Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 77264-77267 [2011-31742]
Download as PDF
77264
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2011 / Notices
insurance recipients. The research
questions are:
a. What are the characteristics of
COBRA- and subsidy-eligible
individuals? Documenting the extent of
COBRA- and subsidy-eligibility and the
characteristics of subsidy-eligible and
ineligible individuals will provide a
picture of what types of individuals
have the potential to benefit from the
subsidy. As with any program, the
subsidy may have failed to reach some
of the intended recipients or it may have
benefited some individuals who did not
need these benefits as much as others.
Documenting such unintended
consequences may suggest ways that the
programs similar to the subsidy could
be targeted more efficiently. In addition,
understanding who is eligible for the
subsidy will provide a context for
interpreting the results of the impact
analysis of the effectiveness of the
subsidy in increasing take-up of
COBRA, described below.
b. What are the characteristics of
COBRA enrollees? By documenting the
characteristics of individuals who enroll
or choose not to enroll in COBRA, we
can identify the most important
predictors of take-up. As with
understanding the characteristics of
COBRA- and subsidy-eligible
individuals, the characteristics of
COBRA enrollees and non-enrollees will
help identify whether COBRA and the
subsidy are benefitting the intended
recipients. Identifying characteristics
that are correlated to take-up may also
provide suggestive evidence on why
individuals chose to enroll or not to
enroll in COBRA, and how these
compare with individuals’ self-reported
reasons for their choices. Such analyses
may provide information that could
help policymakers adjust program
elements to increase take-up rates.
c. What is the impact of the subsidy
on COBRA take-up and other outcomes?
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the policy, we must estimate its impact,
or how much COBRA take-up rates and
other outcomes changed because of the
policy. This analysis will provide
policymakers with a sense of whether
the subsidy had the intended effects on
the main outcome of interest which is
COBRA coverage, as well as whether it
affected other related outcomes of
interest. The subgroup analyses will
provide insights on whether the
subsidies had similar effects on various
groups of workers, or whether it
benefited some groups more than others.
These types of estimates may be
particularly useful in evaluating the
cost-effectiveness of the subsidy.
2. Desired Focus of Comments:
Currently, the Department of Labor is
soliciting comments concerning the
above data collection. Comments are
requested which:
a. Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
b. Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
c. Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
d. Minimize the burden of the
information collection on those who are
to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submissions of responses.
Agency: Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy.
Type of Review: New Collection.
Title of Collection: American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act COBRA
Subsidy Survey.
OMB Number: XXXX–XXXX.
Affected Public: Unemployment
insurance recipients who became
unemployed between February 17, 2009
and March 31, 2011 across 20 states.
Cite/Reference/Form/etc: American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
UI recipients
Screeners
Full interviews
22,000–26,000
1
2
733–867
5,800
1
45
4,350
Total Burden Cost ....................................................................................................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Number of Respondents ..................................................................................................................
Responses per Respondent ............................................................................................................
Minutes per Response .....................................................................................................................
Total Respondent Burden (Hours) ..................................................................................................
$10,555–$12,485
$62,640
The total burden cost represents an
estimated two minutes to complete the
screener and 45 minutes to complete the
full interview multiplied by the number
of respondents, using an estimated
average hourly wage of $14.40 per hour.
Comments submitted in response to this
request will be summarized and/or
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval; they
will also become a matter of public
record.
Comments submitted in response to
this request will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval; they will also become a matter
of public record.
Signed: At Washington, DC, this 6th day of
December 2011.
William E. Spriggs,
Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–31824 Filed 12–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
Exemptions From Certain Prohibited
Transaction Restrictions
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Dec 09, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Grant of Individual Exemptions.
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: This document contains
exemptions issued by the Department of
Labor (the Department) from certain of
the prohibited transaction restrictions of
the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act)
and/or the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (the Code). This notice includes
the following: D–11661, Bayer
Corporation (Bayer or the Applicants),
PTE 2011–23; L–11618, OregonWashington Carpenters Employers
Apprenticeship and Training Trust
Fund (the Plan), PTE 2011–24: A notice
was published in the Federal Register of
the pendency before the Department of
a proposal to grant such exemption. The
notice set forth a summary of facts and
representations contained in the
application for exemption and referred
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2011 / Notices
interested persons to the application for
a complete statement of the facts and
representations. The application has
been available for public inspection at
the Department in Washington, DC. The
notice also invited interested persons to
submit comments on the requested
exemption to the Department. In
addition the notice stated that any
interested person might submit a
written request that a public hearing be
held (where appropriate). The applicant
has represented that it has complied
with the requirements of the notification
to interested persons. No requests for a
hearing were received by the
Department. Public comments were
received by the Department as described
in the granted exemption.
The notice of proposed exemption
was issued and the exemption is being
granted solely by the Department
because, effective December 31, 1978,
section 102 of Reorganization Plan No.
4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996),
transferred the authority of the Secretary
of the Treasury to issue exemptions of
the type proposed to the Secretary of
Labor.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Statutory Findings
In accordance with section 408(a) of
the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the
Code and the procedures set forth in 29
CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836,
32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon
the entire record, the Department makes
the following findings:
(a) The exemption is administratively
feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests
of the plan and its participants and
beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the
rights of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan.
Bayer Corporation (Bayer or the
Applicant) Located in Pittsburgh,
PA
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption
2011–23; Exemption Application
No. D–11661]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of
the Act and the sanctions resulting from
the application of section 4975(c)(1)(A)
and (E) of the Code, shall not apply,
effective September 14, 2011, to the onetime, in kind contribution (the
Contribution) of certain U.S. Treasury
Bills (the Securities) to the Bayer
Corporation Pension Plan (the Plan) by
the Applicant, a party in interest with
respect to the Plan, provided that the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) In addition to the Securities, Bayer
contributed to the Plan, by September
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Dec 09, 2011
Jkt 226001
15, 2011, such cash amounts as are
needed to allow the Plan to attain an
Adjusted Funding Target Attainment
Percentage (AFTAP) of 90%, as
determined by the Plan’s actuary (the
Actuary);
(b) The fair market value of the
Securities was determined by Bayer on
the date of the Contribution (the
Contribution Date) based on the average
of the bid and ask prices as of 3 p.m.
Eastern Time, as quoted in The Wall
Street Journal on the Contribution Date;
(c) The Securities represented less
than 20% of the Plan’s assets.
(d) The terms of the Contribution
were no less favorable to the Plan than
those negotiated at arm’s length under
similar circumstances between
unrelated parties;
(e) The Plan paid no commissions,
costs or fees with respect to the
Contribution; and
(f) The Plan fiduciaries reviewed and
approved the methodology used to
value to the Securities and ensured that
such methodology was properly applied
in determining the fair market value of
the Securities.
DATES: Effective Date: This exemption is
effective as of September 14, 2011.
Written Comments
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption
(76 FR 49795, August 11, 2011)(the
Notice), the Department invited all
interested persons to submit written
comments and requests for a hearing on
the Notice within forty (40) days of the
date of the publication of such Notice in
the Federal Register. All comments and
requests for a hearing from interested
persons were due by September 20,
2011.
During the comment period, the
Department received over 150 telephone
calls, 15 written comments, which
included one from Bayer, and 3 requests
for a public hearing. The majority of
telephone callers requested an
explanation of the Notice while a
minority expressed opposition to the
granting of the Notice because of
concern that the Securities were not safe
investments for the Plan.
With respect to the written comments
that were submitted by Plan participants
or beneficiaries, four commenters said
they were in favor of the Department
granting the exemption while ten
commenters said they were opposed
due to concern that the Securities were
not a safe investment for the Plan. Three
such commenters requested that a
public hearing be convened, but they
did not raise any material issues that
would warrant a hearing.
The sole substantive written
comments received by the Department
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77265
were submitted by 2 commenters in
identical letters requesting that Bayer
explain: (1) Certain benefit restrictions
that would be imposed on Plan
participants in the absence of the
Contribution; (2) Bayer’s rationale for
making bonus payments to active
employees rather than making up Plan
losses; and (3) Bayer’s rationale for
allowing profits from its U.S. operations
to be taken overseas while neglecting
the Plan.
With respect to their first comment
regarding benefit restrictions, the
commenters asked why Bayer had
mentioned the potential restrictions of
sections 206(g) of the Act and section
436(d)(3) of the Code in its application,
which would limit lump sum payments
to 50% of the participant’s benefit and
would defer Plan Social Security level
income payouts. In response, to the
commenters’ concern, Bayer stated that
the Pension Protection Act required it to
fund a minimum required amount based
on an actuarial calculation, which for
Plan Year 2010 was approximately $13
million. Consistent with past practice,
Bayer explained that its goal for Plan
Year 2010 was to fund the Plan at 90%
or greater AFTAP level. To reach this
objective, Bayer said it would contribute
$300 million in Securities to the Plan.
As a result, Bayer believed the
exemption would benefit the
participants by adding an extra $285
million of value into the Plan above the
minimum funding requirement.
In their second comment, the
commenters asked Bayer why it had
paid out generous bonuses to all active
employees over the last two years
instead of paying lost monies when the
Plan had investment losses of 28% in
2008. In response, Bayer explained that
it would meet its minimum funding
obligation requirement for Plan Year
2010. Since 2008, Bayer noted that it
had consistently exceeded the minimum
funding requirement. Bayer also
explained it had an obligation to pay
bonuses in order to attract and retain
talent.
In their third comment, the
commenters questioned why Bayer had
been allowed to take profits made from
its U.S. operations out of the country,
when the Plan had not been paid up to
the extent required. In response, Bayer
explained that since 2008, it has
exceeded the funding requirements
irrespective of its financial performance.
The Applicant’s Comment
Bayer submitted a written comment
requesting certain clarifications to the
Notice. First, in order to comply with
the wishes of its Tax Department, Bayer
requested that it be allowed to make the
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
77266
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Contribution on September 14, 2011
instead of September 15, 2011.
The Department concurred with this
date change shortly before the
Contribution and it has revised the grant
notice in the operative language in the
transaction description and in the
section captioned ‘‘Effective Date’’ to
reflect the actual Contribution date of
September 14, 2011. The Department
also notes a corresponding change to the
Notice on page 49796 in Representation
13.
Second, Bayer requested that on page
49795, Representation 2 of the Notice
should be amended to state that the Plan
had total assets of ‘‘$2,126,444,422’’
instead of ‘‘$2,126,444,442.’’ In
response, the Department notes this
revision to Representation 2 of the
Notice.
Third, Bayer requested that the
heading ‘‘Plan Funding for Plan Year
2011’’ on page 49795 of the Notice be
modified to read ‘‘Plan Funding for Plan
Year 2010’’ instead. The Department
notes this change to page 49795 of the
Notice.
Fourth, Bayer requested that on page
49795 of the Notice, the first sentence of
Representation 4, which states that the
AFTAP funding level for the Plans
ranges from ‘‘90% to 96%’’ should be
changed to ‘‘90% to 98%.’’ The
Department notes this modification to
Representation 4 of the Notice.
Fifth, Bayer requested that on page
49796 of the Notice, the third sentence
of Representation 12 which reads: ‘‘The
Applicant states that the proposed
Contribution also would violate sections
406(b)(1) and (2) of the Act,’’ should be
revised by changing the words ‘‘would
violate’’ to ‘‘may implicate.’’ In response
to this comment, the Department
disagrees with this modification
requested by Bayer because the
Contribution would have constituted a
violation of section 406(b)(1) and (2) of
the Act, absent an administrative
exemption. Accordingly, the
Department has not noted this
clarification to the Notice.
Contribution Amount Discrepancy
At the Department’s request, Bayer
confirmed that it had made the
Contribution to the Plan on September
14, 2011. The face value of the
Securities as of 3 p.m. Eastern Time on
September 14, 2011 was $299,997,330.
Bayer contributed an additional $2,670
in cash to bring the Contribution to
$300,000,000. Then, Bayer made an
additional cash contribution of
$4,997,330 to the Plan. Bayer
represented that the Contribution and
the additional cash contribution raised
the Plan’s AFTAP to 92.56%. However,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Dec 09, 2011
Jkt 226001
the total cash contribution of $5,000,000
differed from the estimated $58 million
cash contribution discussed in
Representation 14 of the Notice. This
discrepancy concerned the Department,
which requested a written explanation
from Bayer.
Subsequently, Bayer submitted an
explanation prepared by the Plan’s
Actuary, which attributed this
discrepancy to in large part to 2010
investment returns of approximately
14% instead of the assumed 8% rate of
return. Additional factors considered by
the Plan’s Actuary included the use of
actual census data and the reflection of
updated prescribed assumptions,
including an actual 6.29% effective
interest rate instead of an assumed
6.20% effective interest rate. As a result,
Bayer had only to contribute
approximately $305 million in cash and
the Securities to obtain an AFTAP of
92.56%.
The Department reviewed the
Actuary’s explanation, the Actuary’s
Plan estimates as of November 1, 2010,
the Bayer Corporation Pension Plan
Actuarial Valuation Report for Plan Year
Beginning January 1, 2011 (the
Actuary’s Report), the Actuary’s Report
for Plan Year Beginning January 1, 2010,
and supporting memoranda. The
Department used the submitted
information to estimate what would
have been (1) the Plan’s assets as of
January 1, 2011, (2) the funding target,
and (3) the funding target asset
percentage, based on the Plan’s
investment rate of return for 2010 and
the effective interest rate for 2011, that
were assumed by the Plan’s Actuary
when it prepared the November 1, 2010
estimates of the then estimated $358
million contribution. Based on the
Department’s findings, the lowering of
the funding contribution by $50 million
to a total contribution of $308 million
(which also included a $3.5 million
cash contribution that Bayer made to the
Plan in January 2011), seemed
reasonable.
Accordingly, after giving full
consideration to the entire record,
including the Applicant’s written
comments and the written comments
and requests for a public hearing
submitted by Plan participants and
beneficiaries, the Department has
determined to grant the exemption as
clarified herein. For a more complete
statement of the facts and
representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption, refer to the Notice published
on August 11, 2011 at 76 FR 49795.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at (202)
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
693–8648. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
Oregon-Washington Carpenters
Employers Apprenticeship and Training
Trust Fund (the Plan) Located in
Portland, Oregon
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption
2011–24; Exemption Application No. L–
11618]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act, shall not
apply to the sale by the Plan of certain
unimproved real property known as
‘‘Tax Lot 300’’ and ‘‘Tax Lot 400’’
(together, the Tax Lots or the Property),
to the Pacific Northwest Regional
Council of Carpenters (the Union), a
party in interest with respect to the
Plan, provided that the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) The sale is a one-time transaction
for cash;
(b) At the time of the sale, the Plan
receives the greater of either: (1)
$390,000; or (2) the fair market value of
the Property as established by a
qualified, independent appraiser in an
updated appraisal of such Property on
the date of the sale;
(c) The Plan pays no fees,
commissions or other expenses
associated with the sale;
(d) The terms and conditions of the
sale are at least as favorable to the Plan
as those obtainable in an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated third
party;
(e) The Plan trustees appointed by the
Union recuse themselves from
discussions and voting with respect to
the Plan’s decision to enter into the
proposed sale; and
(f) The Plan trustees appointed by the
employer associations, who have no
interest in the proposed sale, (1)
determine, among other things, whether
it is in the best interest of the Plan to
proceed with the sale of the Property;
(2) review and approve the methodology
used in the appraisal that is being relied
upon; and (3) ensure that such
methodology is applied by the qualified,
independent appraiser in determining
the fair market value of the Property on
the date of the sale.
For a complete statement of the facts
and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption, refer to the notice of
proposed exemption published on
September 26, 2011 in the Federal
Register at 76 FR 59438.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jan D. Broady of the Department at (202)
693–8556. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2011 / Notices
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
of the Act, which among other things
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption is supplemental to
and not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transactional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of this exemption
is subject to the express condition that
the material facts and representations
contained in the application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of
December, 2011.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011–31742 Filed 12–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket No. OSHA–2011–0195]
Acrylonitrile Standard; Extension of
the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public
comments concerning its proposal to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:55 Dec 09, 2011
Jkt 226001
extend the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements
specified by the Acrylonitrile Standard
(29 CFR 1910.1045).
DATES: Comments must be submitted
(postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 10, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may
submit comments and attachments
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for submitting
comments.
Facsimile: If your comments,
including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the
OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger, or courier service: When
using this method, you must submit a
copy of your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA–2011–0195, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–2625,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and
courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor’s and Docket
Office’s normal business hours,
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA–2011–0195) for
this Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Public
Participation’’ heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the
docket (including this Federal Register
notice) are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index; however,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of
the ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77267
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room
N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Department of Labor, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent (i.e., employer) burden,
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and continuing information collection
requirements in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program
ensures that information is in the
desired format, reporting burden (time
and costs) is minimal, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA’s estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection
by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act
or for developing information regarding
the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act
also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden
upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to
reduce to the maximum extent feasible
unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
The information collection
requirements specified in the
Acrylonitrile (AN) Standard protect
workers from the adverse health effects
that may result from their exposure to
AN. The major information collection
requirements of the AN Standard
include notifying workers of their AN
exposures, implementing a written
compliance program, providing
examining physicians with specific
information, ensuring that workers
receive a copy of their medical
examination results, maintaining
workers’ exposure monitoring and
medical records for specific periods,
and providing access to these records by
OSHA, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, the
affected workers, and designated
representatives.
II. Special Issues for Comment
OSHA has a particular interest in
comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information
collection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions, including whether
the information is useful;
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77264-77267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31742]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of
Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction
restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
This notice includes the following: D-11661, Bayer Corporation (Bayer
or the Applicants), PTE 2011-23; L-11618, Oregon-Washington Carpenters
Employers Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund (the Plan), PTE 2011-
24: A notice was published in the Federal Register of the pendency
before the Department of a proposal to grant such exemption. The notice
set forth a summary of facts and representations contained in the
application for exemption and referred
[[Page 77265]]
interested persons to the application for a complete statement of the
facts and representations. The application has been available for
public inspection at the Department in Washington, DC. The notice also
invited interested persons to submit comments on the requested
exemption to the Department. In addition the notice stated that any
interested person might submit a written request that a public hearing
be held (where appropriate). The applicant has represented that it has
complied with the requirements of the notification to interested
persons. No requests for a hearing were received by the Department.
Public comments were received by the Department as described in the
granted exemption.
The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is
being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31,
1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1
(1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor.
Statutory Findings
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part
2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon
the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:
(a) The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its
participants and beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants
and beneficiaries of the plan.
Bayer Corporation (Bayer or the Applicant) Located in Pittsburgh, PA
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-23; Exemption Application No. D-
11661]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2)
of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section
4975(c)(1)(A) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply, effective September
14, 2011, to the one-time, in kind contribution (the Contribution) of
certain U.S. Treasury Bills (the Securities) to the Bayer Corporation
Pension Plan (the Plan) by the Applicant, a party in interest with
respect to the Plan, provided that the following conditions are
satisfied:
(a) In addition to the Securities, Bayer contributed to the Plan,
by September 15, 2011, such cash amounts as are needed to allow the
Plan to attain an Adjusted Funding Target Attainment Percentage (AFTAP)
of 90%, as determined by the Plan's actuary (the Actuary);
(b) The fair market value of the Securities was determined by Bayer
on the date of the Contribution (the Contribution Date) based on the
average of the bid and ask prices as of 3 p.m. Eastern Time, as quoted
in The Wall Street Journal on the Contribution Date;
(c) The Securities represented less than 20% of the Plan's assets.
(d) The terms of the Contribution were no less favorable to the
Plan than those negotiated at arm's length under similar circumstances
between unrelated parties;
(e) The Plan paid no commissions, costs or fees with respect to the
Contribution; and
(f) The Plan fiduciaries reviewed and approved the methodology used
to value to the Securities and ensured that such methodology was
properly applied in determining the fair market value of the
Securities.
DATES: Effective Date: This exemption is effective as of September 14,
2011.
Written Comments
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption (76 FR 49795, August 11,
2011)(the Notice), the Department invited all interested persons to
submit written comments and requests for a hearing on the Notice within
forty (40) days of the date of the publication of such Notice in the
Federal Register. All comments and requests for a hearing from
interested persons were due by September 20, 2011.
During the comment period, the Department received over 150
telephone calls, 15 written comments, which included one from Bayer,
and 3 requests for a public hearing. The majority of telephone callers
requested an explanation of the Notice while a minority expressed
opposition to the granting of the Notice because of concern that the
Securities were not safe investments for the Plan.
With respect to the written comments that were submitted by Plan
participants or beneficiaries, four commenters said they were in favor
of the Department granting the exemption while ten commenters said they
were opposed due to concern that the Securities were not a safe
investment for the Plan. Three such commenters requested that a public
hearing be convened, but they did not raise any material issues that
would warrant a hearing.
The sole substantive written comments received by the Department
were submitted by 2 commenters in identical letters requesting that
Bayer explain: (1) Certain benefit restrictions that would be imposed
on Plan participants in the absence of the Contribution; (2) Bayer's
rationale for making bonus payments to active employees rather than
making up Plan losses; and (3) Bayer's rationale for allowing profits
from its U.S. operations to be taken overseas while neglecting the
Plan.
With respect to their first comment regarding benefit restrictions,
the commenters asked why Bayer had mentioned the potential restrictions
of sections 206(g) of the Act and section 436(d)(3) of the Code in its
application, which would limit lump sum payments to 50% of the
participant's benefit and would defer Plan Social Security level income
payouts. In response, to the commenters' concern, Bayer stated that the
Pension Protection Act required it to fund a minimum required amount
based on an actuarial calculation, which for Plan Year 2010 was
approximately $13 million. Consistent with past practice, Bayer
explained that its goal for Plan Year 2010 was to fund the Plan at 90%
or greater AFTAP level. To reach this objective, Bayer said it would
contribute $300 million in Securities to the Plan. As a result, Bayer
believed the exemption would benefit the participants by adding an
extra $285 million of value into the Plan above the minimum funding
requirement.
In their second comment, the commenters asked Bayer why it had paid
out generous bonuses to all active employees over the last two years
instead of paying lost monies when the Plan had investment losses of
28% in 2008. In response, Bayer explained that it would meet its
minimum funding obligation requirement for Plan Year 2010. Since 2008,
Bayer noted that it had consistently exceeded the minimum funding
requirement. Bayer also explained it had an obligation to pay bonuses
in order to attract and retain talent.
In their third comment, the commenters questioned why Bayer had
been allowed to take profits made from its U.S. operations out of the
country, when the Plan had not been paid up to the extent required. In
response, Bayer explained that since 2008, it has exceeded the funding
requirements irrespective of its financial performance.
The Applicant's Comment
Bayer submitted a written comment requesting certain clarifications
to the Notice. First, in order to comply with the wishes of its Tax
Department, Bayer requested that it be allowed to make the
[[Page 77266]]
Contribution on September 14, 2011 instead of September 15, 2011.
The Department concurred with this date change shortly before the
Contribution and it has revised the grant notice in the operative
language in the transaction description and in the section captioned
``Effective Date'' to reflect the actual Contribution date of September
14, 2011. The Department also notes a corresponding change to the
Notice on page 49796 in Representation 13.
Second, Bayer requested that on page 49795, Representation 2 of the
Notice should be amended to state that the Plan had total assets of
``$2,126,444,422'' instead of ``$2,126,444,442.'' In response, the
Department notes this revision to Representation 2 of the Notice.
Third, Bayer requested that the heading ``Plan Funding for Plan
Year 2011'' on page 49795 of the Notice be modified to read ``Plan
Funding for Plan Year 2010'' instead. The Department notes this change
to page 49795 of the Notice.
Fourth, Bayer requested that on page 49795 of the Notice, the first
sentence of Representation 4, which states that the AFTAP funding level
for the Plans ranges from ``90% to 96%'' should be changed to ``90% to
98%.'' The Department notes this modification to Representation 4 of
the Notice.
Fifth, Bayer requested that on page 49796 of the Notice, the third
sentence of Representation 12 which reads: ``The Applicant states that
the proposed Contribution also would violate sections 406(b)(1) and (2)
of the Act,'' should be revised by changing the words ``would violate''
to ``may implicate.'' In response to this comment, the Department
disagrees with this modification requested by Bayer because the
Contribution would have constituted a violation of section 406(b)(1)
and (2) of the Act, absent an administrative exemption. Accordingly,
the Department has not noted this clarification to the Notice.
Contribution Amount Discrepancy
At the Department's request, Bayer confirmed that it had made the
Contribution to the Plan on September 14, 2011. The face value of the
Securities as of 3 p.m. Eastern Time on September 14, 2011 was
$299,997,330. Bayer contributed an additional $2,670 in cash to bring
the Contribution to $300,000,000. Then, Bayer made an additional cash
contribution of $4,997,330 to the Plan. Bayer represented that the
Contribution and the additional cash contribution raised the Plan's
AFTAP to 92.56%. However, the total cash contribution of $5,000,000
differed from the estimated $58 million cash contribution discussed in
Representation 14 of the Notice. This discrepancy concerned the
Department, which requested a written explanation from Bayer.
Subsequently, Bayer submitted an explanation prepared by the Plan's
Actuary, which attributed this discrepancy to in large part to 2010
investment returns of approximately 14% instead of the assumed 8% rate
of return. Additional factors considered by the Plan's Actuary included
the use of actual census data and the reflection of updated prescribed
assumptions, including an actual 6.29% effective interest rate instead
of an assumed 6.20% effective interest rate. As a result, Bayer had
only to contribute approximately $305 million in cash and the
Securities to obtain an AFTAP of 92.56%.
The Department reviewed the Actuary's explanation, the Actuary's
Plan estimates as of November 1, 2010, the Bayer Corporation Pension
Plan Actuarial Valuation Report for Plan Year Beginning January 1, 2011
(the Actuary's Report), the Actuary's Report for Plan Year Beginning
January 1, 2010, and supporting memoranda. The Department used the
submitted information to estimate what would have been (1) the Plan's
assets as of January 1, 2011, (2) the funding target, and (3) the
funding target asset percentage, based on the Plan's investment rate of
return for 2010 and the effective interest rate for 2011, that were
assumed by the Plan's Actuary when it prepared the November 1, 2010
estimates of the then estimated $358 million contribution. Based on the
Department's findings, the lowering of the funding contribution by $50
million to a total contribution of $308 million (which also included a
$3.5 million cash contribution that Bayer made to the Plan in January
2011), seemed reasonable.
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record,
including the Applicant's written comments and the written comments and
requests for a public hearing submitted by Plan participants and
beneficiaries, the Department has determined to grant the exemption as
clarified herein. For a more complete statement of the facts and
representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this
exemption, refer to the Notice published on August 11, 2011 at 76 FR
49795.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at
(202) 693-8648. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Oregon-Washington Carpenters Employers Apprenticeship and Training
Trust Fund (the Plan) Located in Portland, Oregon
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-24; Exemption Application No. L-
11618]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act, shall
not apply to the sale by the Plan of certain unimproved real property
known as ``Tax Lot 300'' and ``Tax Lot 400'' (together, the Tax Lots or
the Property), to the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters
(the Union), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided
that the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The sale is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) At the time of the sale, the Plan receives the greater of
either: (1) $390,000; or (2) the fair market value of the Property as
established by a qualified, independent appraiser in an updated
appraisal of such Property on the date of the sale;
(c) The Plan pays no fees, commissions or other expenses associated
with the sale;
(d) The terms and conditions of the sale are at least as favorable
to the Plan as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an
unrelated third party;
(e) The Plan trustees appointed by the Union recuse themselves from
discussions and voting with respect to the Plan's decision to enter
into the proposed sale; and
(f) The Plan trustees appointed by the employer associations, who
have no interest in the proposed sale, (1) determine, among other
things, whether it is in the best interest of the Plan to proceed with
the sale of the Property; (2) review and approve the methodology used
in the appraisal that is being relied upon; and (3) ensure that such
methodology is applied by the qualified, independent appraiser in
determining the fair market value of the Property on the date of the
sale.
For a complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the notice of proposed exemption published on September 26, 2011 in the
Federal Register at 76 FR 59438.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the Department at
(202) 693-8556. (This is not a toll-free number.)
[[Page 77267]]
General Information
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code
does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified
person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not
apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section
404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to
discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in
accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the
requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate
for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any
other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or
administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the
fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory
exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express
condition that the material facts and representations contained in the
application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction
which is the subject of the exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of December, 2011.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011-31742 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P