the words ‘‘(c)(2)’’ and adding
in their place the words ‘‘(b)(2)’’; and
■ j. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are added to
read as follows:
■
§ 4211.12 Modifications to the
presumptive, modified presumptive and
rolling-5 methods.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) ‘‘Fresh start’’ rules under
presumptive method.
(1) The plan sponsor of a plan using
the presumptive method (including a
plan that primarily covers employees in
the building and construction industry)
may amend the plan to provide—
(i) A designated plan year ending after
September 26, 1980, will substitute for
the plan year ending before September
26, 1980, in applying section
4211(b)(1)(B), section
4211(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I), section
4211(b)(2)(D), section 4211(b)(3), and
section 4211(b)(3)(B) of ERISA, and
(ii) Plan years ending after the end of
the designated plan year in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) will substitute for plan years
ending after September 25, 1980, in
applying section 4211(b)(1)(A), section
4211(b)(2)(A), and section
4211(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of ERISA.
(2) A plan amendment made pursuant
to paragraph (c)(1) of this section must
provide that the plan’s unfunded vested
benefits for plan years ending after the
designated plan year are reduced by the
value of all outstanding claims for
withdrawal liability that can reasonably
be expected to be collected from
employers that had withdrawn from the
plan as of the end of the designated plan
year.
(3) In the case of a plan that primarily
covers employees in the building and
construction industry, the plan year
designated by a plan amendment
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section must be a plan year for which
the plan has no unfunded vested
benefits.
(d) ‘‘Fresh start’’ rules under modified
presumptive method.
(1) The plan sponsor of a plan using
the modified presumptive method may
amend the plan to provide—
(i) A designated plan year ending after
September 26, 1980, will substitute for
the plan year ending before September
26, 1980, in applying section
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4211(c)(2)(B)(i) and section
4211(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I) and (II) of ERISA, and
(ii) Plan years ending after the end of
the designated plan year will substitute
for plan years ending after September
25, 1980, in applying section
4211(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) and section
4211(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) of ERISA.
(2) A plan amendment made pursuant
to paragraph (d)(1) of this section must
provide that the plan’s unfunded vested
benefits for plan years ending after the
designated plan year are reduced by the
value of all outstanding claims for
withdrawal liability that can reasonably
be expected to be collected from
employers that had withdrawn from the
plan as of the end of the designated plan
year.
PART 4219—NOTICE, COLLECTION,
AND REDETERMINATION OF
WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY
7. The authority citation for part 4219
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3) and
1399(c)(6).
8. In § 4219.1, paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the words ‘‘after
April 28, 1980 (May 2, 1979, for certain
employees in the seagoing industry)’’
and adding in their place the words ‘‘on
or after September 26, 1980, except
employers with respect to whom section
4221(f) or section 4221(g) of ERISA
applies (provided that such employers
are in compliance with the provisions of
those sections, as applicable)’’.
■ 9. In § 4219.2—
■ a. Paragraph (a) is amended by
removing the words ‘‘nonforfeitable
benefit,’’.
■ b. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding
the word ‘‘nonforfeitable’’ between the
words ‘‘vested’’ and ‘‘benefits’’ and the
words ‘‘(as defined for purposes of this
section)’’ between the words ‘‘benefits’’
and ‘‘exceeds’’ in the definition of
Unfunded vested benefits.
■ c. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding
a new definition in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
■
§ 4219.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
‘‘Nonforfeitable benefit means a
benefit described in § 4001.2 of this
chapter plus, for purposes of this part,
any adjustable benefit that has been
reduced by the plan sponsor pursuant to
section 305(e)(8) of ERISA and section
432(e)(8) of the Code that would
otherwise have been includable as a
nonforfeitable benefit.’’
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. In § 4219.15, revise paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
§ 4219.15
liability.
Determination of reallocation
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Initial allocable share. Except as
otherwise provided in rules adopted by
the plan pursuant to paragraph (d) of
this section, and in accordance with
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, an
employer’s initial allocable share shall
be equal to the product of the plan’s
unfunded vested benefits to be
reallocated, multiplied by a fraction—
(i) The numerator of which is the
yearly average of the employer’s
contribution base units during the three
plan years preceding the employer’s
withdrawal; and
(ii) The denominator of which is the
sum of the yearly averages calculated
under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section
for each employer liable for reallocation
liability.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Contribution base unit. For
purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, a contribution base unit means
a unit with respect to which an
employer has an obligation to
contribute, such as an hour worked or
shift worked or a unit of production,
under the applicable collective
bargaining agreement (or other
agreement pursuant to which the
employer contributes) or with respect to
which the employer would have an
obligation to contribute if the
contribution requirement with respect
to the plan were greater than zero.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, this 23 day of
December 2008.
Charles E.F. Millard,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
Issued on the date set forth above pursuant
to a resolution of the Board of Directors
authorizing publication of this final rule.
Judith R. Starr,
Secretary, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. E8–31015 Filed 12–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–01–P
Coast Guard
NJ’’ in the Federal Register (73 FR
49622). We received no comments on
the published NPRM. No public meeting
was requested, and none was held.
33 CFR Part 117
Background and Purpose
[USCG–2008–0697]
The New Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) is responsible
for the operation of the S37 Bridge, at
ICW mile 14.1, across Barnegat Bay at
Seaside Heights, NJ. NJDOT requested
advance notification for vessel openings
from December 1 to March 31 from 8
a.m. to 11 p.m. for the drawbridge due
to the infrequency of requests.
In the closed-to-navigation position,
the S37 Bridge, at ICW mile 14.1, across
Barnegat Bay at Seaside Heights, NJ, has
a vertical clearance of 30 feet, above
mean high water. The existing operating
regulations for the drawbridge is set out
in 33 CFR § 117.733(c), which require
the bridge to open on signal except from
December 1 through March 31 from 11
p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw need not be
opened; from April 1 through November
30, from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. the draw shall
open if at least four hours notice is
given; and from Memorial Day through
Labor Day from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., the
draw need only open on the hour and
half hour.
A review of the bridge logs for 2005
to 2007 supplied by NJDOT revealed
from December 1 through March 31
between 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., the
drawbridge opened for vessels a total of
5, 9, and 35 times per year, respectively.
The year 2007 was an anomaly, based
on unseasonably warm weather for the
winter months.
Due to the infrequency of requests for
vessel openings during the winter
months, NJDOT requested to change the
current operating regulations from
December 1 through March 31 from 8
a.m. to 11 p.m. of every year by
requiring the draw span to open on
signal if at least four hours notice is
given at all times from December 1
through March 31.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
*
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), Barnegat
Bay, Seaside Heights, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing
the drawbridge operation regulations of
the S37 Bridge, at ICW mile 14.1, across
Barnegat Bay at Seaside Heights, NJ. The
final rule will allow the drawbridge to
operate on an advance notice basis
during specific times of the year. This
change will result in more efficient use
of the bridge during months of
infrequent transit.
DATES: This rule is effective January 29,
2009.
ADDRESSES: Comments and related
materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG–2008–
0697 and are available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. This
material is also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket
Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays and the
Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard
District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA
23704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call
Terrance Knowles, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard
District, at (757) 398–6587. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Regulatory Information
On August 22, 2008, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation
Regulations; Intracoastal Waterway
(ICW), Barnegat Bay, Seaside Heights,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:13 Dec 29, 2008
Jkt 217001
79637
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received no
comments to the NPRM. Based on the
information provided, we will
implement a final rule with no changes
to the NPRM.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below, we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79628-79637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31015]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Parts 4001, 4211, and 4219
RIN 1212-AB07
Methods for Computing Withdrawal Liability; Reallocation
Liability Upon Mass Withdrawal; Pension Protection Act of 2006
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends PBGC's regulation on Allocating
Unfunded Vested Benefits to Withdrawing Employers (29 CFR part 4211) to
implement provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 that provide
for changes in the allocation of unfunded vested benefits to
withdrawing employers from a multiemployer pension plan, and that
require adjustments in determining an employer's withdrawal liability
when a multiemployer plan is in critical status. Pursuant to PBGC's
authority under section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA to prescribe standard
approaches for alternative withdrawal liability methods, the final rule
also amends this regulation to provide additional modifications to the
[[Page 79629]]
statutory methods for determining an employer's allocable share of
unfunded vested benefits. In addition, pursuant to PBGC's authority
under section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA, this final rule amends PBGC's
regulation on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal
Liability (29 CFR part 4219) to improve the process of fully allocating
a plan's total unfunded vested benefits among all liable employers in a
mass withdrawal. Finally, this final rule amends PBGC's regulation on
Terminology (29 CFR part 4001) to reflect the definition of a
``multiemployer plan'' added by the Pension Protection Act of 2006.
DATES: Effective January 29, 2009. See Applicability in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John H. Hanley, Director; Catherine B.
Klion, Manager; or Constance Markakis, Attorney; Legislative and
Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY and TDD users
may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask
to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (``ERISA''), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan
Amendments Act of 1980, an employer that withdraws from a multiemployer
pension plan may incur withdrawal liability to the plan. Withdrawal
liability represents the employer's allocable share of the plan's
unfunded vested benefits determined under section 4211 of ERISA, and
adjusted in accordance with other provisions in sections 4201 through
4225 of ERISA. Section 4211 prescribes four methods that a plan may use
to allocate a share of unfunded vested benefits to a withdrawing
employer, and also provides for possible modifications of those methods
and for the use of allocation methods other than those prescribed. In
general, changes to a plan's allocation methods are subject to the
approval of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (``PBGC'').
Under section 4211(b)(1) of ERISA (which sets forth the
``presumptive method'' for determining withdrawal liability), the
amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to a withdrawing employer
is the sum of the employer's proportional share of--
The unamortized amount of the change in the plan's
unfunded vested benefits for each plan year ending after September 25,
1980, for which the employer has an obligation to contribute under the
plan (i.e., multiple-year liability pools) ending with the plan year
preceding the plan year of the employer's withdrawal;
The unamortized amount of the unfunded vested benefits at
the end of the last plan year ending before September 26, 1980, with
respect to employers who had an obligation to contribute under the plan
for the first plan year ending after such date; and
The unamortized amount of the reallocated unfunded vested
benefits (amounts the plan sponsor determines to be uncollectible or
unassessible) for each plan year ending before the employer's
withdrawal.
Each amount described above is reduced by 5 percent for each plan
year after the plan year for which it arose. An employer's proportional
share is based on a fraction equal to the sum of the contributions
required to be made under the plan by the employer over total
contributions made by all employers who had an obligation to contribute
under the plan, for the five plan years ending with the plan year in
which such change arose, the five plan years preceding September 26,
1980, and the five plan years ending with the plan year such
reallocation liability arose, respectively (the ``allocation
fraction'').
Section 4211(c)(1) of ERISA generally prohibits the adoption of any
allocation method other than the presumptive method by a plan that
primarily covers employees in the building and construction industry
(``construction plan''), subject to regulations that allow certain
adjustments in the denominator of an allocation fraction.
Under section 4211(c)(2) of ERISA (which sets forth the ``modified
presumptive method''), a withdrawing employer is liable for a
proportional share of--
The plan's unfunded vested benefits as of the end of the
plan year preceding the withdrawal (less outstanding claims for
withdrawal liability that can reasonably be expected to be collected
and the amounts set forth in the item below allocable to employers
obligated to contribute in the plan year preceding the employer's
withdrawal and who had an obligation to contribute in the first plan
year ending after September 26, 1980); and
The plan's unfunded vested benefits as of the end of the
last plan year ending before September 26, 1980 (amortized over 15
years), if the employer had an obligation to contribute under the plan
for the first plan year ending on or after such date.
An employer's proportional share is based on the employer's share
of total plan contributions over the five plan years preceding the plan
year of the employer's withdrawal and over the five plan years
preceding September 26, 1980, respectively. Plans that use this method
fully amortize their first pool as of 1995. Then, employers that
withdraw after 1995 are subject to the allocation of unfunded vested
benefits as if the plan used the ``rolling-5 method'' discussed below.
Under section 4211(c)(3) of ERISA (which sets forth the ``rolling-5
method''), a withdrawing employer is liable for a share of the plan's
unfunded vested benefits as of the end of the plan year preceding the
employer's withdrawal (less outstanding claims for withdrawal liability
that can reasonably be expected to be collected), allocated in
proportion to the employer's share of total plan contributions for the
last five plan years ending before the withdrawal.
Under section 4211(c)(4) of ERISA (which sets forth the ``direct
attribution method''), an employer's withdrawal liability is based
generally on the benefits and assets attributable to participants'
service with the employer, as of the end of the plan year preceding the
employer's withdrawal; the employer is also liable for a proportional
share of any unfunded vested benefits that are not attributable to
service with employers who have an obligation to contribute under the
plan in the plan year preceding the withdrawal.
Section 4211(c)(5)(B) of ERISA authorizes PBGC to prescribe by
regulation standard approaches for alternative methods for determining
an employer's allocable share of unfunded vested benefits, and
adjustments in any denominator of an allocation fraction under the
withdrawal liability methods. PBGC has prescribed, in Sec. 4211.12 of
its regulation on Allocating Unfunded Vested Benefits to Withdrawing
Employers, changes that a plan may adopt, without PBGC approval, in the
denominator of the allocation fractions used to determine a withdrawing
employer's share of unfunded vested benefits under the presumptive,
modified presumptive and rolling-5 methods.
Pension Protection Act of 2006 Changes
The Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280 (``PPA
2006''), which became law on August 17, 2006, makes various changes to
ERISA's withdrawal liability provisions. Section 204(c)(2) of PPA 2006
added section 4211(c)(5)(E) of ERISA, which permits a
[[Page 79630]]
plan, including a construction plan, to adopt an amendment that applies
the presumptive method by substituting a different plan year for which
the plan has no unfunded vested benefits for the plan year ending
before September 26, 1980. Such an amendment would enable a plan to
erase a large part of the plan's unfunded vested benefits attributable
to plan years before the end of the designated plan year, and to start
fresh with liabilities that arise in plan years after the designated
plan year.
Additionally, sections 202(a) and 212(a) of PPA 2006 create new
funding rules for multiemployer plans in ``critical'' status, allowing
these plans to reduce benefits and making the plans' contributing
employers subject to surcharges. New section 305(e)(9) of ERISA and
section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'') provide that
such benefit adjustments and employer surcharges are disregarded in
determining a plan's unfunded vested benefits and allocation fraction
for purposes of determining an employer's withdrawal liability, and
direct PBGC to prescribe simplified methods for the application of
these provisions in determining withdrawal liability.
PPA 2006 also makes other changes affecting the withdrawal
liability provisions under ERISA that are not addressed in this final
rule.
Proposed Rule
On March 19, 2008 (at 73 FR 14735), PBGC published a proposed rule
to amend parts 4001, 4211, and 4219 to implement the PPA 2006 changes
and make other changes under its regulatory authority. PBGC received
two comments on the proposed rule, one from a chain of food stores, and
the other from a member organization representing food retail and
wholesale companies. One commenter suggested that PBGC eliminate or
limit the ``fresh start'' options proposed under PBGC's regulatory
authority. The other commenter suggested that PBGC modify the proposed
rule regarding the allocation fraction for reallocation liability.
These points are discussed below with the topics to which they relate.
The final regulation is the same as the proposed regulation, with a
few minor exceptions, including a clarification to the language
describing the reallocation liability formula for a plan terminated by
mass withdrawal. (See Discussion, Reallocation Liability Upon Mass
Withdrawal.) In response to a comment, the final rule eliminates an
inconsistency between the fraction for reallocation liability under the
proposed regulation and the current regulation, and updates a citation
to a Code provision under PPA 2006.
Overview of Final Rule
This final rule amends PBGC's regulation on Allocating Unfunded
Vested Benefits to Withdrawing Employers (29 CFR part 4211) to
implement the above-described changes made by PPA 2006.
The final rule also makes changes unrelated to PPA 2006. Under its
authority to prescribe alternatives to the statutory methods for
determining an employer's allocable share of unfunded vested benefits,
the final rule also amends part 4211 to broaden the rules and provide
more flexibility in applying the statutory methods. PBGC has identified
certain modifications that may be advantageous to plans because they
reduce administrative burdens for plans using the presumptive method
and may assist plans in attracting new employers in the case of the
modified presumptive method.
In addition, in the case of a plan termination by mass withdrawal,
section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA provides that the total unfunded vested
benefits of the plan must be fully allocated among all liable employers
in a manner not inconsistent with regulations prescribed by PBGC. PBGC
has determined that the fraction for allocating this ``reallocation
liability'' under PBGC's regulation on Notice, Collection, and
Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) does not
adequately capture the liability of employers who had little or no
initial withdrawal liability. Accordingly, this final rule amends part
4219 to revise the allocation fraction for reallocation liability.
A detailed discussion of the final rule follows.
Discussion
Withdrawal Liability Methods--Fresh Start Option
Under section 4211(c)(5)(E) of ERISA, added by PPA 2006, a plan
using the presumptive withdrawal liability method in section 4211(b) of
ERISA, including a construction plan, may be amended to substitute a
plan year that is designated in a plan amendment and for which the plan
has no unfunded vested benefits, for the plan year ending before
September 26, 1980. (This provision is referred to as the statutory
``fresh start'' option.) For plan years ending before the designated
plan year and for the designated plan year, the plan will be relieved
of the burden of calculating changes in unfunded vested benefits
separately for each plan year and allocating those changes to the
employers that contributed to the plan in the year of the change. As
the plan has no unfunded vested benefits for the designated plan year,
employers withdrawing from the plan after the modification is effective
will have no liability for unfunded vested benefits arising in plan
years ending before the designated plan year. PBGC is amending Sec.
4211.12 of its regulation on Allocating Unfunded Vested Benefits to
Withdrawing Employers to reflect this new statutory modification to the
presumptive method.
In addition, PBGC is expanding Sec. 4211.12 to permit plans to
substitute a new plan year for the plan year ending before September
26, 1980, without regard to the amount of a plan's unfunded vested
benefits at the end of the newly designated plan year. (This amendment
is referred to as a regulatory ``fresh start'' option.) This change
will allow plans using the presumptive method to aggregate the multiple
liability pools attributable to prior plan years and the designated
plan year. It will thus allow such plans to allocate the plan's
unfunded vested benefits as of the end of the designated plan year
among the employers that have an obligation to contribute under the
plan for the first plan year ending on or after such date. The plan
will allocate unfunded vested benefits based on the employer's share of
the plan's contributions for the five-year period ending with the
designated plan year. Thereafter, such plans would apply the regular
rules under the presumptive method to segregate changes in the plan's
unfunded vested benefits by plan year and to allocate individual plan
year liabilities among the employers obligated to contribute under the
plan in that plan year.
PBGC believes this modification to the presumptive method will ease
the administrative burdens of plans that have difficulty obtaining the
actuarial and contributions data necessary to compute each employer's
allocable share of annual changes in unfunded vested benefits occurring
in plan years as far back as 1980. However this modification does not
apply to a construction plan, because PBGC's authority is limited to
adjustments in the denominators of the allocation fractions for such
plans.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under ERISA section 4211(c)(1), construction plans are
limited to the presumptive method, except that PBGC may by
regulation permit adjustments in any denominator under section 4211
(including the denominator of a fraction used in the presumptive
method by construction industry plans) where such adjustment would
be appropriate to ease the administrative burdens of plan sponsors.
See ERISA section 4211(c)(5)(D) and 29 CFR 4211.11(b) and 4211.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 79631]]
PBGC is also amending Sec. 4211.12 to permit plans using the
modified presumptive method to designate a plan year that would
substitute for the last plan year ending before September 26, 1980,
thus providing another regulatory ``fresh start'' option. This
amendment provides for the allocation of substantially all of a plan's
unfunded vested benefits among employers that have an obligation to
contribute under the plan, while enabling plans to split a single
liability pool for plan years ending after September 25, 1980, into two
liability pools. The first pool would be based on the plan's unfunded
vested benefits as of the end of the newly designated plan year,
allocated among employers who have an obligation to contribute under
the plan for the plan year immediately following the designated plan
year. The second pool would be based on the unfunded vested benefits as
of the end of the plan year prior to the withdrawal (offset in the
manner described above for the modified presumptive method). For a
period of time, this modification would reduce new employers' liability
for unfunded vested benefits of the plan before the employer's
participation, which could assist plans in attracting new employers and
preserving the plan's contribution base. The modification would not
require PBGC approval for adoption.
For each of these modifications, the final rule clarifies that a
plan's unfunded vested benefits, determined with respect to plan years
ending after the plan year designated in the plan amendment, are
reduced by the value of the outstanding claims for withdrawal liability
that can reasonably be expected to be collected for employers who
withdrew from the plan in or before the designated plan year.
One commenter suggested that the final rule eliminate the
regulatory ``fresh start'' options due to the commenter's concern that
plans may use these options to maximize withdrawal liability and to
unfairly shift the allocation of withdrawal liability among employers.
Alternatively, the commenter suggested that the regulation be clarified
to restrict a plan's ability to change repeatedly the ``fresh start''
date. The commenter also suggested limiting the application of the
``fresh start'' options to employers that begin contributing to a plan
after the effective date of the final regulation, or to contributions
made by employers after a ``fresh start'' date is determined.
Specifically, the commenter noted that section 4211(c)(5)(E) of
ERISA, as added by PPA 2006, allows a plan to be amended with a ``fresh
start'' option if the designated plan year in the amendment has no
unfunded vested benefits. The commenter objected to the regulatory
``fresh start'' options because they permit a designated plan year to
be a plan year for which the plan has unfunded vested benefits--
resulting in liability allocated in a pool at the end of the designated
plan year--unlike the ``fresh start'' permitted by section
4211(c)(5)(E).
As explained below, the ``fresh start'' provisions in the final
regulation are unchanged from those in the proposed regulation.
First, contrary to the commenter's concern, the ``fresh start''
rule does not alter the amount of withdrawal liability assessed in the
aggregate and, therefore, does not work to maximize withdrawal
liability. Rather, the ``fresh start'' rule allows a plan to amend the
method for allocating substantially all of a plan's unfunded vested
benefits among employers who have an obligation to contribute under the
plan and does not increase the amount of the unfunded vested benefits
to be allocated.
Second, section 4211(c)(5)(E) is intended to provide flexibility to
construction plans. Pursuant to section 4211(c)(1)(A) of ERISA,
construction plans must use the presumptive method under section
4211(b) of ERISA, and may not adopt any of the three alternative
allocation methods described by the statute (the modified presumptive,
rolling-5, or direct attribution methods under sections 4211(c)(2),
(c)(3), or (c)(4) of ERISA), or adopt any other alternative methods of
determining an employer's allocable share of unfunded vested benefits
under section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA.
In contrast, non-construction plans have broad discretion to amend
their withdrawal liability methods. Such plans may, for example,
replace the presumptive method with the rolling-5 method, without PBGC
approval,\2\ or adopt an alternative non-statutory method designed by
the plan to provide for the allocation of the plan's unfunded vested
benefits, subject to PBGC approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PBGC has published a class approval of any plan amendment
that adopts one of the three alternative allocation methods
described in sections 4211(c)(2), (c)(3) or (c)(4) of ERISA, without
the need to obtain PBGC approval. PBGC determined that such
amendments would not have the effect of creating an unreasonable
risk of loss to plan participants and beneficiaries or to the PBGC
(49 FR 37686). It is not important which allocation method is being
used before the change, or whether the method in use before the
change is one of the statutory methods or some other method. (See
PBGC Opinion Letter 86-22, available on PBGC's Web site https://
www.pbgc.gov.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, for non-construction plans, section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA
gives PBGC authority to regulate the adoption of modifications to the
four statutory methods and the adoption of other allocation methods. In
this regulation, PBGC is simply exercising its authority under section
4211(c)(5)(B) to prescribe standard approaches for alternative methods
that may be adopted by plan amendment, for which PBGC approval
requirements may be waived or modified. In developing the ``fresh
start'' options, PBGC relied upon its experience with alternative
withdrawal liability methods, as proposed by plans or developed or
approved by PBGC, since the inception of the withdrawal liability
provisions in 1980 under Title IV of ERISA.
The regulatory ``fresh start'' options satisfy the requirement
under section 4211(c)(5)(B) of ERISA. Specifically, each ``fresh
start'' option provides for the allocation of substantially all of a
plan's unfunded vested benefits among employers who have an obligation
to contribute under the plan. Each ``fresh start'' option is similar in
effect to a plan's change from one statutory method to another
statutory method--which plans are free to adopt without PBGC approval.
For example, in the case of a plan replacing the presumptive method
with the rolling-5 method or a plan adopting the ``fresh start'' option
under the presumptive method, the plan may erase all of the negative or
positive changes in unfunded vested benefits for any plan year through
the plan year of the change or the designated plan year, respectively.
Although the two plans may allocate different amounts to individual
employers, each method apportions liability based on the withdrawing
employer's participation in the plan measured by that employer's
contributions relative to the total contributions to the plan. Thus,
each method results in the allocation of substantially all of a plan's
unfunded vested benefits among employers who have an obligation to
contribute under the plan.
Similarly, there is no significant difference in the degree of
allocation of a plan's unfunded vested benefits between a plan that
changes from the modified presumptive to the presumptive method or a
plan that adopts a ``fresh start'' option under the modified
presumptive method and determines liability based on the plan's
unfunded vested benefits as of a designated plan year or as of the plan
[[Page 79632]]
year preceding the year of withdrawal. In addition, while PBGC does not
contemplate that plans will repeatedly change the ``fresh start'' date,
a plan's decision to adopt a new ``fresh start'' date that might result
in a greater liability for a particular employer would have a similar
effect on the employer as a decision by the plan to adopt instead the
rolling-5 method.
Finally, the regulatory ``fresh start'' options are designed to
provide additional flexibility in the methods available to non-
construction plans for allocating a plan's unfunded vested benefits
among withdrawing employers, without PBGC approval. The decision,
however, to adopt a ``fresh start'' option is discretionary and made by
the plan sponsor, which is generally a joint board of trustees with an
equal number of employer and employee representatives. Under section
4214 of ERISA, any plan rule or amendment may not be applied to any
employer that withdrew before the amendment was adopted without that
employer's consent and any rule or amendment must be uniformly applied
to each employer.
Withdrawal Liability Computations for Plans in Critical Status--
Adjustable Benefits
PPA 2006 establishes additional funding rules for multiemployer
plans in ``endangered'' or ``critical'' status under section 305 of
ERISA and section 432 of the Code. The sponsor of a plan in critical
status (less than 65 percent funded and/or meets any of the other
defined tests) is required to adopt a rehabilitation plan that will
enable the plan to cease to be in critical status within a specified
period of time or to forestall possible insolvency. Notwithstanding
section 204(g) of ERISA or section 411(d)(6) of the Code, as deemed
appropriate by the plan sponsor, based upon the outcome of collective
bargaining over benefit and contribution schedules, the rehabilitation
plan may include reductions to ``adjustable benefits,'' within the
meaning of section 305(e)(8) of ERISA and section 432(e)(8) of the
Code. New section 305(e)(9) of ERISA and section 432(e)(9) of the Code
provide, however, that any benefit reductions under subsection (e) must
be disregarded in determining a plan's unfunded vested benefits for
purposes of an employer's withdrawal liability under section 4201 of
ERISA. (Also, under ERISA sections 305(f)(2) and (f)(3), and Code
sections 432(f)(2) and (f)(3), a plan is limited in its payment of lump
sums and similar benefits after a notice of the plan's critical status
is sent, but any such benefit limits must be disregarded in determining
a plan's unfunded vested benefits for purposes of determining an
employer's withdrawal liability.)
Adjustable benefits under section 305(e)(8) of ERISA and section
432(e)(8) of the Code include benefits, rights and features under the
plan, such as post-retirement death benefits, 60-month guarantees,
disability benefits not yet in pay status; certain early retirement
benefits, retirement-type subsidies and benefit payment options; and
benefit increases that would not be eligible for a guarantee under
section 4022A of ERISA on the first day of the initial critical year
because the increases were adopted (or, if later, took effect) less
than 60 months before such date. An amendment reducing adjustable
benefits may not affect the benefits of any participant or beneficiary
whose benefit commencement date is before the date on which the plan
provides notice that the plan is or will be in critical status for a
plan year; the level of a participant's accrued benefit at normal
retirement age also is protected.
Under section 4213 of ERISA, a plan actuary must use actuarial
assumptions that, in the aggregate, are reasonable and, in combination,
offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience in
determining the plan's unfunded vested benefits for purposes of
determining an employer's withdrawal liability (absent regulations
setting forth such methods and assumptions). Section 4213(c) provides
that, for purposes of determining withdrawal liability, the term
``unfunded vested benefits'' means the amount by which the value of
nonforfeitable benefits under the plan exceeds the value of plan
assets.
The final rule amends the definition of ``nonforfeitable benefits''
in Sec. 4211.2 of PBGC's regulation on Allocating Unfunded Vested
Benefits to Withdrawing Employers, and the definition of ``unfunded
vested benefits'' in Sec. 4219.2 of PBGC's regulation on Notice,
Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability, to include
adjustable benefits that have been reduced by a plan sponsor pursuant
to ERISA section 305(e)(8) or Code section 432(e)(8), to the extent
such benefits would otherwise be nonforfeitable benefits.
Section 305(e)(9)(C) of ERISA and section 432(e)(9)(C) of the Code
direct PBGC to prescribe simplified methods for the application of this
provision in determining withdrawal liability. PBGC intends to issue
guidance on simplified methods at a later date.
Withdrawal Liability Computations for Plans in Critical Status--
Employer Surcharges
Under section 305(e)(7) of ERISA, added by section 202(a) of PPA
2006, and under section 432(e)(7) of the Code, added by section 212(a)
of PPA 2006, each employer otherwise obligated to make contributions
for the initial plan year and any subsequent plan year that a plan is
in critical status must pay a surcharge to the plan for such plan year,
until the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement (or other
agreement pursuant to which the employer contributes) that includes
terms consistent with the rehabilitation plan adopted by the plan
sponsor. Section 305(e)(9) of ERISA and section 432(e)(9) of the Code
provide, however, that any employer surcharges under paragraph (7) must
be disregarded in determining an employer's withdrawal liability under
section 4211 of ERISA, except for purposes of determining the unfunded
vested benefits attributable to an employer under section 4211(c)(4)
(the direct attribution method) or a comparable method approved under
section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA.
The presumptive, modified presumptive and rolling-5 methods of
allocating unfunded vested benefits allocate the liability pools among
participating employers based on the employers' contribution
obligations for the five-year period ending with the date the liability
pool arose or the plan year immediately preceding the plan year of the
employer's withdrawal (depending on the method or liability pool).
Under section 4211 of ERISA, the numerator of the allocation fraction
is the total amount required to be contributed by the withdrawing
employer for the five-year period, and the denominator of the
allocation fraction is the total amount contributed by all employers
under the plan for the five-year period.
The final rule amends PBGC's regulation on Allocating Unfunded
Vested Benefits to Withdrawing Employers (part 4211) by adding a new
Sec. 4211.4 that excludes amounts attributable to the employer
surcharge under section 305(e)(7) of ERISA and section 432(e)(7) of the
Code from the contributions that are otherwise includable in the
numerator and the denominator of the allocation fraction under the
presumptive, modified presumptive and rolling-5 methods. Pursuant to
section 305(e)(9) of ERISA and section 432(e)(9) of the Code, a
simplified method for the application of this principle is provided
below in the form of an illustration of the exclusion
[[Page 79633]]
of employer surcharge amounts from the allocation fraction.
Example: Plan X is a multiemployer plan that has vested benefit
liabilities of $200 million and assets of $130 million as of the end of
its 2015 plan year. During the 2015 plan year, there were three
contributing employers. Two of three employers were in the plan for the
entire five-year period ending with the 2015 plan year. One employer
was in the plan during the 2014 and 2015 plan years only. Each employer
had a $4 million contribution obligation each year under a collective
bargaining agreement. In addition, for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 plan
years, employers were liable for the automatic employer surcharge under
section 305(e)(7) of ERISA and section 432(e)(7) of the Code, at a rate
of 5% of required contributions in 2011 and 10% of required
contributions in 2012 and 2013. The following table shows the
contributions and surcharges owed for the five-year period.
[In millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employer A Employer B Employer C
Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution Surcharge Contribution Surcharge Contribution Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.................................................. $4 $0.2 $4 $0.2
2012.................................................. 4 0.4 4 0.4
2013.................................................. 4 0.4 4 0.4
2014.................................................. 4 0 4 0 $4 $0
2015.................................................. 4 0 4 0 4 0
5-year total...................................... 20 1.0 20 1.0 8 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employers A, B and C contributed $48 million during the five-year
period, excluding surcharges, and $50 million including surcharges.
Under the rolling-5 method, the unfunded vested benefits allocable to
an employer are equal to the plan's unfunded vested benefits as of the
end of the last plan year preceding the withdrawal, multiplied by a
fraction equal to the amount the employer was required to contribute to
the plan for the last five plan years preceding the withdrawal over the
total amount contributed by all employers for those five plan years
(other adjustments are also required).
Employer A's share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits in the
event it withdraws in 2016 is $29.17 million, determined by multiplying
$70 million (the plan's unfunded vested benefits at the end of 2015) by
the ratio of $20 million to $48 million. Employer B's allocable
unfunded vested benefits are identical to Employer A's, and the amount
allocable to Employer C is $11.66 million ($70 million multiplied by
the ratio of $8 million over $48 million). The $2.0 million
attributable to the automatic employer surcharge is excluded from
contributions in the allocation fraction.
Reallocation Liability Upon Mass Withdrawal
Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA applies special withdrawal liability
rules when a multiemployer plan terminates because of mass withdrawal
(i.e., the withdrawal of every employer under the plan) or when
substantially all employers withdraw pursuant to an agreement or
arrangement to withdraw, including a requirement that the total
unfunded vested benefits of the plan be fully allocated among all
employers in a manner not inconsistent with PBGC regulations. To ensure
that all unfunded vested benefits are fully allocated among all liable
employers, Sec. 4219.15(b) of PBGC's regulation on Notice, Collection,
and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability requires a determination of
the plan's unfunded vested benefits as of the end of the plan year in
which the plan terminates, based on the value of the plan's
nonforfeitable benefits as of that date less the value of plan assets
(benefits and assets valued in accordance with assumptions specified by
PBGC), less the outstanding balance of any initial withdrawal liability
(assessments without regard to the occurrence of a mass withdrawal) and
redetermination liability (assessments for de minimis and 20-year cap
reduction amounts) that can reasonably be expected to be collected.
Pursuant to Sec. 4219.15(c)(1), each liable employer's share of
this ``reallocation liability'' is equal to the amount of the
reallocation liability multiplied by a fraction--
(i) The numerator of which is the sum of the employer's initial
withdrawal liability and any redetermination liability, and
(ii) The denominator of which is the sum of all initial withdrawal
liabilities and all the redetermination liabilities of all liable
employers.
PBGC believes the current allocation fraction for reallocation
liability must be modified to address those situations in which
employers--who would otherwise be liable for reallocation liability--
have little or no initial withdrawal liability or redetermination
liability and, therefore, have a zero (or understated) reallocation
liability. Such situations may arise, for example, where an employer
withdraws from the plan before the mass withdrawal valuation date, but
has no withdrawal liability under the modified presumptive and rolling-
5 methods because either (i) the plan has no unfunded vested benefits
as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the
employer withdrew, or (ii) the plan did not require the employer to
make contributions for the five-year period preceding the plan year of
withdrawal. In these cases, if the employer's withdrawal is later
determined to be part of a mass withdrawal for which reallocation
liability applies under section 4219 of ERISA, the employer would not
be liable for any portion of the reallocation liability.
A plan's status may change from funded to underfunded between the
end of the plan year before the employer withdraws and the mass
withdrawal valuation date as a result of differences in the actuarial
assumptions used by the plan's actuary in determining unfunded vested
benefits under sections 4211 and 4219 of ERISA, or due to investment
losses that reduce the value of the plan's assets, among other reasons.
Likewise, an employer may not have paid contributions for purposes of
the allocation fraction used to determine the employer's initial
withdrawal liability if the plan provided for a ``contribution
holiday'' under which employers were not required to make
contributions.
PBGC believes the absence of initial withdrawal liability should
not generally exempt an otherwise liable employer from reallocation
liability. By
[[Page 79634]]
shifting reallocation liability away from some employers, the current
regulation increases the allocable share of other employers in a mass
withdrawal, increases the risk of loss of benefits to participants, and
increases the financial risk to PBGC. To ensure that reallocation
liability is allocated broadly among all liable employers, PBGC is
amending Sec. 4219.15(c) of the Notice, Collection, and
Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability regulation to replace the
current allocation fraction based on initial withdrawal liability with
a new allocation fraction for determining an employer's allocable share
of reallocation liability.
The new fraction allocates the plan's unfunded vested benefits
based on the average of the employer's contribution base units relative
to the combined averages of the plan's total contribution base units
for the three plan years preceding each employer's withdrawal from the
plan. The numerator consists of the withdrawing employer's average
contribution base units during the three plan years preceding the
employer's withdrawal (i.e., the employer's total contribution base
units over the three plan years divided by three). The final rule
clarifies that the denominator is the sum of the averages of all
withdrawing employers' contribution base units for the three plan years
preceding each employer's withdrawal. This is not a substantive change
from the proposed regulation.
Section 4001(a)(11) of ERISA defines a ``contribution base unit''
as a unit with respect to which an employer has an obligation to
contribute under a multiemployer plan, e.g., an hour worked. PBGC is
adding a similar definition for purposes of Sec. 4219.15 of the
Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability
regulation.
One commenter suggested that the final rule modify the allocation
fraction for reallocation liability under the proposed rule to reflect
variations in contribution rates among employers. The commenter
proposed that a fraction be based on the product of the employer's
contribution base units and contribution rates (e.g, the highest rate
in effect under the collective bargaining agreement) for the three plan
years preceding the employer's withdrawal. In the case of an employer
that contributes at different contribution rates under different
collective bargaining agreements or for different groups of employees,
the numerator of the fraction would be the sum of the separate products
for each agreement or group. The commenter suggested that the purpose
of this change would be to allocate reallocation liability in a manner
that takes into account employers' relative contribution rates; for
example, in a plan with two employers that each have average
contribution base units of 1000, and contribution rates of $1.50 and
$2.00, respectively, the employers would have different allocation
fractions.
PBGC did not adopt the commenter's suggestion. A plan may adopt the
variation proposed by the commenter, or another variation needed by the
plan, pursuant to Sec. 4219.15(d) of the current regulation. This
provision under the current regulation allows plans to adopt rules for
calculating an employer's initial allocable share of the plan's
unfunded vested benefits in a manner other than that prescribed by the
regulation.
The commenter also noted an inconsistency between the allocation
fraction under the proposed regulation and Sec. 4219.15(c)(3) of the
current regulation, which creates a special rule for certain employers
with no or reduced initial withdrawal liability. Because the allocation
fraction under Sec. 4219.15(c)(1) will no longer be based on initial
withdrawal liability, the final rule eliminates current Sec.
4219.15(c)(3).
The commenter identified a reference in the regulation to section
412(b)(3)(A) of the Code that should be updated to reflect PPA 2006
section 431(b)(3)(A). The final regulation reflects this change and
makes conforming changes in the regulation.
PBGC is also amending Sec. 4219.1 of the regulation on Notice,
Collection and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability to implement a
provision under new section 4221(g) of ERISA, added by section
204(d)(1) of PPA 2006, which relieves an employer in certain narrowly
defined circumstances of the obligation to make withdrawal liability
payments until a final decision in the arbitration proceeding, or in
court, upholds the plan sponsor's determination that the employer is
liable for withdrawal liability based in part or in whole on section
4212(c) of ERISA. The regulation states that an employer that complies
with the specific procedures of section 4221(g) (or a similar provision
in section 4221(f) of ERISA, added by Pub. L. 108-218) is not in
default under section 4219(c)(5)(A).
Definition of Multiemployer Plan
Section 1106 of PPA 2006 amended the definition of a
``multiemployer'' plan in section 3(37)(G) of ERISA and section
414(f)(6) of the Code to allow certain plans to elect to be
multiemployer plans for all purposes under ERISA and the Code, pursuant
to procedures prescribed by PBGC. PBGC is amending the definition of a
``multiemployer plan'' under Sec. 4001.2 of its regulation on
Terminology (29 CFR part 4001) to add a definition that is parallel to
the definition in section 3(37)(G) of ERISA and section 414(f)(6) of
the Code.
Applicability
The changes relating to modifications to the statutory methods
prescribed by PBGC for determining an employer's share of unfunded
vested benefits are applicable to employer withdrawals from a plan that
occur on or after January 29, 2009, subject to section 4214 of ERISA
(relating to plan amendments). Changes in the fraction for allocating
reallocation liability are applicable to plan terminations by mass
withdrawals (or by withdrawals of substantially all employers pursuant
to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw) that occur on or after
January 29, 2009.
The change relating to the presumptive method made by PPA 2006 is
applicable to employer withdrawals occurring on or after January 1,
2007, subject to section 4214 of ERISA.
The changes relating to the effect of PPA 2006 benefit adjustments
and employer surcharges for purposes of determining an employer's
withdrawal liability are applicable to employer withdrawals from a plan
and plan terminations by mass withdrawals (or withdrawals of
substantially all employers pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to
withdraw) occurring in plan years beginning on or after January 1,
2008.
The change in the definition of a multiemployer plan is effective
August 17, 2006. The change in section 4221(g) of ERISA made by PPA
2006 is effective for any person that receives a notification under
ERISA section 4219(b)(1) on or after August 17, 2006, with respect to a
transaction that occurred after December 31, 1998.
Compliance With Rulemaking Requirements
E.O. 12866
The PBGC has determined, in consultation with the Office of
Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. PBGC identifies the
following specific problems that warrant this agency action:
This regulatory action implements the PPA 2006 amendment
to section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA that permits a plan using the
presumptive method to
[[Page 79635]]
substitute a specified plan year for which the plan has no unfunded
vested benefits for the plan year ending before September 26, 1980. The
final rule provides necessary guidance on the application of this
modification to the specific provisions of the presumptive method under
section 4211(b) of ERISA. Also, because the statutory amendment lacks
specificity in describing how to compute unfunded vested benefits, the
rule clarifies the need to reduce the plan's unfunded vested benefits
for plan years ending on or after the last day of the designated plan
year by the value of all outstanding claims for withdrawal liability
reasonably expected to be collected from withdrawn employers as of the
end of the designated plan year.
Existing modifications to the statutory withdrawal
liability methods not subject to PBGC approval are outmoded and
restrictive and an expansion of the modifications is consistent with
statutory changes under PPA 2006. This problem is significant because
the current rules impose significant administrative burdens on plans
and impede flexibility needed by multiemployer plans to attract new
employers.
This regulatory action implements the PPA 2006 amendment
to section 305(e)(9) of ERISA and section 432(e)(9) of the Code
requiring plans in critical status to disregard reductions in
adjustable benefits and employer surcharges in determining a plan's
unfunded vested benefits for purposes of an employer's withdrawal
liability. The rule is necessary to conform the definition of
nonforfeitable benefits and the allocation fraction based on employer
contributions under PBGC's regulations to the statutory changes.
The rule revises the allocation fraction for reallocation
liability, which applies when a multiemployer plan terminates by mass
withdrawal, to ensure that reallocation liability is allocated broadly
among all liable employers.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the amendments in this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Specifically, the amendments will have the following effect:
A statutory change under PPA 2006 provides plans with a
``fresh start'' option in determining withdrawal liability when an
employer withdraws from a multiemployer plan. This rule clarifies the
application of this fresh start option and extends the option to other
withdrawal liability calculations. Under these amendments, plans may
avoid costly and burdensome year-by-year calculations of unfunded
vested benefits and employers' allocable shares of such benefits for
years as far back as 1980; alternatively, these amendments may help
plans attract new employers by shielding them from unfunded liabilities
that arose in the past. Any changes to a plan's withdrawal liability
method are adopted at the discretion of each plan's governing board of
trustees. Accordingly, there is no cost to compliance.
A statutory change under PPA requires plans in
``critical'' status to disregard reductions in adjustable benefits and
employer surcharges in determining an employer's withdrawal liability.
This rule clarifies the exclusion of any surcharges from the allocation
fraction consisting of employer contributions, and the exclusion of the
cost of any reduced benefits from the plan's unfunded vested benefits.
The rule simply applies the statutory provisions and imposes no
significant burden beyond the burden imposed by statute. Furthermore,
more than 88 percent of all multiemployer pension plans have 250 or
more participants.
Another amendment in the rule revises the fraction for
allocating reallocation liability (unfunded vested benefits as of the
end of the plan year of a plan's termination) among employers when a
plan terminates in a mass withdrawal. Plans routinely maintain the
contribution records necessary to apply the new fraction in place of
the old fraction for this purpose. Moreover, a majority of all plans
that terminate in a mass withdrawal have more than 250 participants at
the time of termination.
Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), sections 603 and 604 do not
apply.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 4001
Business and industry, Organization and functions (Government
agencies), Pension insurance, Pensions, Small businesses.
29 CFR Part 4211
Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
29 CFR Part 4219
Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons above, PBGC is amending 29 CFR parts 4001, 4211 and
4219 as follows.
PART 4001--TERMINOLOGY
0
1. The authority citation for part 4001 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301, 1302(b)(3).
0
2. In Sec. 4001.2, the definition of Multiemployer plan is amended by
adding at the end the sentence ``Multiemployer plan also means a plan
that elects to be a multiemployer plan under ERISA section 3(37)(G) and
Code section 414(f)(6), pursuant to procedures prescribed by PBGC.''
PART 4211--ALLOCATING UNFUNDED VESTED BENEFITS TO WITHDRAWING
EMPLOYERS
0
3. The authority citation for part 4211 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3); 1391(c)(1), (c)(2)(D),
(c)(5)(A), (c)(5)(B), (c)(5)(D), and (f).
0
4. In Sec. 4211.2--
0
a. The first sentence is amended by removing the words ``nonforfeitable
benefit,''.
0
b. The definition of Unfunded vested benefits is amended to add the
words ``, as defined for purposes of this section,'' between the words
``plan'' and ``exceeds''.
0
c. A new definition is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 4211.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Nonforfeitable benefit means a benefit described in Sec. 4001.2 of
this chapter plus, for purposes of this part, any adjustable benefit
that has been reduced by the plan sponsor pursuant to section 305(e)(8)
of ERISA or section 432(e)(8) of the Code that would otherwise have
been includable as a nonforfeitable benefit for purposes of determining
an employer's allocable share of unfunded vested benefits.
* * * * *
0
5. A new Sec. 4211.4 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4211.4 Contributions for purposes of the numerator and
denominator of the allocation fractions.
Each of the allocation fractions used in the presumptive, modified
presumptive and rolling-5 methods is based on contributions that
certain employers have made to the plan for a five-year period.
(a) The numerator of the allocation fraction, with respect to a
withdrawing employer, is based on the ``sum of the contributions
required to be made'' or
[[Page 79636]]
the ``total amount required to be contributed'' by the employer for the
specified period. For purposes of these methods, this means the amount
that is required to be contributed under one or more collective
bargaining agreements or other agreements pursuant to which the
employer contributes under the plan, other than withdrawal liability
payments or amounts that an employer is obligated to pay to the plan
pursuant to section 305(e)(7) of ERISA or section 432(e)(7) of the Code
(automatic employer surcharge). Employee contributions, if any, shall
be excluded from the totals.
(b) The denominator of the allocation fraction is based on
contributions that certain employers have made to the plan for a
specified period. For purposes of these methods, and except as provided
in Sec. 4211.12, ``the sum of all contributions made'' or ``total
amount contributed'' by employers for a plan year means the amounts
considered contributed to the plan for purposes of section 412(b)(3)(A)
or section 431(b)(3)(A) of the Code, other than withdrawal liability
payments or amounts that an employer is obligated to pay to the plan
pursuant to section 305(e)(7) of ERISA or section 432(e)(7) of the Code
(automatic employer surcharge). For plan years before section 412
applies to the plan, ``the sum of all contributions made'' or ``total
amount contributed'' means the amount reported to the IRS or the
Department of Labor as total contributions for the plan year; for
example, for the plan years in which the plan filed the Form 5500, the
amount reported as total contributions on that form. Employee
contributions, if any, shall be excluded from the totals.
0
6. In Sec. 4211.12--
0
a. Paragraph (a) is removed;
0
b. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
c. Newly designated paragraph (a) introductory text is amended by
removing the words ``(b)(4)'' and adding in their place the words
``(a)(4)'';
0
d. Newly designated paragraph (a)(1) is amended by adding the words
``or section 431(b)(3)(A)'' after the words ``section 412(b)(3)(A)'';
0
e. Newly designated paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are amended by adding
the words ``or section 431(c)(8)'' after the words ``section
412(c)(10)'';
0
f. Newly designated paragraph (a)(4)(ii) is amended by removing the
words ``paragraph (a) of this section, or the amount described in
paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section'' and adding in
their place the words ``Sec. 4211.4(b), or the amount described in
paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section'';
0
g. Newly designated paragraph (b) introductory text is amended by
removing the words ``(c)(1)'' and adding in their place the words
``(b)(1)'';
0
h. Newly designated paragraph (b)(2) introductory text is amended by
removing the words ``(c)'' and adding in their place the words ``(b)'';
0
i. Newly designated paragraph (b)(3) introductory text is amended by
removing the words ``(c)(2)'' and adding in their place the words
``(b)(2)''; and
0
j. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 4211.12 Modifications to the presumptive, modified presumptive
and rolling-5 methods.
* * * * *
(c) ``Fresh start'' rules under presumptive method.
(1) The plan sponsor of a plan using the presumptive method
(including a plan that primarily covers employees in the building and
construction industry) may amend the plan to provide--
(i) A designated plan year ending after September 26, 1980, will
substitute for the plan year ending before September 26, 1980, in
applying section 4211(b)(1)(B), section 4211(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I), section
4211(b)(2)(D), section 4211(b)(3), and section 4211(b)(3)(B) of ERISA,
and
(ii) Plan years ending after the end of the designated plan year in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) will substitute for plan years ending after
September 25, 1980, in applying section 4211(b)(1)(A), section
4211(b)(2)(A), and section 4211(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of ERISA.
(2) A plan amendment made pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section must provide that the plan's unfunded vested benefits for plan
years ending after the designated plan year are reduced by the value of
all outstanding claims for withdrawal liability that can reasonably be
expected to be collected from employers that had withdrawn from the
plan as of the end of the designated plan year.
(3) In the case of a plan that primarily covers employees in the
building and construction industry, the plan year designated by a plan
amendment pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be a plan
year for which the plan has no unfunded vested benefits.
(d) ``Fresh start'' rules under modified presumptive method.
(1) The plan sponsor of a plan using the modified presumptive
method may amend the plan to provide--
(i) A designated plan year ending after September 26, 1980, will
substitute for the plan year ending before September 26, 1980, in
applying section 4211(c)(2)(B)(i) and section 4211(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I) and
(II) of ERISA, and
(ii) Plan years ending after the end of the designated plan year
will substitute for plan years ending after September 25, 1980, in
applying section 4211(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) and section 4211(c)(2)(C)(i)(II)
of ERISA.
(2) A plan amendment made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section must provide that the plan's unfunded vested benefits for plan
years ending after the designated plan year are reduced by the value of
all outstanding claims for withdrawal liability that can reasonably be
expected to be collected from employers that had withdrawn from the
plan as of the end of the designated plan year.
PART 4219--NOTICE, COLLECTION, AND REDETERMINATION OF WITHDRAWAL
LIABILITY
0
7. The authority citation for part 4219 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3) and 1399(c)(6).
0
8. In Sec. 4219.1, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words
``after April 28, 1980 (May 2, 1979, for certain employees in the
seagoing industry)'' and adding in their place the words ``on or after
September 26, 1980, except employers with respect to whom section
4221(f) or section 4221(g) of ERISA applies (provided that such
employers are in compliance with the provisions of those sections, as
applicable)''.
0
9. In Sec. 4219.2--
0
a. Paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words ``nonforfeitable
benefit,''.
0
b. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding the word ``nonforfeitable''
between the words ``vested'' and ``benefits'' and the words ``(as
defined for purposes of this section)'' between the words ``benefits''
and ``exceeds'' in the definition of Unfunded vested benefits.
0
c. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding a new definition in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 4219.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
``Nonforfeitable benefit means a benefit described in Sec. 4001.2
of this chapter plus, for purposes of this part, any adjustable benefit
that has been reduced by the plan sponsor pursuant to section 305(e)(8)
of ERISA and section 432(e)(8) of the Code that would otherwise have
been includable as a nonforfeitable benefit.''
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 4219.15, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) to read as
follows:
[[Page 79637]]
Sec. 4219.15 Determination of reallocation liability.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Initial allocable share. Except as otherwise provided in rules
adopted by the plan pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, and in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, an employer's initial
allocable share shall be equal to the product of the plan's unfunded
vested benefits to be reallocated, multiplied by a fraction--
(i) The numerator of which is the yearly average of the employer's
contribution base units during the three plan years preceding the
employer's withdrawal; and
(ii) The denominator of which is the sum of the yearly averages
calculated under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section for each employer
liable for reallocation liability.
* * * * *
(3) Contribution base unit. For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, a contribution base unit means a unit with respect to
which an employer has an obligation to contribute, such as an hour
worked or shift worked or a unit of production, under the applicable
collective bargaining agreement (or other agreement pursuant to which
the employer contributes) or with respect to which the employer would
have an obligation to contribute if the contribution requirement with
respect to the plan were greater than zero.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, this 23 day of December 2008.
Charles E.F. Millard,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Issued on the date set forth above pursuant to a resolution of
the Board of Directors authorizing publication of this final rule.
Judith R. Starr,
Secretary, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. E8-31015 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-01-P