May 5, 2008

Kay H. Oshel

Director of Office of Policy, Reports and Disclosure

Office of Labor-Management Standards

US Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RIN 1215-AB64: T-1 Forms

Dear Ms. Oshel:

The following comments are being submitted in response to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). I am a salaried administrator of six
multiemployer Taft-Hartley employee benefit plans in the fire sprinkler
industry; a position I have held since 1984. The individual funds I
administer are the National Automatic Sprinkler Industry ("NASI")
Welfare Fund, the NASI Pension Fund, the Sprinkler Industry Supplemental
("SIS") Pension Fund, the National Automatic Sprinkler Metal Trades
("NASMT") Welfare Fund, the NASMT Pension Fund and the National
Automatic Sprinkler Local Union 669 U.A. Education Fund. These comments
are being submitted on behalf of these six plans (referred to
collectively as "Funds").

There are 17 sprinkler local unions whose members participate in one or
more of the Funds through their union's collective bargaining agreement.
Individuals also participate who are not union members. Each of these
plans has a joint labor-management board of Trustees. While some
Trustees serve on the board of more than one Fund, only six of the 17
local unions are represented on any of the Boards of Trustees. Only five
labor organizations have the authority to appoint Trustees to any of the
boards.

The three pension plans, the NASI Pension Fund, NASMT Pension Fund and
SIS Pension Fund, cover participants nationwide and together make
benefit payments to approximately 7,000 pensioners and beneficiaries.
The Funds receives contributions from approximately 700 employers.

The two health and welfare plans, the NASI Welfare Fund and NASMT
Welfare Fund, also cover participants nationwide and receive
contributions from more than 650 employers. Individuals also contribute
for continuation coverage and retiree coverage. All benefits from the
Fund are self insured, except for life insurance benefits. However, some
claims are paid through an insurance company under an administrative
services only contract.

The Education Fund provides training to approximately 10,000 apprentices
and journeymen nation wide and receives contributions from approximately
500 employers.

I do not know which participants are members of the various
participating local unions since union membership is not relevant to the
benefits provided by these Funds.

I have reviewed the NPRM and believe that all of the Funds might be T-1
Trusts with respect to one or more labor organizations. I understand
that the T-1 report is the obligation of the labor organizations and is
not an obligation of the Funds. However, it is apparent from a review of
the proposed T-1 Form that most of the information that a labor
organization would need to disclose in its T-1 filing is in the sole
possession of the Funds. To comply with its new T-1 reporting
obligation, a union would have to seek and obtain this information from
the applicable Fund or Funds.

Providing the information the labor organization or organizations would
need for its T-1 filing would involve a new and significant
administrative burden on each of the Funds. For the reasons stated
below, the Funds request that the Department change the Final Rule to
exempt filing with respect to employee benefit plans that already file
5500 Forms as was proposed in an earlier version of the rulemaking.

In these comments, the Funds address their primary areas of concern. In
addition, I have reviewed the comments submitted by the National
Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP) and agree with
them.

**Union "domination" of Funds**

The implication in the NPRM that jointly trusteed employee benefit plans
are dominated by the union(s) is simply wrong. In my more than 20 years
of experience attending trustees' meetings, management and union
trustees work together to address fund issues. The premise that these
plans are "union dominated" is simply wrong. In fact, there have been
more than a few occasions where labor and management have sharply
disagreed and/or deadlocked.

As required by the Taft-Hartley Act, the Funds are legally distinct and
independent from the unions. Each of the Funds is operated by a joint
Board of Trustees with equal representation by labor and management, and
neither side is in a position legally or practically to dominate the
administration of the Fund. The Supreme Court addressed the status of
trustees of Taft-Hartley funds in NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 US 322
(1981), holding that the individual trustees of a Taft-Hartley fund are
not agents of the employers or the union but instead owe an unwavering
duty of complete loyalty to the beneficiaries of the trust.

Given the uncertainty of whether Taft-Hartley plans are required or even
legally permitted to provide the information a union needs to complete
their T-1 filings, it is quite possible the Trustees could refuse to
approve the release of such information to a union. This possibility
puts the unions participating in these plans and which are required to
file a T-1 in a difficult position.

Unions who require Fund information for their T-1 filing cannot compel
the Fund to release such information. Moreover, as discussed below, the
Fund Trustees in determining to what extent or even whether Fund
information may be provided to unions for their T-1 filings, must be
governed by their fiduciary obligations to act in the sole and exclusive
interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the Funds. Even if
the Fund Trustees determine that the information required for T-1
filings can lawfully be provided to the unions, the unions cannot compel
the disclosure of the information. Quite honestly, it seems rather
bizarre and unfair to impose a filing requirement on a union when the
union does not have control of, or access to, the information.

**Burden of Providing Information**

As discussed previously, the Trustees of Taft-Hartley plans must always
act in the sole and exclusive interest of plan participants and
beneficiaries. It is my opinion that the Funds I administer could not
provide the information required under your proposed regulations without
significant initial cost and well as significant ongoing costs. Current
accounting software used by the Funds (which I believe to be more
sophisticated than software used by many other Taft-Hartley plans
because of the "multiple company" nature of accounting for six plans) is
inadequate for the task. Simply finding accounting software could take
significant time (assuming adequate software even exists). Then would
come the software set up, transition of information, and learning curve
on the new software -- all unnecessary expenses to the Funds but for
your proposed regulations.

Some of the information required for a T-1 filing is not incorporated
into our accounting system but is on the Fund's main computer system
(for example, this would include medical claims and pension benefits).
Listing any individual or organization to which at least \$10,000 is
paid in a year will produce a list of literally thousands of
participants (whose benefit exceeds that amount) as well as virtually
every hospital in the country that has provided services to one of the
welfare Funds' approximately 50,000 covered participants or dependents.
The potential privacy concerns created by the proposed regulations are
significant and alarming. But the main point of this paragraph is to
note that software would have to be developed to produce reports that do
not now exist. Once that software is produced, it would still be
burdensome to produce reports that each of the unions would need to
complete its T-1 based on when the union's fiscal year ends.

In addition, much of the information required, particularly information
with respect to the health and welfare funds, would have to be obtained
through outside sources, such as the claims payer and pharmacy benefits
manager. These organizations may very well require compensation for
providing information in a format not contemplated by existing
contracts, and I anticipate some delay in obtaining this information (if
it can be obtained at all) in a format that will not require extensive
additional work by the Funds.

Virtually every one of the more than 700 employers who contribute to the
Funds makes contributions that exceed \$10,000 annually. Most
contributing employers make contributions that exceed that amount
monthly. I expect that the easy access to detailed manpower information
(which can be derived from contribution data and will be publicly
available as a consequence of the proposed T-1 filings) might concern
employers who want to keep their business information secret from their
competitors.

I also believe that the Funds will simply be unable to provide some or
all of the required information within 90 days after the end of the
Funds' fiscal year, which is the same as at least one of the union's
fiscal year.

**Fiduciary Considerations**

While it is clear that it would not be lawful for ERISA-covered plans to
provide this information to a union at no cost, it is not clear why
these independent Boards of Trustees would agree to undertake the steps
necessary to provide this information to unions at all or why this
information is necessary. Complete information regarding the Funds'
finances is routinely reported to the government via independently
audited financial statements and the Forms 5500. All of that information
is available to participants and to the DOL, IRS and PBGC as provided
for by law. However, it appears from the level of detail required for
the T-1 filing as well as the timing associated with the union's fiscal
year which may not align with the plan's fiscal year that these
regulations have been written expressly to make audited financial
statements and Forms 5500 unresponsive. So much for government paperwork
reduction!

These Funds also routinely disclose much additional information to
participants and beneficiaries which includes disclosures required by
law as well as disclosures which the Trustees direct in their efforts to
provide comprehensive and useful information and education to
participants and beneficiaries. After reviewing the disclosures required
by the T-1 filings, I believe that this information will be virtually
useless to union members, participants and beneficiaries for any
purpose.

I am also deeply troubled by the requirement to disclose personal
information concerning Fund participants and beneficiaries. A review of
the proposal leads me to believe that Protected Health Information (PHI)
as defined in HIPAA could not be disclosed under any circumstances.
Culling reports before they are sent to unions to identify and delete
PHI adds to the proposal's compliance burden. Moreover, while not
necessarily problematic under HIPAA, disclosing names, addresses and
personal financial information for pensioners raises privacy concerns as
well. I will likely be communicating with participants and beneficiaries
about this issue and believe that many will be outraged by the
disclosure of their personal information. I will encourage them to make
their views known to the Trustees as well as to the Department and their
representatives in Congress.

In sum, the Funds believe that the applicable ERISA disclosure
requirements are sufficient and appropriate. Accordingly, the Funds
believe there should be a clear exemption from a union's T-1 filing
requirements to the extent that such requirements relate to
ERISA-covered Plans. The burden imposed by the proposed T-1 filing
requirements for these plans significantly outweighs any benefit to be
realized.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Jacobson

cc: Trustees