Notice of Approval of Alternative Arbitration Procedure; American Arbitration Association, 67484-67487 [2019-26519]
Download as PDF
67484
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2019 / Notices
The NRC is holding the meetings
under the authority of the Government
in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of December 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Denise L. McGovern,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–26681 Filed 12–6–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Notice of Approval of Alternative
Arbitration Procedure; American
Arbitration Association
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of approval.
AGENCY:
This notice advises interested
persons that the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has
approved a request from the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) for
approval of an alternative arbitration
procedure.
DATES: PBGC’s approval of the AAA’s
alternative arbitration procedure is
effective January 1, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce Perlin (Perlin.Bruce@PBGC.gov),
202–326–4020, ext. 6818, Office of the
General Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K
Street NW, Washington, DC 20005–
4026; (TTY users may call the Federal
relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–
8339 and ask to be connected to 202–
326–4020, extension 6818 or 6757.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Background
Section 4221(a)(1) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), as amended by the
Multiemployer Pension Plan
Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA),
requires ‘‘any dispute’’ between an
employer and a multiemployer pension
plan concerning a withdrawal liability
determination to be ‘‘resolved through
arbitration.’’ Under the MPPAA, an
employer has 90 days after receipt of
notice of a withdrawal liability
assessment to request review of that
assessment. ERISA § 4219(b)(2)(A). If
there remains a dispute about the
assessment of withdrawal liability, the
employer may ‘‘initiate’’ arbitration of
the dispute within a 60-day period after
the earlier of (i) the date the employer
was notified of the plan’s response to
the employer’s request for review, or (ii)
120 days after the date that the
employer requested review of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Dec 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
withdrawal liability. ERISA § 4221(a)(1).
If the employer fails to timely initiate
arbitration, the assessment becomes due
and owing and the plan sponsor may
bring an action in a state or federal court
to collect the assessment. ERISA
§ 4221(b).
The MPPAA directed PBGC to
promulgate fair and equitable
procedures for the conduct of an
arbitration under section 4221 of ERISA.
PBGC’s implementing regulation,
‘‘Arbitration of Disputes in
Multiemployer Plans’’ (29 CFR part
4221), was designed to provide
procedures to facilitate prompt
resolution of disputes by an impartial
arbitrator, facilitating expeditious
resolutions of disputes concerning an
employer’s withdrawal liability. PBGC’s
default arbitration procedures provide
rules for the appointment and powers of
the arbitrator, rules for discovery and
hearings, and rules for awards, costs,
filing and service (§§ 4221.4–4221.13).
Scope of Alternative Arbitration
Procedures
In lieu of the default procedures,
under § 4221.14 of PBGC’s arbitration
regulation, an arbitration may be
conducted in accordance with an
alternative arbitration procedure
approved by PBGC in accordance with
§ 4221.14(c). Certain rules applicable to
the default procedures cannot be varied
in any alternative procedure. 29 CFR
4221.14(b). If an arbitration is
conducted under a PBGC-approved
alternative procedure, the alternative
procedure governs all aspects of the
arbitration, with the following
exceptions provided in § 4221.14(b):
The time limits for initiating arbitration
may not differ from the time limits
provided § 4221.3; the arbitrator must be
selected after the initiation of
arbitration; the arbitrator must give the
parties an opportunity for prehearing
discovery that is substantially
equivalent to that required by
§ 4221.5(a)(2); copies of the award must
be made available to the public at least
to the extent mandated by § 4221.8(g);
and the arbitration costs must be
allocated in accordance with § 4221.10.
Process for Approval of Alternative
Arbitration Procedures
Under § 4221.14(c) PBGC may
approve arbitration procedures on its
own initiative by publishing an
appropriate notice in the Federal
Register. Additionally, the sponsor of an
arbitration procedure may request PBGC
approval of its procedures by submitting
an application to PBGC. The application
must include: (1) A copy of the
procedures for which approval is
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sought; (2) a description of the history,
structure and membership of the
organization that sponsors the
procedures; and (3) a description of the
reasons why, in the sponsoring
organization’s opinion, the procedures
satisfy the criteria for approval set forth
in this section.
Criteria for Approval of Alternative
Procedures
Under § 4221.21(d), PBGC shall
approve an application if it determines
that the proposed procedures will be
substantially fair to all parties involved
in the arbitration of a withdrawal
liability dispute and that the sponsoring
organization is neutral and able to carry
out its role under the procedures. PBGC
may request comments on the
application by publishing an
appropriate notice in the Federal
Register and notice of PBGC’s decision
on the application shall be published in
the Federal Register. Unless the notice
of approval specifies otherwise,
approval will remain effective until
revoked by PBGC through a Federal
Register notice.
AAA’s Alternative Arbitration Rules—
1981 & 1986 MPPAR
In 1985, on its own initiative, PBGC
approved the 1981 Multiemployer
Pension Plan Arbitration Rules for
Withdrawal Liability Disputes (the
‘‘1981 MPPAR’’), an alternative
arbitration procedure sponsored by the
International Foundation of Employee
Benefit Plans and administered by the
American Arbitration Association
(AAA). 50 FR 38046 (Sept. 19, 1985). In
1986, PBGC approved AAA’s request to
use an amended MPPAR (the ‘‘1986
MPPAR’’) which eliminated certain
procedural differences from the 1981
MPPAR and PBGC’s final arbitration
regulation. 51 FR 22585 (June 20, 1986).
The administrative fee schedule for
handling arbitrations in the 1986
MPPAR was applicable until 2013, at
which point AAA adopted an updated
2013 Fee Schedule, creating a revised
MPPAR, effective February 1, 2013
(‘‘2013 MPPAR’’). The new
Administrative Fee Schedule provides
for increases to the Initial Filing Fee,
establishes two different fee
arrangements—the Standard and
Flexible Fee Schedules, and adds a
‘‘Final Fee’’ under each schedule and a
‘‘Proceed Fee’’ in the flexible schedule
context. Other than significant changes
to the Administrative Fee Schedule and
the removal of language regarding the
apportionment of fees, the 2013 MPPAR
are identical to the 1986 MPPAR that
PBGC previously approved. Under
§ 4221.14, AAA has requested PBGC
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
67485
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2019 / Notices
approval of the updated proposed 2013
MPPAR (the ‘‘Application’’).
Procedural Background
PBGC published a notice of the AAA’s
request in the Federal Register at 81 FR
15578 (March 23, 2016), to advise
interested persons of the AAA’s
Application for approval and solicit
their views on it. PBGC received four
comments in response to the March 23,
2016 notice. PBGC then invited AAA to
respond to the public comments. PBGC
published AAA’s response in the
Federal Register at 82 FR 27089 (June
13, 2017), and solicited additional
comments. PBGC received one final
comment. After the final comment
period closed, PBGC and AAA began
discussions on changes to the 2013
MPPAR.
AAA’s Application
AAA’s Application included the
necessary information under
§ 4221.14(c): A copy of the 2013
MPPAR; a description of the history,
structure and membership of AAA; and
a discussion of the reasons why, in
AAA’s opinion, the 2013 MPPAR
satisfies the criteria for PBGC approval
under § 4221.14(d). In response to the
public comments and discussions
between AAA and PBGC, AAA
submitted the proposed rules modifying
the 2013 MPPAR (‘‘the 2019 Rules’’),
which completely revised the applicable
fee schedule, added language regarding
the apportionment of fees, and revised
procedural rules related to the arbitrator
selection process.
Section 4221.14(c)(2)—History and
Structure of AAA
AAA’s Application provided:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
The American Arbitration Association
(AAA), is a not-for-profit organization with
offices throughout the U.S. as well as abroad.
AAA has a long history and experience in the
field of alternative dispute resolution,
providing services to individuals and
organizations who wish to resolve conflicts
out of court. The AAA is named in 40 federal
statutes and regulations, as well as over 300
state statutes and regulations. The AAA is
not a membership organization.
The AAA role in the dispute resolution
process is to administer cases, from filing to
closing. The AAA provides administrative
services in the U.S., as well as abroad
through its International Centre for Dispute
Resolution (ICDR). The AAA’s and ICDR’s
administrative services include assisting in
the appointment of mediators and arbitrators,
setting hearings, and providing users with
information on dispute resolution options,
including settlement through mediation.
Ultimately, the AAA aims to move cases
through arbitration or mediation in a fair and
impartial manner until completion.
Additional AAA services include the
design and development of alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) systems for
corporations, unions, government agencies,
law firms, and the courts. The Association
also provides elections services as well as
education, training, and publications for
those seeking a broader or deeper
understanding of alternative dispute
resolution.
Section 4221.14(c)(3)—Discussion of
Why the 2013 MPPAR Satisfies the
Criteria for PBGC Approval Under
§ 4221.14(d)
AAA’s Application provided:
The American Arbitration Association
(AAA) has been administering the cases that
fall under the Multiemployer Pension Plan
Arbitration Rules for Withdrawal Liability
Disputes for thirty-four (34) years. The rules
that have been previously approved by the
PBGC are effective June 1, 1981 and revised
effective September 1, 1986. The AAA’s 1986
MEPPA Rules did not change; the only
update made was to increase the
administrative fees for handling MEPPA
arbitrations from the 1986 fee schedule to the
2013 fee schedule.
The AAA has provided quality
administration on this caseload and based on
parties and arbitrator feedback, the AAA’s
service is valued and should continue to be
available. However, as a not-for profit
organization that receives funding only
through the administrative fees earned on
cases, we need to ensure that the costs
associated with the administration of a
particular caseload do not vastly exceed the
fees earned.
The fee increase implemented by the AAA
was necessary because of the substantial
administrative costs and staffing associated
with these complex arbitrations. In
particular, MEPPA arbitrations are similar to
many of the large complex arbitrations
administered by the AAA. They tend to be
highly contentious, involve large dollar
amounts, the parties engage in voluminous
discovery, and there can be multiple
preliminary calls as well as multiple days of
evidentiary hearings, can be pending for long
periods of time, involve bifurcated issues and
extensive briefing.
The AAA also found it necessary to
implement a substantially heightened
arbitrator disclosure requirements based on
the nature of the MEPPA cases. All of these
factors were considered when reviewing the
fee schedule and a determination was made
to change the fees from the 1986 $650.00 fee
to the 2013 fee schedule. The 1986 fee
schedule provided the AAA discretion to set
the fee where the net amount in dispute was
in excess of $5 million. Given this level of
discretion provided in the 1986 fee schedule,
the AAA did set administrative fees
equivalent to those reflected in the 2013 fee
schedule for cases with claims in excess of
$5 million. In addition, the 2013 fee schedule
is the same schedule the AAA has applied to
other arbitrations caseloads that are similarly
complex.
The American Arbitration Association was
founded in 1926, following enactment of the
Federal Arbitration Act, with the specific
goal of helping to implement arbitration as an
out-of-court solution to resolving disputes.
This legal framework was passed by Congress
and signed by President Calvin Coolidge. The
AAA’s staff members and neutrals continue
to live out the principles on which the
Association was founded.
The AAA’s official mission statement and
vision statement are based on three core
values: Integrity, conflict management, and
service. We have a long term working
relationship with the Arbitrators on the
MEPPA Panel. In addition to managing this
panel, the AAA recruits Arbitrators who meet
the criteria established for admission to this
panel. The AAA has long held its mediators
and arbitrators to strict codes of ethics and
model standards of conduct to ensure
fairness and impartiality in conflict
management. To further ensure the AAA’s
integrity, however, the Association also
developed Standards of Ethics and Business
Conduct for its staff, as well as a general
Statement of Ethical Principles to expand on
its core values as an organization.
Public Comments and Resulting
Changes to 2019 Rules
All interested persons were invited to
submit written comments on the
Application request. PBGC received four
comments. Each commenter urged
PBGC to reject AAA’s Application on
the basis that the fees in the 2013
MPPAR were too high. Three
commenters maintained that AAA’s
Application did not substantiate the
significant increase in fees under the
2013 MPPAR. Another commenter
suggested that a reasonable fee increase
to account for the passage of time since
the 1986 MPPAR made sense. PBGC
agrees that a modest increase from the
1986 MPPAR is reasonable. In response,
AAA proposed a modified fee structure
that removes the Final and Flexible fee
schedules and considerably reduces the
initiation fees:
1986 MPPAR
Proposed 2013
MPPAR
Proposed 2019
rules
Initiation fee
Maximum fees
Initiation fee
Amount in dispute
Less than $1M ..........................................................................................................
$1M–$5M ..................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Dec 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
$650–$1,000 ........
1,000–1,450 .........
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
$1,550–$11,200
14,400
10DEN1
$2,500
3,750
67486
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2019 / Notices
1986 MPPAR
Proposed 2013
MPPAR
Proposed 2019
rules
Initiation fee
Maximum fees
Initiation fee
Amount in dispute
$5M and above .........................................................................................................
With the removal of the Final and
Flexible fee schedules, the 2019 Rules
provide for additional fees for matters
that are in abeyance for over one year
($300) and a hearing rescheduling fee
($150). The 2019 Rules also include a
Refund Schedule based on the timing of
a case settlement or withdrawal,
however $750 of the Initiation Fee is
non-refundable. Other than these fees,
parties initiating arbitration will only be
required to pay the Initiation Fee and
the Final Fees are no longer applicable.
With these changes and the adjustment
to the Initiation Fee schedule, PBGC has
determined that the 2019 Rules are fair
and equitable based on AAA’s Response
and follow-up discussions between
PBGC and AAA. The 2019 Rules
provide for a reasonable inflation
adjustment from 1986 and also account
for resources that were not necessary in
1986 such as cyber-security.
Three commenters pointed out that
the 2013 MPPAR did not specifically
provide for apportionment of the
initiation fees between the parties.
Additionally, two commenters
suggested that the initiation fee should
be split in advance of the arbitration.
Under § 4221.10, ‘‘other costs of
arbitration’’ are required to be ‘‘borne
equally unless the arbitrator determines
otherwise’’ and § 4221.14(b)(5) requires
alternative procedures to allocate the
cost of arbitration in accordance with
§ 4221.10. Therefore, PBGC agrees that
the 2019 Rules should specify that the
arbitration fees should be borne equally,
subject to arbitrator discretion.
However, due to the pay first, dispute
later arrangement that MPPAA requires,
PBGC does not agree that the initiation
fee should be borne by both parties
equally in advance of the arbitration.
Section 47 of the 2019 Rules specifically
provide for apportionment, as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
An Initial Filing Fee is payable in full by
the filing party when a claim, counterclaim,
or additional claim is filed, subject to final
apportionment by the Arbitrator in the
Award.
Fee Apportionment
Under 29 CFR 4221.10, the cost of
arbitration shall be borne equally by the
parties, unless the arbitrator determines
otherwise. § 4221.14 (b) (5) also requires
alternative procedures to allocate the cost of
arbitration in accordance with § 4221.10.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Dec 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
Case-by-case .......
The inclusion of this language in the
2019 Rules addresses PBGC’s concerns
regarding fee apportionment and is
consistent with § 4221.10. Two
commenters focused on the arbitrator
selection process and, specifically,
AAA’s ability to unilaterally appoint an
arbitrator if the parties cannot agree on
an arbitrator selection. One of those
commenters also pointed out that
AAA’s process for disqualification of an
arbitrator is inadequate as compared to
PBGC’s default rule. Although the
arbitrator selection process in the
proposed 2013 MPPAR did not differ
from the approved 1986 MPPAR, PBGC
believes the commenters raised valid
concerns with the arbitrator selection
process. PBGC’s 1986 MPPAR approval
provided that ‘‘fundamental fairness
demands that the impartiality of one in
whom such powers are vested be free
from reasonable doubt, and the best way
to ensure that all parties will have
confidence in his impartiality is to have
him selected by mutual consent.’’
PBGC’s default rules under § 4221.4(e)
provide that if the parties fail to select
an arbitrator either party or both may
seek the designation and appointment of
an arbitrator in a U.S. district court
pursuant to the provisions in title 9 of
the United States Code. PBGC agrees
with the commenters that AAA’s, and
not the parties’ selection of an arbitrator,
and their ultimate determination on a
party’s objection undercuts the
principle of mutual consent. Therefore,
PBGC recommended that AAA amend
its rules consistent with § 4221.4(e) and
provide a more equitable process that
ensures an arbitrator is selected by
mutual consent and the arbitrator
removal process is more aligned with
PBGC regulations. AAA agreed to
provide an extended selection process if
the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator,
and if the parties are still unable to
mutually select an arbitrator, either
party may seek designation and
appointment of an arbitrator in a U.S.
District Court, consistent with
§ 4221.4(e).
Additionally, consistent with
§ 4221.4(b), the 2019 Rules provide for
automatic removal of an arbitrator if a
party objects within 10 days of a postappointment disclosure. In that case, a
new arbitrator will be selected through
the mutual consent process. Objections
received after 10 days of a post-
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14,400–77,500
5,000
appointment disclosure will be ruled on
by the arbitrator, not AAA, unless the
parties mutually agree to have AAA
make the determination. These changes
in the 2019 Rules are found in Section
11, Appointment from Panel and
Section 13, Disclosure and Challenge
Procedure:
Section 11. Appointment From Panel
The Arbitrator shall be appointed in the
following manner: Immediately after the
filing of the Demand or Submission, the AAA
shall submit simultaneously to each party to
the dispute an identical list of names of not
less than five (5) persons, with a brief
biographical profile and fee structure of each,
chosen from the Panel. Each party to the
dispute shall have fourteen days from the
mailing date in which to cross off any names
objected to, number the remaining names to
indicate the order of preference, and return
the list to the AAA. If a party does not return
the list within the time specified, all persons
named therein shall be deemed acceptable.
From among the persons who have been
approved on both lists, and in accordance
with the designated order of mutual
preference, the AAA shall invite the
acceptance of an Arbitrator to serve. If the
parties fail to agree upon any of the persons
named, or if acceptable Arbitrators are unable
to act, or if for any other reason the
appointment cannot be made from the
submitted lists, the parties can agree to the
submission of additional names. If the parties
fail to mutually consent to the selection of an
arbitrator, either party or both may seek
designation and appointment of an arbitrator
in a U.S. district court, consistent with 29
CFR 4221.4(e).
Section 13. Disclosure and Challenge
Procedure
A person appointed as neutral Arbitrator
shall disclose to the AAA any circumstances
likely to affect impartiality, including any
bias or any financial or personal interest in
the result of the arbitration or any past or
present relationship with the parties or their
counsel. Upon receipt of such information
from such Arbitrator or other source, the
AAA shall communicate such information to
the parties, and, if it deems it appropriate to
do so, the Arbitrator and others.
In the event a party objects within 10 days
of a post-appointment disclosure, consistent
with 29 CFR 4221.4(b), the arbitrator shall
withdraw and the AAA shall select a new
arbitrator by going back to the selection
process. Objections received after 10 days
will be determined by the Arbitrator and not
the AAA, consistent with 29 CFR 4221.4(c),
unless the parties mutually agree to have the
AAA make the decision.
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2019 / Notices
Statutory and Regulatory Criteria
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
In addition to requiring that
alternative arbitration procedures mirror
PBGC’s default rules of arbitration,
§ 4221.14 provides the procedure and
criteria for approval. The Procedure for
approval of alternative procedures
under § 4221.14(c) provides that an
application requesting approval shall
include (1) a copy of the procedures for
which approval is sought; (2) a
description of the history, structure and
membership of the organization that
sponsors the procedures; and (3) a
discussion of the reasons why, in the
sponsoring organization’s opinion, the
procedures satisfy the criteria for
approval set forth in 4221.14(d). The
Criteria for approval of alternative
procedures under § 4221.14(d) provides:
‘‘PBGC shall approve an application if it
determines that the proposed
procedures will be substantially fair to
all parties involved in the arbitration of
a withdrawal liability dispute and that
the sponsoring organization is neutral
and able to carry out its role under the
procedures.’’
[Docket Nos. MC2020–45 and CP2020–43;
MC2020–46 and CP2020–44]
Determination
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
In light of the significant increase of
fees in the 2013 MPPAR and the
comments submitted by interested
parties, PBGC resumed discussions with
AAA to seek changes to ensure the
proposed rules were substantially fair to
all parties involved in the arbitration of
withdrawal liability disputes. PBGC
advised AAA that three specific issues
needed to be addressed for any
amendment to the 1986 MPPAR to be
approved: (i) Fee Increase; (ii)
Apportionment of Fees; and (iii)
Arbitrator Selection Process. The
discussions resulted in proposed
changes by AAA which are
memorialized in the 2019 Rules as
discussed above. PBGC has determined
that the changes reflected in the 2019
Rules are consistent with the
requirements of section 4221 of ERISA
and the regulatory requirements under
§ 4221.14(d) in that they are fair to all
parties involved in the arbitration of a
withdrawal liability dispute and AAA is
neutral and able to carry out its role
under the procedures. This approval is
effective unless revoked by PBGC, and
future changes, including changes to the
applicable fee schedule will be subject
to PBGC review under § 4211.14(d).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Gordon Hartogensis,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2019–26519 Filed 12–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–02–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Dec 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
New Postal Products
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recent Postal Service filing for the
Commission’s consideration concerning
a negotiated service agreement. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: December
12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
I. Introduction
The Commission gives notice that the
Postal Service filed request(s) for the
Commission to consider matters related
to negotiated service agreement(s). The
request(s) may propose the addition or
removal of a negotiated service
agreement from the market dominant or
the competitive product list, or the
modification of an existing product
currently appearing on the market
dominant or the competitive product
list.
Section II identifies the docket
number(s) associated with each Postal
Service request, the title of each Postal
Service request, the request’s acceptance
date, and the authority cited by the
Postal Service for each request. For each
request, the Commission appoints an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in the
proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
(Public Representative). Section II also
establishes comment deadline(s)
pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal
Service’s request(s) can be accessed via
the Commission’s website (https://
www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of
the Postal Service’s request(s), if any,
can be accessed through compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67487
with the requirements of 39 CFR
3007.301.1
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s request(s)
in the captioned docket(s) are consistent
with the policies of title 39. For
request(s) that the Postal Service states
concern market dominant product(s),
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39
U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39
CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s)
that the Postal Service states concern
competitive product(s), applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements
include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633,
39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and
39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment
deadline(s) for each request appear in
section II.
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
1. Docket No(s).: MC2020–45 and
CP2020–43; Filing Title: USPS Request
to Add Priority Mail Contract 568 to
Competitive Product List and Notice of
Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing
Acceptance Date: December 4, 2019;
Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR
3020.30 et seq., and 39 CFR 3015.5;
Public Representative: Christopher C.
Mohr; Comments Due: December 12,
2019.
2. Docket No(s).: MC2020–46 and
CP2020–44; Filing Title: USPS Request
to Add Priority Mail Contract 569 to
Competitive Product List and Notice of
Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing
Acceptance Date: December 4, 2019;
Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR
3020.30 et seq., and 39 CFR 3015.5;
Public Representative: Christopher C.
Mohr; Comments Due: December 12,
2019.
This Notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
Darcie S. Tokioka,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–26514 Filed 12–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Product Change—Priority Mail
Negotiated Service Agreement
Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Postal Service gives
notice of filing a request with the Postal
Regulatory Commission to add a
domestic shipping services contract to
SUMMARY:
1 See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting
Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information,
June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No.
4679).
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67484-67487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
Notice of Approval of Alternative Arbitration Procedure; American
Arbitration Association
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice advises interested persons that the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has approved a request from the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) for approval of an alternative
arbitration procedure.
DATES: PBGC's approval of the AAA's alternative arbitration procedure
is effective January 1, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Perlin ([email protected]),
202-326-4020, ext. 6818, Office of the General Counsel, Suite 340, 1200
K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026; (TTY users may call the Federal
relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to
202-326-4020, extension 6818 or 6757.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4221(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan
Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), requires ``any dispute'' between an
employer and a multiemployer pension plan concerning a withdrawal
liability determination to be ``resolved through arbitration.'' Under
the MPPAA, an employer has 90 days after receipt of notice of a
withdrawal liability assessment to request review of that assessment.
ERISA Sec. 4219(b)(2)(A). If there remains a dispute about the
assessment of withdrawal liability, the employer may ``initiate''
arbitration of the dispute within a 60-day period after the earlier of
(i) the date the employer was notified of the plan's response to the
employer's request for review, or (ii) 120 days after the date that the
employer requested review of the withdrawal liability. ERISA Sec.
4221(a)(1). If the employer fails to timely initiate arbitration, the
assessment becomes due and owing and the plan sponsor may bring an
action in a state or federal court to collect the assessment. ERISA
Sec. 4221(b).
The MPPAA directed PBGC to promulgate fair and equitable procedures
for the conduct of an arbitration under section 4221 of ERISA. PBGC's
implementing regulation, ``Arbitration of Disputes in Multiemployer
Plans'' (29 CFR part 4221), was designed to provide procedures to
facilitate prompt resolution of disputes by an impartial arbitrator,
facilitating expeditious resolutions of disputes concerning an
employer's withdrawal liability. PBGC's default arbitration procedures
provide rules for the appointment and powers of the arbitrator, rules
for discovery and hearings, and rules for awards, costs, filing and
service (Sec. Sec. 4221.4-4221.13).
Scope of Alternative Arbitration Procedures
In lieu of the default procedures, under Sec. 4221.14 of PBGC's
arbitration regulation, an arbitration may be conducted in accordance
with an alternative arbitration procedure approved by PBGC in
accordance with Sec. 4221.14(c). Certain rules applicable to the
default procedures cannot be varied in any alternative procedure. 29
CFR 4221.14(b). If an arbitration is conducted under a PBGC-approved
alternative procedure, the alternative procedure governs all aspects of
the arbitration, with the following exceptions provided in Sec.
4221.14(b): The time limits for initiating arbitration may not differ
from the time limits provided Sec. 4221.3; the arbitrator must be
selected after the initiation of arbitration; the arbitrator must give
the parties an opportunity for prehearing discovery that is
substantially equivalent to that required by Sec. 4221.5(a)(2); copies
of the award must be made available to the public at least to the
extent mandated by Sec. 4221.8(g); and the arbitration costs must be
allocated in accordance with Sec. 4221.10.
Process for Approval of Alternative Arbitration Procedures
Under Sec. 4221.14(c) PBGC may approve arbitration procedures on
its own initiative by publishing an appropriate notice in the Federal
Register. Additionally, the sponsor of an arbitration procedure may
request PBGC approval of its procedures by submitting an application to
PBGC. The application must include: (1) A copy of the procedures for
which approval is sought; (2) a description of the history, structure
and membership of the organization that sponsors the procedures; and
(3) a description of the reasons why, in the sponsoring organization's
opinion, the procedures satisfy the criteria for approval set forth in
this section.
Criteria for Approval of Alternative Procedures
Under Sec. 4221.21(d), PBGC shall approve an application if it
determines that the proposed procedures will be substantially fair to
all parties involved in the arbitration of a withdrawal liability
dispute and that the sponsoring organization is neutral and able to
carry out its role under the procedures. PBGC may request comments on
the application by publishing an appropriate notice in the Federal
Register and notice of PBGC's decision on the application shall be
published in the Federal Register. Unless the notice of approval
specifies otherwise, approval will remain effective until revoked by
PBGC through a Federal Register notice.
AAA's Alternative Arbitration Rules--1981 & 1986 MPPAR
In 1985, on its own initiative, PBGC approved the 1981
Multiemployer Pension Plan Arbitration Rules for Withdrawal Liability
Disputes (the ``1981 MPPAR''), an alternative arbitration procedure
sponsored by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans and
administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). 50 FR 38046
(Sept. 19, 1985). In 1986, PBGC approved AAA's request to use an
amended MPPAR (the ``1986 MPPAR'') which eliminated certain procedural
differences from the 1981 MPPAR and PBGC's final arbitration
regulation. 51 FR 22585 (June 20, 1986). The administrative fee
schedule for handling arbitrations in the 1986 MPPAR was applicable
until 2013, at which point AAA adopted an updated 2013 Fee Schedule,
creating a revised MPPAR, effective February 1, 2013 (``2013 MPPAR'').
The new Administrative Fee Schedule provides for increases to the
Initial Filing Fee, establishes two different fee arrangements--the
Standard and Flexible Fee Schedules, and adds a ``Final Fee'' under
each schedule and a ``Proceed Fee'' in the flexible schedule context.
Other than significant changes to the Administrative Fee Schedule and
the removal of language regarding the apportionment of fees, the 2013
MPPAR are identical to the 1986 MPPAR that PBGC previously approved.
Under Sec. 4221.14, AAA has requested PBGC
[[Page 67485]]
approval of the updated proposed 2013 MPPAR (the ``Application'').
Procedural Background
PBGC published a notice of the AAA's request in the Federal
Register at 81 FR 15578 (March 23, 2016), to advise interested persons
of the AAA's Application for approval and solicit their views on it.
PBGC received four comments in response to the March 23, 2016 notice.
PBGC then invited AAA to respond to the public comments. PBGC published
AAA's response in the Federal Register at 82 FR 27089 (June 13, 2017),
and solicited additional comments. PBGC received one final comment.
After the final comment period closed, PBGC and AAA began discussions
on changes to the 2013 MPPAR.
AAA's Application
AAA's Application included the necessary information under Sec.
4221.14(c): A copy of the 2013 MPPAR; a description of the history,
structure and membership of AAA; and a discussion of the reasons why,
in AAA's opinion, the 2013 MPPAR satisfies the criteria for PBGC
approval under Sec. 4221.14(d). In response to the public comments and
discussions between AAA and PBGC, AAA submitted the proposed rules
modifying the 2013 MPPAR (``the 2019 Rules''), which completely revised
the applicable fee schedule, added language regarding the apportionment
of fees, and revised procedural rules related to the arbitrator
selection process.
Section 4221.14(c)(2)--History and Structure of AAA
AAA's Application provided:
The American Arbitration Association (AAA), is a not-for-profit
organization with offices throughout the U.S. as well as abroad. AAA
has a long history and experience in the field of alternative
dispute resolution, providing services to individuals and
organizations who wish to resolve conflicts out of court. The AAA is
named in 40 federal statutes and regulations, as well as over 300
state statutes and regulations. The AAA is not a membership
organization.
The AAA role in the dispute resolution process is to administer
cases, from filing to closing. The AAA provides administrative
services in the U.S., as well as abroad through its International
Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). The AAA's and ICDR's
administrative services include assisting in the appointment of
mediators and arbitrators, setting hearings, and providing users
with information on dispute resolution options, including settlement
through mediation. Ultimately, the AAA aims to move cases through
arbitration or mediation in a fair and impartial manner until
completion.
Additional AAA services include the design and development of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems for corporations,
unions, government agencies, law firms, and the courts. The
Association also provides elections services as well as education,
training, and publications for those seeking a broader or deeper
understanding of alternative dispute resolution.
Section 4221.14(c)(3)--Discussion of Why the 2013 MPPAR Satisfies the
Criteria for PBGC Approval Under Sec. 4221.14(d)
AAA's Application provided:
The American Arbitration Association (AAA) has been
administering the cases that fall under the Multiemployer Pension
Plan Arbitration Rules for Withdrawal Liability Disputes for thirty-
four (34) years. The rules that have been previously approved by the
PBGC are effective June 1, 1981 and revised effective September 1,
1986. The AAA's 1986 MEPPA Rules did not change; the only update
made was to increase the administrative fees for handling MEPPA
arbitrations from the 1986 fee schedule to the 2013 fee schedule.
The AAA has provided quality administration on this caseload and
based on parties and arbitrator feedback, the AAA's service is
valued and should continue to be available. However, as a not-for
profit organization that receives funding only through the
administrative fees earned on cases, we need to ensure that the
costs associated with the administration of a particular caseload do
not vastly exceed the fees earned.
The fee increase implemented by the AAA was necessary because of
the substantial administrative costs and staffing associated with
these complex arbitrations. In particular, MEPPA arbitrations are
similar to many of the large complex arbitrations administered by
the AAA. They tend to be highly contentious, involve large dollar
amounts, the parties engage in voluminous discovery, and there can
be multiple preliminary calls as well as multiple days of
evidentiary hearings, can be pending for long periods of time,
involve bifurcated issues and extensive briefing.
The AAA also found it necessary to implement a substantially
heightened arbitrator disclosure requirements based on the nature of
the MEPPA cases. All of these factors were considered when reviewing
the fee schedule and a determination was made to change the fees
from the 1986 $650.00 fee to the 2013 fee schedule. The 1986 fee
schedule provided the AAA discretion to set the fee where the net
amount in dispute was in excess of $5 million. Given this level of
discretion provided in the 1986 fee schedule, the AAA did set
administrative fees equivalent to those reflected in the 2013 fee
schedule for cases with claims in excess of $5 million. In addition,
the 2013 fee schedule is the same schedule the AAA has applied to
other arbitrations caseloads that are similarly complex.
The American Arbitration Association was founded in 1926,
following enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act, with the
specific goal of helping to implement arbitration as an out-of-court
solution to resolving disputes. This legal framework was passed by
Congress and signed by President Calvin Coolidge. The AAA's staff
members and neutrals continue to live out the principles on which
the Association was founded.
The AAA's official mission statement and vision statement are
based on three core values: Integrity, conflict management, and
service. We have a long term working relationship with the
Arbitrators on the MEPPA Panel. In addition to managing this panel,
the AAA recruits Arbitrators who meet the criteria established for
admission to this panel. The AAA has long held its mediators and
arbitrators to strict codes of ethics and model standards of conduct
to ensure fairness and impartiality in conflict management. To
further ensure the AAA's integrity, however, the Association also
developed Standards of Ethics and Business Conduct for its staff, as
well as a general Statement of Ethical Principles to expand on its
core values as an organization.
Public Comments and Resulting Changes to 2019 Rules
All interested persons were invited to submit written comments on
the Application request. PBGC received four comments. Each commenter
urged PBGC to reject AAA's Application on the basis that the fees in
the 2013 MPPAR were too high. Three commenters maintained that AAA's
Application did not substantiate the significant increase in fees under
the 2013 MPPAR. Another commenter suggested that a reasonable fee
increase to account for the passage of time since the 1986 MPPAR made
sense. PBGC agrees that a modest increase from the 1986 MPPAR is
reasonable. In response, AAA proposed a modified fee structure that
removes the Final and Flexible fee schedules and considerably reduces
the initiation fees:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 MPPAR Proposed 2013 Proposed 2019
----------------------------------- MPPAR rules
Amount in dispute -------------------------------------
Initiation fee Maximum fees Initiation fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $1M.......................... $650-$1,000...................... $1,550-$11,200 $2,500
$1M-$5M................................ 1,000-1,450...................... 14,400 3,750
[[Page 67486]]
$5M and above.......................... Case-by-case..................... 14,400-77,500 5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the removal of the Final and Flexible fee schedules, the 2019
Rules provide for additional fees for matters that are in abeyance for
over one year ($300) and a hearing rescheduling fee ($150). The 2019
Rules also include a Refund Schedule based on the timing of a case
settlement or withdrawal, however $750 of the Initiation Fee is non-
refundable. Other than these fees, parties initiating arbitration will
only be required to pay the Initiation Fee and the Final Fees are no
longer applicable. With these changes and the adjustment to the
Initiation Fee schedule, PBGC has determined that the 2019 Rules are
fair and equitable based on AAA's Response and follow-up discussions
between PBGC and AAA. The 2019 Rules provide for a reasonable inflation
adjustment from 1986 and also account for resources that were not
necessary in 1986 such as cyber-security.
Three commenters pointed out that the 2013 MPPAR did not
specifically provide for apportionment of the initiation fees between
the parties. Additionally, two commenters suggested that the initiation
fee should be split in advance of the arbitration. Under Sec. 4221.10,
``other costs of arbitration'' are required to be ``borne equally
unless the arbitrator determines otherwise'' and Sec. 4221.14(b)(5)
requires alternative procedures to allocate the cost of arbitration in
accordance with Sec. 4221.10. Therefore, PBGC agrees that the 2019
Rules should specify that the arbitration fees should be borne equally,
subject to arbitrator discretion. However, due to the pay first,
dispute later arrangement that MPPAA requires, PBGC does not agree that
the initiation fee should be borne by both parties equally in advance
of the arbitration. Section 47 of the 2019 Rules specifically provide
for apportionment, as follows:
An Initial Filing Fee is payable in full by the filing party
when a claim, counterclaim, or additional claim is filed, subject to
final apportionment by the Arbitrator in the Award.
Fee Apportionment
Under 29 CFR 4221.10, the cost of arbitration shall be borne
equally by the parties, unless the arbitrator determines otherwise.
Sec. 4221.14 (b) (5) also requires alternative procedures to
allocate the cost of arbitration in accordance with Sec. 4221.10.
The inclusion of this language in the 2019 Rules addresses PBGC's
concerns regarding fee apportionment and is consistent with Sec.
4221.10. Two commenters focused on the arbitrator selection process
and, specifically, AAA's ability to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator
if the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator selection. One of those
commenters also pointed out that AAA's process for disqualification of
an arbitrator is inadequate as compared to PBGC's default rule.
Although the arbitrator selection process in the proposed 2013 MPPAR
did not differ from the approved 1986 MPPAR, PBGC believes the
commenters raised valid concerns with the arbitrator selection process.
PBGC's 1986 MPPAR approval provided that ``fundamental fairness demands
that the impartiality of one in whom such powers are vested be free
from reasonable doubt, and the best way to ensure that all parties will
have confidence in his impartiality is to have him selected by mutual
consent.'' PBGC's default rules under Sec. 4221.4(e) provide that if
the parties fail to select an arbitrator either party or both may seek
the designation and appointment of an arbitrator in a U.S. district
court pursuant to the provisions in title 9 of the United States Code.
PBGC agrees with the commenters that AAA's, and not the parties'
selection of an arbitrator, and their ultimate determination on a
party's objection undercuts the principle of mutual consent. Therefore,
PBGC recommended that AAA amend its rules consistent with Sec.
4221.4(e) and provide a more equitable process that ensures an
arbitrator is selected by mutual consent and the arbitrator removal
process is more aligned with PBGC regulations. AAA agreed to provide an
extended selection process if the parties cannot agree on an
arbitrator, and if the parties are still unable to mutually select an
arbitrator, either party may seek designation and appointment of an
arbitrator in a U.S. District Court, consistent with Sec. 4221.4(e).
Additionally, consistent with Sec. 4221.4(b), the 2019 Rules
provide for automatic removal of an arbitrator if a party objects
within 10 days of a post-appointment disclosure. In that case, a new
arbitrator will be selected through the mutual consent process.
Objections received after 10 days of a post-appointment disclosure will
be ruled on by the arbitrator, not AAA, unless the parties mutually
agree to have AAA make the determination. These changes in the 2019
Rules are found in Section 11, Appointment from Panel and Section 13,
Disclosure and Challenge Procedure:
Section 11. Appointment From Panel
The Arbitrator shall be appointed in the following manner:
Immediately after the filing of the Demand or Submission, the AAA
shall submit simultaneously to each party to the dispute an
identical list of names of not less than five (5) persons, with a
brief biographical profile and fee structure of each, chosen from
the Panel. Each party to the dispute shall have fourteen days from
the mailing date in which to cross off any names objected to, number
the remaining names to indicate the order of preference, and return
the list to the AAA. If a party does not return the list within the
time specified, all persons named therein shall be deemed
acceptable. From among the persons who have been approved on both
lists, and in accordance with the designated order of mutual
preference, the AAA shall invite the acceptance of an Arbitrator to
serve. If the parties fail to agree upon any of the persons named,
or if acceptable Arbitrators are unable to act, or if for any other
reason the appointment cannot be made from the submitted lists, the
parties can agree to the submission of additional names. If the
parties fail to mutually consent to the selection of an arbitrator,
either party or both may seek designation and appointment of an
arbitrator in a U.S. district court, consistent with 29 CFR
4221.4(e).
Section 13. Disclosure and Challenge Procedure
A person appointed as neutral Arbitrator shall disclose to the
AAA any circumstances likely to affect impartiality, including any
bias or any financial or personal interest in the result of the
arbitration or any past or present relationship with the parties or
their counsel. Upon receipt of such information from such Arbitrator
or other source, the AAA shall communicate such information to the
parties, and, if it deems it appropriate to do so, the Arbitrator
and others.
In the event a party objects within 10 days of a post-
appointment disclosure, consistent with 29 CFR 4221.4(b), the
arbitrator shall withdraw and the AAA shall select a new arbitrator
by going back to the selection process. Objections received after 10
days will be determined by the Arbitrator and not the AAA,
consistent with 29 CFR 4221.4(c), unless the parties mutually agree
to have the AAA make the decision.
[[Page 67487]]
Statutory and Regulatory Criteria
In addition to requiring that alternative arbitration procedures
mirror PBGC's default rules of arbitration, Sec. 4221.14 provides the
procedure and criteria for approval. The Procedure for approval of
alternative procedures under Sec. 4221.14(c) provides that an
application requesting approval shall include (1) a copy of the
procedures for which approval is sought; (2) a description of the
history, structure and membership of the organization that sponsors the
procedures; and (3) a discussion of the reasons why, in the sponsoring
organization's opinion, the procedures satisfy the criteria for
approval set forth in 4221.14(d). The Criteria for approval of
alternative procedures under Sec. 4221.14(d) provides: ``PBGC shall
approve an application if it determines that the proposed procedures
will be substantially fair to all parties involved in the arbitration
of a withdrawal liability dispute and that the sponsoring organization
is neutral and able to carry out its role under the procedures.''
Determination
In light of the significant increase of fees in the 2013 MPPAR and
the comments submitted by interested parties, PBGC resumed discussions
with AAA to seek changes to ensure the proposed rules were
substantially fair to all parties involved in the arbitration of
withdrawal liability disputes. PBGC advised AAA that three specific
issues needed to be addressed for any amendment to the 1986 MPPAR to be
approved: (i) Fee Increase; (ii) Apportionment of Fees; and (iii)
Arbitrator Selection Process. The discussions resulted in proposed
changes by AAA which are memorialized in the 2019 Rules as discussed
above. PBGC has determined that the changes reflected in the 2019 Rules
are consistent with the requirements of section 4221 of ERISA and the
regulatory requirements under Sec. 4221.14(d) in that they are fair to
all parties involved in the arbitration of a withdrawal liability
dispute and AAA is neutral and able to carry out its role under the
procedures. This approval is effective unless revoked by PBGC, and
future changes, including changes to the applicable fee schedule will
be subject to PBGC review under Sec. 4211.14(d).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Gordon Hartogensis,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2019-26519 Filed 12-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-02-P