[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13304-13312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5696]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 4022
RIN 1212-AB18
Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Limitations
on Guaranteed Benefits
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a proposed rule to amend PBGC's regulation on Benefits
Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans. That regulation sets forth
rules on PBGC's guarantee of pension plan benefits, including rules on
the phase-in of the guarantee. The amendments implement section 403 of
the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which provides that the phase-in
period for the guarantee of benefits that are contingent upon the
occurrence of an ``unpredictable contingent event,'' such as a plant
shutdown, starts no earlier than the date of the shutdown or other
unpredictable contingent event.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be identified by Regulation Information
Number (RIN 1212-AB18), and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: 202-326-4224.
Mail or Hand Delivery: Legislative and Regulatory
Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005-4026.
PBGC will make all comments available on its Web site, http://www.pbgc.gov. Copies of comments also may be obtained by writing PBGC's
Communications and Public Affairs Department (CPAD) at Suite 240 at the
above address or by visiting or calling CPAD during normal business
hours (202-326-4040).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John H. Hanley, Director; Gail A.
Sevin, Manager; or Bernard Klein, Attorney; Legislative & Regulatory
Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4224. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal
relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to
202-326-4224.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the
single-employer pension plan termination insurance program under Title
IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
program covers certain private-sector, single-employer defined benefit
plans, for which premiums are paid to PBGC each year.
Covered plans that are underfunded may terminate either in a
distress termination under section 4041(c) of ERISA or in an
involuntary termination (one initiated by PBGC) under section 4042 of
ERISA. When such a plan terminates, PBGC typically is appointed
statutory trustee of the plan, and becomes responsible for paying
benefits in accordance with the provisions of Title IV.
Under sections 4022(b)(1) and 4022(b)(7) of ERISA and Sec. Sec.
4022.24 through .26 of PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in
Terminated Single-Employer Plans, 29 CFR part 4022, PBGC's guarantee of
new pension benefits and benefit increases is ``phased in'' over a
five-year period, which begins on the date the new benefit or benefit
increase is adopted or effective (whichever is later).
On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law
109-280 (PPA 2006), was signed into law. Section 403 of PPA 2006
amended section 4022 of ERISA by adding a new section 4022(b)(8), which
changes the start of the phase-in period for plant shutdown and other
``unpredictable contingent event benefits'' (UCEBs). Under new section
4022(b)(8), the phase-in rules are applied as if a plan amendment
creating a UCEB was adopted on the date the unpredictable contingent
event (``UCE'') occurred rather than as of the actual adoption date of
the amendment, which is almost always earlier. As a result of the new
provision, the guarantee of benefits arising from plant shutdowns and
other UCEs that occur within 5 years of plan termination (or the date
the plan sponsor entered bankruptcy, if applicable under PPA 2006, as
explained below) generally will be lower than under prior law. This new
provision, which does not otherwise change the existing phase-in rules,
applies to benefits that become payable as a result of a UCE that
occurs after July 26, 2005.
This proposed rule would amend part 4022 to implement the PPA 2006
changes to the guarantee of UCEBs. With one exception, explained below
under the heading ``Bankruptcy filing
[[Page 13305]]
date treated as deemed termination date,'' the other provisions of PPA
2006 affecting PBGC's guarantee do not affect phase-in of the guarantee
of UCEBs and thus are not addressed in this proposed rule.
Phase-in of PBGC Guarantee
Under section 4022(b)(7) of ERISA, the guarantee of benefits under
a new plan or of a new benefit or benefit increase under an amendment
to an existing plan (all of which are referred to in PBGC's regulations
as ``benefit increases'') is ``phased in'' based on the number of full
years the benefit increase is in the plan. The time period that a
benefit increase has been provided under a plan is measured from the
later of the adoption date of the provision creating the benefit
increase or the effective date of the benefit increase. Generally, 20
percent of a benefit increase is guaranteed after one year, 40 percent
after two years, etc., with full phase-in of the guarantee after five
years. If the amount of the monthly benefit increase is below $100, the
annual rate of phase-in is $20 rather than 20 percent.
The phase-in limitation generally serves to protect the insurance
program from losses caused by benefit increases that are adopted or
made effective shortly before plan termination. This protection is
needed because benefit increases can create large unfunded liabilities.
An example is a plan amendment that significantly increases credit
under the plan benefit formula for service performed prior to the
amendment. Such increases generally are funded over time under the
ERISA minimum funding rules. An immediate full guarantee would result
in an inappropriate loss for PBGC if a plan terminated before an
employer significantly funded a benefit increase. Phase-in of the
guarantee allows time for some funding of new liabilities before they
are fully guaranteed.
Funding of liabilities created by a benefit increase generally
starts at the same time as the PBGC guarantee first applies under the
phase-in rule. Under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (``Code''),
liability created by a benefit increase must be reflected in a plan's
required contribution no later than the plan year following adoption of
the benefit increase. For example, a benefit increase that is adopted
and effective in the 2009 plan year must be reflected in the minimum
funding contribution calculations for a plan year not later than the
2010 plan year. Similarly, such a benefit increase would become
partially guaranteed during the 2010 plan year.
Over the years, legislative reforms, including those in PPA 2006,
have generally shortened the permitted funding period from thirty years
to seven years (or less in certain cases). This closer coordination
between the permitted funding period and five-year guarantee phase-in
period generally enhanced the effectiveness of phase-in in protecting
the PBGC insurance program against losses due to unfunded benefit
increases. However, as explained below, before the PPA 2006 changes to
the phase-in of UCEBs, this coordination generally failed in the case
of UCEBs.
Unpredictable Contingent Event Benefits
UCEBs, described more specifically below, are benefits or benefit
increases that become payable solely by reason of the occurrence of a
UCE such as a plant shutdown.
UCEBs typically provide a full pension, without any reduction for
age, starting well before an unreduced pension would otherwise be
payable. The events most commonly giving rise to UCEBs are events
relating to full or partial plant shutdowns or other reductions in
force. UCEBs, which are frequently provided in pension plans in various
industries such as the steel and automobile industries, are payable
with respect to full or partial plant shutdowns as well as shutdowns of
different kinds of facilities, such as administrative offices,
warehouses, retail operations, etc. UCEBs are also payable, in some
cases, with respect to layoffs and other workforce reductions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Technical Explanation of PPA 2006 prepared by the Joint
Committee on Taxation Staff specifies that UCEBs include benefits
payable with respect to ``facility shutdowns or reductions in
workforce.'' Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical Explanation of
H.R. 4, the ``Pension Protection Act of 2006,'' as passed by the
House on July 26, 2006, and as considered by the Senate on August 3,
2006 (JCX-38-06), August 3, 2006, at 90 (hereinafter Technical
Explanation of PPA 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A typical shutdown benefit provision in the steel industry--the so-
called ``70/80 Rule''--generally allows participants who lose their
jobs due to the complete or partial closing of a facility or a
reduction-in-force and whose age plus service equals 70 (if at least
age 55) or 80 (at any age) to begin receiving their full accrued
pension immediately, even though they have not reached normal
retirement age. Similar UCEBs are common in the automobile industry
with respect to shutdowns and layoffs. The purpose of these benefits is
to assist participants financially in adjusting to a permanent job
loss.
Time Lag Between Start of Guarantee Phase-in and Funding of UCEBs
A UCEB provision typically has been in a plan many years before the
occurrence of the event that eventually triggers the benefit, such as a
plant shutdown. As a result, before PPA 2006, shutdown benefits, for
example, were often fully guaranteed under the phase-in rules when a
shutdown occurred. Because the benefit is contingent on the occurrence
of an unpredictable event, plan sponsors typically did not make
contributions to provide for advance funding of such benefits; funding
of such benefits often did not begin until after the UCE had occurred.
If, as often happened, plan termination occurred within a few years
after a shutdown, the time lag between the start of the phase-in period
and the start of funding resulted in an increased loss to the insurance
program.
Treatment of UCEBs in OBRA 1987
Congress first explicitly addressed UCEBs in funding reforms
contained in the Pension Protection Act of 1987, enacted as part of
Public Law 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA
1987). The OBRA 1987 rules for deficit reduction contributions required
employers to recognize UCEBs on an accelerated basis (generally, within
five to seven years), beginning after the triggering event occurred.\2\
However, the rules did not address the mismatch of the funding and
guarantee phase-in periods discussed above. They also did not address
the fact that UCEBs are likely to be triggered when the employer is
experiencing financial difficulty, which threatens both funding and
continuation of the plan. For these reasons, in the years since OBRA
1987, PBGC has assumed more than $1 billion of unfunded benefit
liabilities from shutdown and similar benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 100-203, 10 Stat. 1330, 339-41 (codified as
amended at 26 U.S.C. 412(l) (1987)); see S. Rep. No. 100-63 at 171-
72, 175-76 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of UCEBs in PPA 2006
Congress further addressed UCEBs in PPA 2006. PPA 2006 affected
UCEBs in two important ways.
First, PPA 2006 added new ERISA section 206(g) and parallel Code
section 436(b) that restrict payment of UCEBs with respect to a UCE if
the plan is less than 60 percent funded for the plan year in which the
UCE occurs (or would be less than 60 percent funded taking the UCEB
into account). Unless the restriction is removed during that plan year
as a result of additional contributions to the plan or an actuarial
certification meeting certain
[[Page 13306]]
requirements, the restriction becomes permanent and, under Treas. Reg.
Sec. 1.436-1(a)(4)(iii),\3\ the plan is treated as if it does not
provide for those UCEBs.\4\ Because PBGC guarantees only benefits that
are provided under a plan, a UCEB that is treated as not provided under
the plan because of this restriction is not guaranteeable by PBGC at
all, and the phase-in rules that are the subject of this proposed
regulation do not come into play for such a UCEB. Moreover, under
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-1(a)(3)(ii), benefit limitations under ERISA
section 206(g) that were in effect immediately before plan termination
continue to apply after termination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Treasury Regulations under Code sections 430 and 436 also
apply for purposes of the parallel rules in ERISA sections 303 and
206(g).
\4\ 74 FR 53004, 53062 (Oct. 15, 2009). Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-
1(a)(4)(iii) permits all or any portion of prohibited UCEBs to be
restored by a plan amendment that meets the requirements of section
436(c) of the Code and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-1(c) and other
applicable requirements. Such an amendment would create a ``benefit
increase'' under Sec. 4022.2 and therefore PBGC's guarantee of
UCEBs restored by such an amendment would be phased in from the
later of the adoption date of the amendment or the effective date as
of which the UCEB is restored, as provided under Sec. 4022.27(c) of
the proposed regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, PPA 2006 better aligns the starting dates of the funding
and guarantee phase-in of UCEBs. Under PPA 2006, phase-in of the PBGC
guarantee does not start until the UCE actually occurs. Specifically,
ERISA section 4022(b)(8), added by section 403 of PPA 2006, provides:
``If an unpredictable contingent event benefit (as defined in section
206(g)(1)) is payable by reason of the occurrence of any event, this
section shall be applied as if a plan amendment had been adopted on the
date such event occurred.'' The provision applies to UCEs that occur
after July 26, 2005. Thus, for purposes of the phase-in limitation, the
date a UCE occurs is treated as the adoption date of the plan provision
that provides for the related UCEB. This statutory change provides the
PBGC insurance program a greater measure of protection than prior law
from losses due to unfunded UCEBs--most notably, benefits that become
payable by reason of a plant shutdown or similar event such as a
permanent layoff.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In addition, Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.430(d)-(1)(f)(6) requires
that calculation of the funding target for a single-employer plan
take into account, based on information as of the valuation date,
the probability that UCEBs will become payable. Under that Treasury
Regulation, the probability may be assumed to be zero if there is
not more than a de minimis likelihood that the UCE will occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERISA section 206(g)(1), as added by section 103(a) of PPA 2006,
defines ``unpredictable contingent event benefit'' as:
``any benefit payable solely by reason of --
(i) A plant shutdown (or similar event, as determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury), or
(ii) An event other than the attainment of any age, performance of
any service, receipt or derivation of any compensation, or occurrence
of death or disability.''
PPA 2006 did not alter the rule that UCEBs are not guaranteed at
all unless the triggering event occurred prior to the plan termination
date (see PBGC v. Republic Tech. Int'l, LLC, 386 F.3d 659 (6th Cir.
2004)).
Treasury Final Regulation UCEB Definition
On October 15, 2009 (at 74 FR 53004), the Department of the
Treasury (Treasury) published a final rule on Benefit Restrictions for
Underfunded Pension Plans that defines UCEB for purposes of ERISA
section 206(g)(1), and thus also for purposes of section 4022(b)(8).
Treasury's final regulation clarifies the following points regarding
UCEBs:
UCEBs include only benefits or benefit increases to the
extent such benefits or benefit increases would not be payable but for
the occurrence of a UCE.
The reference to ``plant shutdown'' in the statutory
definition of UCEB includes a full or partial shutdown.
Treasury's final regulation also states that a UCEB includes
benefits triggered by events similar to plant shutdowns. Treas. Reg.
Sec. 1.436-1(j)(9) defines a UCEB as follows:
An unpredictable contingent event benefit means any benefit or
increase in benefits to the extent the benefit or increase would not
be payable but for the occurrence of an unpredictable contingent
event. For this purpose, an unpredictable contingent event means a
plant shutdown (whether full or partial) or similar event, or an
event (including the absence of an event) other than the attainment
of any age, performance of any service, receipt or derivation of any
compensation, or the occurrence of death or disability. For example,
if a plan provides for an unreduced early retirement benefit upon
the occurrence of an event other than the attainment of any age,
performance of any service, receipt or derivation of any
compensation, or the occurrence of death or disability, then that
unreduced early retirement benefit is an unpredictable contingent
event benefit to the extent of any portion of the benefit that would
not be payable but for the occurrence of the event, even if the
remainder of the benefit is payable without regard to the occurrence
of the event. Similarly, if a plan includes a benefit payable upon
the presence (including the absence) of circumstances specified in
the plan (other than the attainment of any age, performance of any
service, receipt or derivation of any compensation, or the
occurrence of death or disability), but not upon a severance from
employment that does not include those circumstances, that benefit
is an unpredictable contingent event benefit.
Overview of Proposed Regulatory Changes
This proposed regulation incorporates the definition of UCEB under
section 206(g)(1)(C) of ERISA and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-1(j)(9). It
also provides that the guarantee of a UCEB would be phased in from the
latest of the date the benefit provision is adopted, the date the
benefit is effective, or the date the UCE that makes the benefit
payable occurs.
Under the proposed regulation, PBGC would determine the date the
UCE occurs based on the plan provisions and the relevant facts and
circumstances, such as the nature and level of activity at a facility
that is closing and the permanence of the event. The date of the event
as conceived, planned, announced, or agreed to by the employer might be
relevant but would not be controlling. Where a plan provides that a
UCEB is payable only upon the occurrence of more than one UCE, the
proposed regulation provides that the guarantee would be phased in from
the latest date when all such UCEs have occurred. For example, if a
UCEB is payable only if a participant is laid off and the layoff
continues for a specified period of time, the phase-in period would
begin at the end of the specified period of time. Similarly, if a UCEB
is payable only if both the plant where an employee worked is
permanently shut down and it is determined that the employer has no
other suitable employment for the employee, the phase-in period would
begin when it is determined that the employer had no other suitable
employment for the employee (assuming that date was later than the
shutdown date).
The proposed regulation includes eight examples that show how the
UCEB phase-in rules would apply in the following situations:
Shutdown that occurs later than the announced shutdown
date.
Sequential permanent layoffs.
Skeleton shutdown crews.
Permanent layoff benefit for which the participant
qualifies shortly before the sponsor enters bankruptcy.
Employer declaration during a layoff that return to work
is unlikely.
Shutdown benefit with age requirement that can be met
after the shutdown.
Retroactive UCEB.
[[Page 13307]]
Removal of IRC Section 436 restriction.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The examples in proposed Sec. 4022.7 are not an exclusive
list of UCEs or UCEBs and are not intended to narrow the statutory
definition, as further delineated in Treasury Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether a UCEB phase-in determination applies on a participant-by-
participant basis, as opposed to facility-wide or some other basis,
would depend largely upon plan provisions. For example, a benefit
triggered by a reduction-in-force would be determined with respect to
each participant, and thus layoffs that occur on different dates would
generally be distinct UCEs. But a benefit payable only upon the
complete shutdown of the employer's entire operations would apply plan-
wide, and thus the shutdown date generally would be the date of the UCE
for all participants.
Discussion
UCEBs Covered
As noted above, new ERISA section 4022(b)(8), added by section 403
of PPA 2006, changes the rules for phasing in the guarantee of UCEBs in
the case of UCEs that occur after July 26, 2005. Section 4022(b)(8)
covers shutdown-type benefits, including benefits payable by reason of
complete shutdowns of plants, and benefits payable when participants
lose their jobs or retire as a result of partial closings or
reductions-in-force at all kinds of facilities, in addition to other
UCEBs. Accordingly, proposed Sec. 4022.27(a) expressly refers to
benefits payable as a result of ``plant shutdowns or other
unpredictable contingent events * * * , such as partial facility
closings and permanent layoffs.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As explained in Technical Explanation of PPA 2006, supra
note 1, ``layoff benefits,'' as that term is used in Treasury
Regulation Sec. 1.401-1(b)(1)(i), are severance benefits that may
not be included in tax-qualified pension plans. In contrast, the
benefits covered in this proposed regulation are retirement benefits
payable in the event of certain workforce reductions. These
retirement benefits--generally subsidized early retirement
benefits--may be provided in tax-qualified plans insured by PBGC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, a UCEB is defined by section 206(g)(1)(C) of ERISA
to include benefits payable solely by reason of (1) a plant shutdown or
similar event, or (2) an event other than an event such as attainment
of a certain age or performance of service, that would trigger
eligibility for a retirement benefit. The proposed regulation provides
that PBGC would determine whether a benefit is a UCEB based on the
facts and circumstances; the substance of the benefit, not what it is
called, determines whether the benefit would be a UCEB covered by the
new phase-in rule. Accordingly, under proposed Sec. 4022.27(b), the
guarantee of any benefit that PBGC determines, based on plan provisions
and facts and circumstances, is a shutdown benefit or is otherwise a
UCEB would be phased in as a UCEB.
The proposed definition of UCEB under Sec. 4022.2 provides that a
benefit does not cease to be a UCEB for phase-in purposes merely
because the UCE has already occurred or its occurrence has become
reasonably predictable. This interpretation is supported by the plain
language of ERISA section 4022(b)(8), which incorporates ERISA section
206(g)(1)(C). Section 206(g)(1)(C) expressly defines a UCEB not in
terms of degree of predictability, but rather whether a benefit is
``payable solely by reason of a shutdown or similar event * * * or an
event other than the attainment of any age, performance of any service,
receipt or derivation of any compensation, or occurrence of death or
disability.'' In other words, section 206(g)(1)(C) provides that a UCEB
remains a UCEB after the UCE occurs. Because many events that are not
reliably and reasonably predictable become predictable immediately
before they occur, and the concept of predictability does not apply to
events after they have occurred, PBGC interprets ERISA section
4022(b)(8) to apply to benefits such as shutdown benefits regardless of
whether the events triggering those benefits have already occurred or
have become predictable.
Date Phase-in of PBGC Guarantee Begins
ERISA sections 4022(b)(1) and 4022(b)(7) provide that PBGC's
guarantee of a benefit increase is phased in from the date the benefit
increase is ``in effect,'' i.e., from the later of the adoption date or
effective date of the increase. ERISA section 4022(b)(8) (added by PPA
2006) provides that, for phase-in purposes, shutdown benefits and other
UCEBs are deemed to be ``adopted on the date * * * [the UCE] occurs.''
Thus ERISA section 4022(b)(8) protects PBGC in the typical situation
where a shutdown or permanent layoff occurs long after a shutdown
benefit provision was originally adopted.
Section 4022(b)(8) could be read to produce an incongruous result
in an unusual situation--where the UCE occurs first and a UCEB is
adopted later, effective retroactive to the UCE. Because the date of
the UCE would be treated under section 4022(b)(8) as the adoption date
of the UCEB, in this situation the phase-in arguably would begin on the
date of the UCE (the later of the adoption date or effective date of
the UCEB), rather than on the actual adoption date of the plan
amendment, as under pre-PPA 2006 law. The result would be a more
generous--and more costly--guarantee of UCEBs than under pre-PPA 2006
law. To avoid this incongruous result, proposed Sec. 4022.27(c)
provides that a benefit increase due solely to a UCEB would be ``in
effect'' as of the latest of the adoption date of the plan provision
that provides for the UCEB, the effective date of the UCEB, or the date
the UCE occurs.
Finally, if a UCEB becomes payable because a restriction under IRC
section 436 is removed after, for example, an adequate funding
contribution is made, the effective date of the UCEB for phase-in
purposes is determined without regard to the restriction.
Allocation of Assets
When PBGC becomes trustee of a pension plan that terminates without
sufficient assets to provide all benefits, it allocates plan assets to
plan benefits in accordance with the statutory priority categories in
section 4044 of ERISA. The category to which a particular benefit is
assigned in the asset allocation can affect insurance program costs and
the extent to which participants receive nonguaranteed benefits.
Priority category 3 in the asset allocation is particularly
important, because it often includes benefits that, depending on the
level of the plan assets, may be paid by PBGC even though not
guaranteed. Priority category 3 contains only those benefits that were
in pay status at least three years before the termination date of the
plan (or that would have been in pay status if the participant had
retired before that three-year period). An individual's benefit amount
in priority category 3 is based on the plan provisions in effect during
the five-year period preceding plan termination under which the benefit
amount would be the least. Thus priority category 3 does not include
benefit increases that were adopted or became effective in the five
years before plan termination or, in some cases as discussed below, the
bankruptcy filing date.
PBGC considered whether the UCEBs that are not guaranteed under the
PPA 2006 changes should be excluded from priority category 3. Under
that approach, plan assets would go farther to pay for other benefits,
especially guaranteed benefits, and participants would be less likely
to receive UCEBs that are not guaranteed. Alternatively, if UCEBs that
are not guaranteed under the PPA 2006 changes were included in priority
category 3--as they are under pre-PPA law and PBGC's current regulation
on Allocation of Assets (part
[[Page 13308]]
4044)--plan assets would be less likely to reach other benefits,
especially guaranteed benefits, and participants would be more likely
to receive UCEBs that are not guaranteed.
Because section 403 of PPA 2006 does not make any reference to
section 4044,\8\ PBGC concluded that the latter interpretation is the
better one, and thus the proposed regulation does not amend part 4044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ By contrast, three other provisions of PPA 2006 that changed
PBGC's guarantee of benefits specifically provide changes to the
asset allocation scheme under section 4044. See PPA 2006 sections
404 (treatment of bankruptcy filing date as deemed termination
date), 402(g)(2)(A) (special termination rules for commercial
airlines), and 407 (relating to majority owners), enacting
respectively sections 4044(e), 4022(h), and 4044(b)(3) of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Filing Date Treated as Deemed Termination Date
On July 1, 2008 (73 FR 37390), PBGC published a proposed rule,
``Bankruptcy Filing Date Treated as Plan Termination Date for Certain
Purposes; Guaranteed Benefits; Allocation of Plan Assets; Pension
Protection Act of 2006,'' to implement section 404 of PPA 2006, which
added a new section 4022(g) to ERISA. This section provides that when
an underfunded plan terminates while its contributing sponsor is in
bankruptcy, the amount of guaranteed benefits under section 4022 will
be determined as of the date the sponsor entered bankruptcy (the
``bankruptcy filing date'') rather than as of the termination date. The
provision applies to plans terminating while the sponsor is in
bankruptcy, if the bankruptcy filing date is on or after September 16,
2006.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See definition of ``PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination'' in
Sec. 4001.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4022(g) applies to all types of plan benefits, including
UCEBs. Under this provision, if a permanent shutdown (or other UCE)
occurs after the bankruptcy filing date, UCEBs arising from the UCE are
not guaranteed because the benefits are not nonforfeitable as of the
bankruptcy filing date. Similarly, if the shutdown (or other UCE)
occurs before the bankruptcy filing date, the five-year phase-in period
for any resulting UCEBs is measured from the date of the UCE to the
bankruptcy filing date, rather than to the plan termination date. For
example, if a permanent shutdown occurs three years before the
bankruptcy filing date, the guarantee of any resulting UCEBs will be
only 60 percent phased in, even if the shutdown was more than five
years before the plan's termination date. This rule is illustrated by
Examples 4 and 5 in the proposed regulation.
PBGC considered whether UCEBs could be excepted from the section
4022(g) bankruptcy provision on the ground that the general phase-in
rule in section 4022(g) is superseded by the specific section
4022(b)(8) phase-in rule for UCEBs. However, PBGC concluded that the
language of the bankruptcy and UCEB statutory provisions does not allow
for any such exception. The UCEB provision alters the starting date for
phase-in of UCEBs, while the bankruptcy provision alters the date
beyond which no further phase-in is allowed for any benefit increase,
including a UCEB. PBGC sees no conflict in applying both provisions to
UCEBs.
Estimated Guaranteed Benefits
ERISA section 4041(c)(3)(D)(ii)(IV) requires administrators of
plans terminating in a distress termination to limit payment of
benefits to estimated guaranteed benefits and estimated non-guaranteed
benefits funded under section 4044, beginning on the proposed
termination date. Section 4022.62 of PBGC's regulation on Benefits
Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans contains rules for
computing estimated guaranteed benefits, including provisions for
estimating guaranteed benefits when a new benefit or benefit increase
was added to the plan within five years before plan termination. The
proposed regulation would amend Sec. 4022.62 to provide that the date
the UCE occurs is treated as the date the UCEB was adopted, i.e., the
date the plan was amended to include the UCEB.
Applicability
The regulatory changes made by this rule, like section 403 of PPA
2006, would apply to UCEBs that become payable as a result of a UCE
that occurs after July 26, 2005.
Compliance With Regulatory Guidelines
Executive Order 12866
PBGC has determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. The Office of
Management and Budget has therefore reviewed the proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866.
Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, a regulatory action
is economically significant if ``it is likely to result in a rule that
may * * * [h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities.'' The PBGC has determined that this proposed rule does not
cross the $100 million threshold for economic significance and is not
otherwise economically significant.
The economic effect of the proposed rule is entirely attributable
to the economic effect of section 403 of PPA 2006. Three factors tend
to reduce the economic impact of section 403.
First, before section 403 went into effect, PBGC often
involuntarily terminated plans with shutdown liabilities before
company-wide shutdowns, under the ``long-run loss'' provision in
section 4042(a)(4) of ERISA. That provision allows PBGC to initiate
termination proceedings if its long-run loss ``may reasonably be
expected to increase unreasonably if the plan is not terminated.'' A
sudden increase in PBGC's liabilities resulting from a shutdown could
create just such an unreasonable increase in long-run loss. Section 403
avoids the need for PBGC to make case-by-case decisions whether to
initiate such ``pre-emptive'' terminations. Although it is difficult to
make assumptions about PBGC's ability and intent to pursue such
terminations if section 403 had not gone into effect, this factor tends
to reduce its economic impact.
Second, another PPA 2006 amendment provides that if a plan
terminates while the sponsor is in bankruptcy, the amount of benefits
guaranteed by PBGC is fixed at the date of the bankruptcy filing rather
than at the plan termination date. Because of that provision, if a
plant shutdown or other UCE occurred between the bankruptcy filing date
and the termination date, the resulting UCEB would not be guaranteed at
all, and thus section 403 would have no economic effect.
Third--and perhaps most important--as also discussed above, other
PPA 2006 provisions restrict payment of UCEBs if a plan is less than 60
percent funded. If, because of those restrictions, a UCEB was not
payable at all, section 403 again would have no economic effect.
As stated above in Applicability, section 403 applies to any UCEB
that becomes payable as a result of a UCE that occurs after July 26,
2005. PBGC estimates that, to date, the total effect of section 403--in
terms of lower benefits paid to participants and associated savings for
PBGC--is less than $4 million. Although PBGC cannot predict with
certainty which plans with UCEBs will terminate, the funding level of
such plans, or what benefits will be affected by the guarantee limits,
given the relatively low estimate of the effect of the statutory
provision to date, PBGC has determined that the annual effect of
[[Page 13309]]
the proposed rule will be less than $100 million.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments
implement and in some cases clarify statutory changes made in PPA 2006;
they do not impose new burdens on entities of any size. Virtually all
of the statutory changes affect only PBGC and persons who receive
benefits from PBGC. Accordingly, sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act do not apply.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022
Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons given above, PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR part
4022 as follows:
PART 4022--BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
2. In Sec. 4022.2:
a. Amend the definition of ``benefit increase'' by removing the
final ``and'' in the second sentence and adding in its place, ``an
unpredictable contingent event benefit, and''; and
b Add in alphabetical order definitions for unpredictable
contingent event (UCE) and unpredictable contingent event benefit
(UCEB) to read as follows:
Sec. 4022.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Unpredictable contingent event (UCE) has the same meaning as
unpredictable contingent event in section 206(g)(1)(C) of ERISA and
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-1(j)(9). It includes a plant shutdown (full or
partial) or a similar event (such as a full or partial closing of
another type of facility, or a layoff or other workforce reduction), or
any event other than the attainment of any age, performance of any
service, receipt or derivation of any compensation, or occurrence of
death or disability.
Unpredictable contingent event benefit (UCEB) has the same meaning
as unpredictable contingent event benefit in section 206(g)(1)(C) of
ERISA and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-1(j)(9). Thus, a UCEB is any benefit
or benefit increase to the extent that it would not be payable but for
the occurrence of a UCE. A benefit or benefit increase that is
conditioned upon the occurrence of a UCE does not cease to be a UCEB as
a result of the contingent event having occurred or its occurrence
having become reasonably predictable.
3. Sec. 4022.24(e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4022.24 Benefit Increases.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 4022.27(c), for the purposes of
Sec. Sec. 4022.22 through 4022.28, a benefit increase is deemed to be
in effect commencing on the later of its adoption date or its effective
date.
Sec. 4022.27 [Redesignated as Sec. 4022.28]
4. Section 4022.27 is redesignated as Sec. 4022.28.
5. New Sec. 4022.27 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4022.27 Phase-in of guarantee of unpredictable contingent event
benefits.
(a) Scope. This section applies to a benefit increase, as defined
in Sec. 4022.2 of this part, that is an unpredictable contingent event
benefit (UCEB) and that is payable with respect to an unpredictable
contingent event (UCE) that occurs after July 26, 2005.
(1) Examples of benefit increases within the scope of this section
include unreduced early retirement benefits or other early retirement
subsidies, or other benefits to the extent that such benefits would not
be payable but for the occurrence of one or more UCEs.
(2) Examples of UCEs within the scope of this section include full
and partial closings of plants or other facilities, and permanent
workforce reductions, such as permanent layoffs. Permanent layoffs
include layoffs during which an idled employee continues to earn
credited service (``creep-type'' layoff) for a period of time at the
end of which the layoff is deemed to be permanent. Permanent layoffs
also include layoffs that become permanent upon the occurrence of an
additional event such as a declaration by the employer that the
participant's return to work is unlikely or a failure by the employer
to offer the employee suitable work in a specified area.
(3) The examples in this section are not an exclusive list of UCEs
or UCEBs and are not intended to narrow the statutory definitions, as
further delineated in Treasury Regulations.
(b) Facts and circumstances. If PBGC determines that a benefit is a
shutdown benefit or other type of UCEB, the benefit will be treated as
a UCEB for purposes of this subpart. PBGC will make such determinations
based on the facts and circumstances, consistent with these
regulations; how a benefit is characterized by the employer or other
parties may be relevant but is not determinative.
(c) Date phase-in begins. (1) The date the phase-in of PBGC's
guarantee of a UCEB begins is determined in accordance with subpart B
of this part. For purposes of this subpart, a UCEB is deemed to be in
effect as of the latest of--
(i) The adoption date of the plan provision that provides for the
UCEB,
(ii) The effective date of the UCEB, or
(iii) The date the UCE occurs.
(2) The date the phase-in of PBGC's guarantee of a UCEB begins is
not affected by any delay that may occur in placing participants in pay
status due to removal of a restriction under section 436(b)of the Code.
See the example in paragraph (e)(8) of this section.
(d) Date UCE occurs. For purposes of this section, PBGC will
determine the date the UCE occurs based on the plan provisions and the
relevant facts and circumstances, such as the nature and level of
activity at a facility that is closing and the permanence of the event;
the date of the event as conceived, planned, announced, or agreed to by
the employer may be relevant but is not determinative.
(1) The date a UCE occurs is determined on a participant-by-
participant basis, or on a different basis, such as a facility-wide or
company-wide basis, depending upon plan provisions and the facts and
circumstances. For example, a benefit triggered by a permanent layoff
of a participant would be determined with respect to each participant,
and thus layoffs that occur on different dates would generally be
distinct UCEs. In contrast, a benefit payable only upon a complete
plant shutdown would apply facility-wide, and generally the shutdown
date would be the date of the UCE for all participants who work at that
plant. Similarly, a benefit payable only upon the complete shutdown of
the employer's entire operations would apply plan-wide, and thus the
shutdown date of company operations generally would be the date of the
UCE for all participants.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, if a benefit
is contingent upon more than one UCE, PBGC will apply the rule under
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.436-1(b)(3)(ii) (i.e., the date the UCE occurs is
the date of the latest UCE).
(e) Examples. The following examples illustrate the operation of
the rules in this section. Except as provided in Example 8, no benefit
limitation under
[[Page 13310]]
Code section 436 applies in any of these examples.
(1) Date of UCE. (i) Facts: On January 1, 2000, a Company adopts a
plan that provides an unreduced early retirement benefit for
participants with specified age and service whose continuous service is
broken by a permanent plant closing or permanent layoff that occurs on
or after January 1, 2001. On January 1, 2007, the Company informally
and without announcement decides to close Facility A within a two-year
period. On January 1, 2008, the Company's Board of Directors passes a
resolution directing the Company's officers to close Facility A on or
before September 1, 2008. On June 1, 2008, the Company issues a notice
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(``WARN'') Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2101, et seq., that Facility A will
close, and all employees will be permanently laid off, on or about
August 1, 2008. The Company and the Union representing the employees
enter into collective bargaining concerning the closing of Facility A
and on July 1, 2008, they jointly agree and announce that Facility A
will close and employees who work there will be permanently laid off as
of November 1, 2008. However, due to unanticipated business conditions,
Facility A continues to operate until December 31, 2008, when
operations cease and all employees are permanently laid off. The plan
terminates as of December 1, 2009.
(ii) Conclusion: PBGC would determine that the UCE is the facility
closing and permanent layoff that occurred on December 31, 2008.
Because the date that the UCE occurred (December 31, 2008) is later
than both the date the plan provision that established the UCEB was
adopted (January 1, 2000) and the date the UCEB became effective
(January 1, 2001), December 31, 2008, would be the date the phase-in
period under ERISA section 4022 begins. In light of the plan
termination date of December 1, 2009, the guarantee of the UCEBs of
participants laid off on December 31, 2008, would be 0 percent phased
in.
(2) Sequential layoffs. (i) Facts: The same facts as Example 1,
with these exceptions: Not all employees are laid off on December 31,
2008. The Company and Union agree to and subsequently implement a
shutdown in which employees are permanently laid off in stages--one-
third of the employees are laid off on October 31, 2008, another third
are laid off on November 30, 2008, and the remaining one-third are laid
off on December 31, 2008.
(ii) Conclusion: Because the plan provides that a UCEB is payable
in the event of either a permanent layoff or a plant shutdown, PBGC
would determine that phase-in begins on the date of the UCE applicable
to each of the three groups of employees. Because the first two groups
of employees were permanently laid off before the plant closed, October
31, 2008, and November 30, 2008, are the dates that the phase-in period
under ERISA section 4022 begins for those groups. Because the third
group was permanently laid off on December 31, 2008, the same date the
plant closed, the phase-in period would begin on that date for that
group. Based on the plan termination date of December 1, 2009,
participants laid off on October 31, 2008, and November 30, 2008, would
have 20 percent of the UCEBs (or $20 per month, if greater) guaranteed
under the phase-in rule. The guarantee of the UCEBs of participants
laid off on December 31, 2008, would be 0 percent phased in.
(3) Skeleton shutdown crews. (i) Facts: The same facts as Example
1, with these exceptions: The plan provides for an unreduced early
retirement benefit for age-service qualified participants only in the
event of a break in continuous service due to a permanent and complete
plant closing. A minimal skeleton crew remains to perform primarily
security and basic maintenance functions until March 31, 2009, when
skeleton crew members are permanently laid off and the facility is sold
to an unrelated investment group that does not assume the plan or
resume business operations at the facility. The plan has no specific
provision or past practice governing benefits of skeleton shutdown
crews. The plan terminates as of January 1, 2009.
(ii) Conclusion: Because the continued employment of the skeleton
crew does not effectively continue operations of the facility, PBGC
would determine that there is a permanent and complete plant closing
(for purposes of the plan's plant closing provision) as of December 31,
2008, which is the date the phase-in period under ERISA section 4022
begins with respect to employees who incurred a break in continuous
service at that time. The UCEB of those participants would be a
nonforfeitable benefit as of the plan termination date, but PBGC's
guarantee of the UCEB would be 0 percent phased in. In the case of the
skeleton crew members, such participants would not be eligible for the
UCEB because they did not incur a break in continuous service until
after the plan termination date. (If the plan had a provision that
there is no shutdown until all employees, including any skeleton crew
are terminated, or if the plan were reasonably interpreted to so
provide in light of past practice, PBGC would determine that the date
that the UCE occurred was after the plan termination date. Thus the
UCEB would not be a nonforfeitable benefit as of the plan termination
date and therefore would not be guaranteeable.)
(4) Creep-type layoff benefit/bankruptcy of contributing sponsor.
(i) Facts: A plan provides that participants who are at least age 55
and whose age plus years of continuous service equal at least 80 are
entitled to an unreduced early retirement benefit if their continuous
service is broken due to a permanent layoff. The plan further provides
that a participant's continuous service is broken due to a permanent
layoff when the participant is terminated due to the permanent shutdown
of a facility, or the participant has been on layoff status for two
years. These provisions were adopted and effective in 1986. Participant
A is 56 years old and has 25 years of continuous service when he is
laid off in a reduction-in-force on May 15, 2008. He is not recalled to
employment, and on May 15, 2010, under the terms of the plan, his
continuous service is broken due to the layoff. He goes into pay status
on June 1, 2010, with an unreduced early retirement benefit. The
contributing sponsor of Participant A's plan files a bankruptcy
petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on September 1,
2011, and the plan terminates during the bankruptcy proceedings with a
termination date of October 1, 2012. Under section 4022(g) of ERISA,
because the plan terminated while the contributing sponsor was in
bankruptcy, the five-year phase-in period ended on the bankruptcy
filing date.
(ii) Conclusion: PBGC would determine that the guarantee of the
UCEB is phased in beginning on May 15, 2010, the date of the later of
the two UCEs necessary to make this benefit payable (i.e., the first
UCE is the initial layoff and the second UCE is the expiration of the
two-year period without rehire). Since that date is more than one year
(but less than two years) before the September 1, 2011, bankruptcy
filing date, 20 percent of Participant A's UCEB (or $20 per month, if
greater) would be guaranteed under the phase-in rule.
(5) Creep-type layoff benefit with provision for declaration that
return to work unlikely. (i) Facts: A plan provides that participants
who are at least age 60 and have at least 20 years of continuous
service are entitled to an unreduced early retirement benefit if their
[[Page 13311]]
continuous service is broken by a permanent layoff. The plan further
provides that a participant's continuous service is broken by a
permanent layoff if the participant is laid off and the employer
declares that the participant's return to work is unlikely.
Participants may earn up to 2 years of credited service while on
layoff. The plan was adopted and effective in 1990. On March 1, 2009,
Participant B, who is age 60 and has 20 years of service, is laid off.
On June 15, 2009, the employer declares that Participant B's return to
work is unlikely. Participant B retires and goes into pay status as of
July 1, 2009. The employer files for bankruptcy on September 1, 2011.
(ii) Conclusion: PBGC would determine that the phase-in period of
the guarantee of the UCEB would begin on June 15, 2009--the later of
the two UCEs necessary to make the benefit payable (i.e., the first UCE
is the initial layoff and the second UCE is the employer's declaration
that it is unlikely that Participant B will return to work). The phase-
in period would end on September 1, 2011, the date of the bankruptcy
filing. Thus 40 percent of Participant B's UCEB (or $40 per month, if
greater) would be guaranteed under the phase-in rule.
(6) Shutdown benefit with special post-employment eligibility
provision. (i) Facts: A plan provides that, in the event of a permanent
shutdown of a plant, a participant age 60 or older who terminates
employment due to the shutdown and who has at least 20 years of service
is entitled to an unreduced early retirement benefit. The plan also
provides that a participant with at least 20 years of service who
terminates employment due to a plant shutdown at a time when the
participant is under age 60 also will be entitled to an unreduced early
retirement benefit, provided the participant's commencement of benefits
is on or after attainment of age 60 and the time required to attain age
60 does not exceed the participant's years of service with the plan
sponsor. The plan imposes no other conditions on receipt of the
benefit. Plan provisions were adopted and effective in 1991. On January
1, 2006, Participant C's plant is permanently shut down. At the time of
the shutdown, Participant C had 20 years of service and was age 58. On
June 1, 2007, Participant C reaches age 60 and retires. The plan
terminates as of September 1, 2007.
(ii) Conclusion: PBGC would determine that the guarantee of the
shutdown benefit is phased in from January 1, 2006, which is the date
of the only UCE (the permanent shutdown of the plant) necessary to make
the benefit payable. Thus 20 percent of Participant C's UCEB (or $20
per month, if greater) would be guaranteed under the phase-in rule.
(7) Phase-in of retroactive UCEB. (i) Facts: As the result of a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit, a plan provision is adopted on
September 1, 2011, to provide that age/service-qualified participants
are entitled to an unreduced early retirement benefit if permanently
laid off due to a plant shutdown occurring after January 1, 2008.
Benefits under the provision are payable prospectively only, beginning
March 1, 2012. Participant A, who was age/service-qualified, was
permanently laid off due to a plant shutdown occurring on January 1,
2009, and therefore he is scheduled to be placed in pay status as of
March 1, 2012. The plan is a calendar year plan. The unreduced early
retirement benefit is paid to Participant A beginning on March 1, 2012.
The plan terminates as of February 1, 2014. The termination is not a
PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination.
(ii) Conclusion: PBGC would determine that the guarantee of the
UCEB is phased in beginning on March 1, 2012. This is the date the
benefit was effective (since it was the first date on which the new
benefit was payable), and it is later than the adoption date of the
plan provision (September 1, 2011) and the date of the UCE (January 1,
2009). The guarantee of the unreduced early retirement benefit is 20%
phased in.
(8) Removal of IRC section 436 restriction. (i) Facts: A plan
provision was adopted on September 1, 1989, to provide that age/
service-qualified participants are entitled to an unreduced early
retirement benefit if permanently laid off due to a plant shutdown
occurring after January 1, 1990. Participant A, who was age/service-
qualified, was permanently laid off due to a plant shutdown occurring
on April 1, 2011. The plan is a calendar year plan. Under the rules of
Code section 436 (ERISA section 206(g)) and Treasury regulations
thereunder, a plan cannot provide a UCEB payable with respect to an
unpredictable contingent event, if the event occurs during a plan year
in which the plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage is
less than 60%. On January 30, 2011, the plan's enrolled actuary issued
a certification stating that the plan's adjusted funding target
attainment percentage for 2011 is 58%. Therefore, the plan restricts
payment of the unreduced early retirement benefit payable with respect
to the shutdown on April 1, 2011. On August 15, 2011, the plan sponsor
makes an additional contribution to the plan that is designated as a
contribution under Code section 436(b)(2) to eliminate the restriction
on payment of the shutdown benefits. On September 15, 2011, the plan's
enrolled actuary issues a certification stating that, due to the
additional section 436(b)(2) contribution, the plan's adjusted funding
target attainment percentage for 2011 is 60%. On October 1, 2011,
Participant A is placed in pay status for the unreduced early
retirement benefit and, as required under Code section 436 and Treasury
regulations thereunder, is in addition paid retroactively the unreduced
benefit for the period May 1, 2011 (the date the unreduced early
retirements would have become payable) through September 1, 2011. The
plan terminates as of February 1, 2014. The termination is not a PPA
2006 bankruptcy termination.
(ii) Conclusion: PBGC would determine that the guarantee of the
UCEB is phased in beginning on April 1, 2011, the date the UCE
occurred. Because April 1, 2011, is later than both the date the plan
provision that established the UCEB was adopted (September 1, 1989) and
the date the UCEB became effective (January 1, 1990), it would be the
date the phase-in period under ERISA section 4022 begins. Commencement
of the phase-in period is not affected by the delay in providing the
unreduced early retirement benefit to Participant A due to the
operation of the rules of Code section 436 and the Treasury regulations
thereunder. The guarantee of the unreduced early retirement benefit is
40% phased in.
6. In Sec. 4022.62(c)(2)(i), add a sentence after the third
sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 4022.62 Estimated guaranteed benefit.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * * ``New benefits'' also result from increases that become
payable by reason of the occurrence of an unpredictable contingent
event (provided the event occurred after July 26, 2005), to the extent
the increase would not be payable but for the occurrence of the event;
in the case of such new benefits, the date of the occurrence of the
unpredictable contingent event is treated as the amendment date for
purposes of Table I. * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 13312]]
Issued in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March, 2011.
Joshua Gotbaum,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2011-5696 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-01-P