53084 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

electronic engine control (EEC) software 

earlier than FCS 5.0 from the engine and 

install EEC software that is eligible for 

installation. 

(h) Installation Prohibition 

(1) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not install integrated drive generator (IDG) oil 

pump drive gearshaft assembly, P/N 

5322630–01, into an MGB assembly. 

(2) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not load EEC software earlier than FCS 5.0 

on any engine identified in paragraph (c) of 

this AD with an MGB assembly, P/N 

5322505. 

(i) Definitions 

(1) For the purpose of this AD, a ‘‘part 

eligible for installation’’ is an MGB assembly 

with an IDG oil pump drive gearshaft 

assembly other than P/N 5322630–01. 

(2) For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine 

shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into 

the shop for maintenance involving the 

separation of pairs of major mating engine 

flanges, except that the separation of engine 

flanges solely for the purposes of 

transportation of the engine without 

subsequent engine maintenance does not 

constitute an engine shop visit. 

(3) For the purpose of this AD, ‘‘EEC 

software that is eligible for installation’’ is 

EEC software FCS 5.0 and later. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the certification office, 

send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You 

may email your request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@

faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, 

ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, 

Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238– 

7088; fax: 781–238–7199; email: 

kevin.m.clark@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact International Aero Engines, 

LLC, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 

06118; phone: 800–565–0140; email: help24@

pw.utc.com; internet: http://

fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 

District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7759. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

October 1, 2019. 

Robert J. Ganley, 

Manager, Engine & Propeller Standards 

Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2019–21618 Filed 10–3–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4003 

RIN 1212–AB35 

Administrative Review of Agency 

Decisions 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation is amending its regulation 

on Rules for Administrative Review of 

Agency Decisions. The proposed rule 

would clarify and make changes to the 

review process for certain agency 

determinations and the procedures for 

requesting administrative review. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before December 3, 2019 to be 

assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: reg.comments@pbgc.gov. 

Refer to RIN–1212–AB35 in the subject 

line. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory 

Affairs Division, Office of the General 

Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20005–4026. 

All submissions must include the 

agency’s name (Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and the 

RIN for this rulemaking (RIN 1212– 

AB35). All comments received will be 

posted without change to PBGC’s 

website, http://www.pbgc.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Copies of comments may also be 

obtained by writing to Disclosure 

Division, Office of the General Counsel, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 

20005–4026. For more information on 

how to submit a written request, please 

call 202–326–4040 during normal 

business hours. (TTY users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 800– 

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4040.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen B. Levin (levin.karen@pbgc.gov), 

Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Division, 

Office of the General Counsel, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20005– 

4026; 202–326–4400, extension 3559. 

(TTY users may call the Federal Relay 

Service toll-free at 800–877–8339 and 

ask to be connected to 202–326–4400, 

extension 3559.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose and Authority 

This proposed rule would amend 

PBGC’s regulation on rules for 

administrative review of agency 

decisions to clarify, simplify, and make 

other editorial changes to the language, 

and codify PBGC practices. 

PBGC’s legal authority for this action 

comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (ERISA) which authorizes 

PBGC to issue regulations to carry out 

the purposes of title IV of ERISA. 

Major Provisions 

The proposed rulemaking would: 

• Subject all coverage determinations 

to appeal. 

• Subject all determinations 

concerning the allocation of a trusteed 

plan’s assets upon plan termination to 

appeal, except for determinations 

concerning the distribution of residual 

assets, which would remain subject to 

reconsideration. 

• Clarify that, consistent with PBGC’s 

long-standing practice, when PBGC 

makes an initial determination effective 

on the date of issuance, a person 

aggrieved by the initial determination 

has no right to request reconsideration 

or appeal of the determination. 

• Clarify where to send requests for 

extensions on appeals and extensions 

for reconsideration. 

• Clarify that persons seeking 

administrative review may request 

information in PBGC’s possession by 

using PBGC’s procedures for requests 

under the Freedom of Information Act 

and the Privacy Act. 

Background 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) administers two 

insurance programs for private-sector 

defined benefit pension plans under 

title IV of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA): A 

single-employer plan termination 

insurance program and a multiemployer 

plan insolvency insurance program. The 

amendments proposed in this 

rulemaking only apply to the singleemployer program. 

PBGC is committed to the ongoing 

retrospective review of its regulations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 53085 

1See 44 FR 42181, 42181 (July 19, 1979). 

2See section 4007 of ERISA (designated payor is 

defined as a contributing sponsor or plan 

administrator in the case of a single-employer plan). 3See 67 FR 47694, 47694 (July 22, 2002). 

This practice ensures that PBGC 

provides clear and helpful guidance, 

minimizes burdens and maximizes 

benefits, and addresses ineffective and 

outdated rules. In the course of PBGC’s 

regulatory review, PBGC has identified 

opportunities to improve its regulation 

on Rules for Administrative Review of 

Agency Decisions (29 CFR part 4003) by 

making it more transparent, simplifying 

language, and codifying policies. The 

proposed rule also makes clarifications 

and other editorial changes to part 4003. 

A detailed discussion of the proposed 

regulatory changes follows. PBGC 

invites comments on these proposals. 

Review Process for Agency 

Determinations 

PBGC’s administrative review 

regulation provides procedures so that 

persons who are aggrieved by PBGC 

determinations have an opportunity to 

present their positions to PBGC before a 

final decision is made by the agency. 

When PBGC first promulgated its rules 

on administrative review of agency 

decisions in 1979 (the ‘‘1979 rule’’), it 

emphasized the competing interests of 

providing ‘‘fair and effective 

administrative review’’ and ‘‘keep[ing] 

to a minimum the time and cost entailed 

in obtaining PBGC review of its 

decisions.’’ 1 To balance these interests, 

PBGC developed an administrative 

review system with two separate 

processes: Reconsideration and appeal. 

Under reconsideration, aggrieved 

persons generally raise their concerns 

and make their cases directly to a 

higher-level official within the same 

department that issued the initial 

determination. Most requests for 

reconsideration are filed by the 

designated payor 2 under § 4003.1(b)(2) 

and relate to premiums, interest, and 

late payment penalties. 

Under the appeals process, the 

decisionmaker reviewing the initial 

determination is not within the same 

department that issued the initial 

determination. Rather, the PBGC 

Appeals Board, which is located within 

the Office of the General Counsel, 

provides an independent review of the 

initial determination. Decisions by the 

Appeals Board may be made either by 

a three-member panel or by an 

individual member. Originally, a 

decision on appeal was always decided 

by a three-member PBGC Appeals 

Board. The appeals process changed in 

2002 when the administrative review 

regulation was amended to expedite the 

appeals process, authorizing a single 

member of the PBGC Appeals Board to 

decide routine appeals instead of the 

three-member PBGC Appeals Board.3

All non-routine appeals are decided by 

a three-member panel. Most appeals are 

filed by individuals (participants, 

beneficiaries, and alternate payees) in 

connection with benefit entitlement or 

amounts, although sponsors can, and 

sometimes do, file appeals of 

termination liability assessments and 

coverage denials. 

Subpart A of the regulation provides 

a list of initial determinations made by 

PBGC, with each determination subject 

to either the reconsideration procedures 

described in subpart C or the appeals 

procedures described in subpart D. 

PBGC proposes to reorganize the list in 

§ 4003.1(b) into two new paragraphs by 

moving and reorganizing the list of 

initial determinations subject to 

reconsideration to § 4003.1(d) and the 

list of initial determinations subject to 

appeal to § 4003.1(e). These changes 

would simplify references to the types 

of determinations subject to each type of 

administrative review and improve the 

readability of this section. 

Subpart B of the regulation provides 

rules for the form and contents of initial 

determinations and specifies that initial 

determinations will not become 

effective until the time for filing a 

request for reconsideration under 

subpart C or an appeal under subpart D 

has elapsed. 

Under an exception in § 4003.22(b), 

PBGC may in its discretion order that an 

initial determination is effective on the 

date of issuance. As an example, when 

PBGC makes an initial determination 

under section 4042 of ERISA that the 

statutory criteria for termination are 

met, the initial determination states that 

it is effective on the date of issuance. 

When PBGC makes an order that an 

initial determination is effective on the 

date of issuance, any person aggrieved 

by the initial determination has 

exhausted all available administrative 

remedies and may seek judicial review 

of PBGC’s determination in an 

appropriate court under section 

4003(f)(2) of ERISA. 

PBGC proposes to clarify the 

exception under § 4003.22(b) by 

providing that the exception does not 

apply to initial determinations related to 

a participant’s or beneficiary’s benefit 

entitlement and the amount of benefit 

payable under a covered plan, to 

whether a domestic relations order is or 

is not qualified, and to whether benefits 

are payable under section 4050 of 

ERISA and part 4050, as listed 

respectively in proposed § 4003.1(e)(2), 

(3), and (6). PBGC proposes to further 

clarify § 4003.22(b) by providing that 

when PBGC issues an order making an 

initial determination effective on the 

date of issuance, a person aggrieved by 

the initial determination has no right to 

request review under subparts C and D, 

consistent with PBGC’s long-standing 

practice, and has exhausted all 

administrative remedies. 

Coverage Determinations 

PBGC insures plans described in 

section 4021(a) of ERISA that do not fall 

within one of the exemptions from 

coverage listed in section 4021(b)(1)– 

(13) of ERISA. If a question arises about 

whether a plan is covered under title IV, 

PBGC may make a coverage 

determination. 

The current language in the 

administrative review regulation 

provides that coverage determinations 

under section 4021 of ERISA are subject 

to different review procedures. An 

initial determination that a plan is 

covered under section 4021 is subject to 

reconsideration by the PBGC 

department that issued the original 

determination. An initial determination 

that a plan is not covered is subject to 

appeal to the PBGC Appeals Board. 

Based on internal data gathered by 

PBGC from fiscal years 2013 through 

2017, there were few requests for 

reconsideration of coverage 

determinations (a total of 18) and even 

fewer requests for appeal of coverage 

determinations (one in 2017). The data 

indicates that the total amount of time 

and agency resources used to close 

requests for reconsideration and appeals 

of coverage determinations are similar. 

As originally designed, case 

resolution under the appeals process 

generally took longer and put a greater 

burden on PBGC’s administrative 

resources than the reconsideration 

process. The movement to single 

member decisions for routine cases and 

other process improvements have 

largely mitigated these issues. In light of 

these improvements, for the sake of 

consistency, PBGC is proposing to make 

all coverage determinations subject to 

appeal to the PBGC Appeals Board. In 

cases in which the Appeals Board is 

considering granting a plan sponsor’s 

appeal by finding that a plan is not 

covered, the Appeals Board would make 

reasonable efforts to notify plan 

participants of the decision under 

consideration and permit them an 

opportunity to present matters as a 

potential aggrieved party to the appeal 

under § 4003.57(a). PBGC proposes to 

remove the current § 4003.1(b)(1) and 

proposes additional language in new 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
53086 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

4Note, section 4044(d) of ERISA uses the word 

‘‘residual’’ instead of ‘‘excess.’’ 

5See 44 FR 42181, 42185 (July 19, 1979) and 29 

CFR part 4901. 

§ 4003.1(e)(1), to subject all coverage 

determinations to the appeals process. 

Asset Allocation Determinations 

Section 4044 of ERISA requires that 

when an underfunded pension plan 

terminates, PBGC must assign benefits 

payable to each participant to one or 

more of six priority categories and 

allocate the plan’s assets to the benefits 

in each category in a prescribed 

sequential order (i.e., priority categories 

1 through 6). To accomplish the 

allocation process in a terminated plan, 

PBGC first values the benefits in each of 

a terminated plan’s six priority 

categories and the terminated plan’s 

assets as of the plan’s termination date. 

After valuing the benefits and assets, 

PBGC allocates the assets available to 

pay benefits to the benefits assigned to 

each priority category, beginning with 

the highest priority category, i.e., 

priority category 1, and continuing in 

sequential order until the assets satisfy 

all benefits in all priority categories or 

until the assets are insufficient to pay all 

benefits within a particular category. 

In substantially all plans that 

terminate in a distress or involuntary 

(PBGC-initiated) termination, the plan’s 

assets do not satisfy all benefits assigned 

to the six priority categories and the 

assets will be insufficient to satisfy all 

benefit liabilities, as defined under 

section 4001(a)(16) of ERISA. PBGC 

typically becomes the statutory trustee 

of these plans and pays guaranteed 

benefits to participants and beneficiaries 

up to statutory limits. Some participants 

may receive more than their statutorily 

guaranteed benefit depending upon the 

priority category to which their benefit 

is assigned and the extent to which (if 

any) assets are sufficient to pay all 

benefits in that category. Such plans 

rarely have residual assets. 

In an employer-initiated standard 

termination of a sufficient plan, a plan’s 

assets must satisfy and may exceed all 

benefit liabilities under the plan. 

Section 4044(d) of ERISA describes the 

circumstances under which any residual 

assets of a single-employer plan may be 

distributed to the employer or 

participants and beneficiaries. 

The current language in the 

administrative review regulation 

provides that PBGC’s asset allocation 

determinations are subject to the 

reconsideration process, describing 

them in § 4003.1(b)(4) as 

‘‘determinations with respect to 

allocation of assets under section 4044 

of ERISA, including distribution of 

excess assets under section 4044(d).’’ 4

This language could be read to imply 

that PBGC issues standalone 

determinations with respect to asset 

allocations. Although PBGC’s 

processing of a trusteed plan includes 

an allocation of the plan’s assets 

available to pay benefits under section 

4044 of ERISA, determinations on 

allocating assets to benefits in the six 

priority categories depend on the value 

of benefits in each priority category and 

the plan assets available to pay benefits 

in a particular priority category in the 

prescribed sequence. Such 

determinations are incorporated into 

other benefit-specific determinations 

that PBGC regularly issues that are 

subject to the appeals process, such as 

those issued under § 4003.1(b)(7) 

(determinations under section 4022(a) 

or (c) of ERISA with respect to benefit 

entitlement of participants and 

beneficiaries under covered plans) and 

§ 4003.1(b)(8) (determinations under 

section 4022(b) or (c) or section 4022B 

of ERISA of the amount of benefits 

payable to participants and beneficiaries 

under covered plans). 

Participants and their beneficiaries 

may appeal the initial determinations of 

their benefit entitlements and amounts 

of benefits payable, as provided in their 

individual benefit determinations. 

Determinations of benefit entitlements 

and amounts of benefits payable depend 

on PBGC’s assignment and valuation of 

benefits and the allocation of assets 

available to pay benefits to the priority 

categories to which those benefits are 

assigned and the extent to which assets 

are allocated to non-guaranteed benefits 

in certain priority categories pursuant to 

section 4044(a) of ERISA and PBGC’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 

4044). 

Consistent with PBGC’s long-standing 

practice, PBGC proposes to clarify in 

new § 4003.1(e)(2) that the right to 

appeal an individual benefit 

determination necessarily includes the 

right to appeal a participant’s or 

beneficiary’s benefit entitlement and the 

amount of benefit payable based on the 

value of the benefits assigned to specific 

priority categories and PBGC’s 

allocation of assets available to pay 

benefits to those categories under the 

method prescribed by section 4044(a) of 

ERISA. PBGC proposes to remove the 

current § 4003.1(b)(4) and create a new 

§ 4003.1(d)(2)(iv), to continue to subject 

determinations involving the 

distribution of residual assets under 

section 4044(d) of ERISA to the 

reconsideration process. PBGC also 

proposes to revise the description of 

individual benefit determinations 

subject to appeal in current 

§ 4003.1(b)(7) and (8) and reorganize 

these provisions in new § 4003.1(e)(2) 

and (3). 

Administrative Review Procedures 

Assistance With Obtaining Information 

Section 4003.3 of the administrative 

review regulation provides that a person 

may request PBGC’s assistance in 

obtaining relevant information in the 

possession of a third party. The 

regulation is silent about obtaining 

information in PBGC’s possession. The 

preamble to the 1979 rule explains that 

this omission was intentional because 

‘‘a party to an appeal who wishes to 

examine PBGC documents need only 

file a request pursuant to [PBGC’s FOIA 

regulation].’’ 5

It has come to PBGC’s attention 

through the Office of the PBGC 

Participant and Plan Sponsor Advocate 

that participants seeking administrative 

review are often unaware of their ability 

to request relevant information under 

the FOIA and Privacy Act by using 

PBGC procedures at 29 CFR parts 4901 

and 4902, respectively. While parts 

4901 and 4902 provide straightforward 

processes for requesting and obtaining 

such materials from PBGC’s Disclosure 

Division, some participants learn of 

them only after contacting another 

PBGC office and ultimately being 

referred to the Disclosure Division and 

instructed to follow such procedures. 

PBGC aims to avoid confusing 

participants in their efforts to identify 

the appropriate point of contact and 

steps to obtain relevant information. 

To make the information-gathering 

process more efficient and transparent 

for persons seeking administrative 

review, PBGC proposes to reorganize 

§ 4003.3 and to clarify that persons may 

request information using PBGC’s 

procedures for FOIA and Privacy Act 

requests. Paragraph (a) would contain 

the section’s scope, paragraph (b) would 

provide a description concerning 

information not in the possession of 

PBGC, and paragraph (c) would provide 

a description concerning information in 

the possession of PBGC including a 

cross-reference to PBGC’s FOIA and 

Privacy Act regulations. 

PBGC proposes additional language in 

§ 4003.3(b) concerning a request for 

PBGC’s assistance in obtaining materials 

not in the possession of PBGC to clarify 

that such a request must be submitted 

to the Appeals Board or the department 

responsible for reviewing the initial 

determination. The section refers 

persons requesting PBGC’s assistance 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 53087 

6See 83 FR 30991, 30991 (July 2, 2018). 7 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

8See, e.g., special rules for small plans under part 

4007 (Payment of premiums). 

9See., e.g., ERISA section 104(a)(2), which 

permits the Secretary of Labor to prescribe 

simplified annual reports for pension plans that 

cover few than 100 participants. 

10See, e.g., Code section 430(g)(2)(B), which 

permits plans with 100 or fewer participants to use 

valuation dates other than the first day of the plan 

year. 

11See., e.g., DOL’s final rule on Prohibited 

Transaction Exemption Procedures, 76 FR 66,644 

(Oct. 27, 2011). 

12See, 13 CFR 121.201. 

with a reconsideration to § 4003.33 and 

with an appeal to § 4003.54. 

Extension of Time 

PBGC proposes deleting § 4003.4(b) 

concerning requests for extensions of 

time related to disaster relief and 

reorganizing the section to contain a 

single paragraph concerning a request 

for an extension of time when a 

document is required to be filed within 

a certain period. PBGC published a 

notice describing how it changed its 

announcement of relief from filing 

deadlines and penalties when a disaster 

occurs and that PBGC’s disaster relief 

will be available at the same time the 

Internal Revenue Service issues disaster 

relief to taxpayers.6

PBGC proposes including language 

that provides that requests for extension 

of time for the submission of appeals 

should be sent to the Appeals Board 

while requests for extension of the 

submission of requests for 

reconsideration should be sent to the 

department that issued the initial 

determination. 

Form and Contents of Request for 

Reconsideration 

PBGC proposes to reorganize 

§ 4003.34 to clarify the form and content 

requirements that a request for 

reconsideration must include. 

Decision on Request for Reconsideration 

The proposed rule would add new 

§ 4003.35(c) to clarify that a decision on 

a request for reconsideration constitutes 

a final PBGC action, which is binding 

on all persons who participated in the 

request. This language is consistent with 

the language in § 4003.59(b) that a 

decision of the Appeals Board 

constitutes final agency action by PBGC. 

Applicability 

The amendments in this proposed 

rule would be applicable to initial 

determinations that are subject to this 

part and issued after December 3, 2019. 

Compliance With Rulemaking 

Guidelines 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

PBGC has determined that this 

rulemaking is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 and Executive Order 

13771. Accordingly, this proposed rule 

is exempt from Executive Order 13771, 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed the proposed 

rule under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). 

Although this is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, PBGC has examined the 

economic implications of this proposed 

rule and has concluded that there will 

be no significant economic impact as a 

result of the proposed amendments to 

PBGC’s regulation. Most of the proposed 

amendments merely clarify existing 

PBGC practices and neither the public 

nor PBGC is likely to assume any 

additional costs due to these 

amendments and revisions. 

Section 6 of Executive Order 13563 

requires agencies to rethink existing 

regulations by periodically reviewing 

their regulatory program for rules that 

‘‘may be outmoded, ineffective, 

insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome.’’ These rules should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed as appropriate. PBGC has 

identified the proposed amendments to 

the administrative review regulation 

and the clarifications and improvements 

to this regulation as consistent with the 

principles for review under Executive 

Order 13563. PBGC believes this 

provides clearer guidance to the public. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 7

imposes certain requirements with 

respect to rules that are subject to the 

notice-and-comment requirements of 

section 553(b) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act and that are likely to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Unless an agency determines that a 

proposed rule is not likely to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act requires that the agency present an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis at 

the time of the publication of the 

proposed rule describing the impact of 

the rule on small entities and seek 

public comment on such impact. Small 

entities include small businesses, 

organizations, and governmental 

jurisdictions. 

Small Entities 

For purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requirements with 

respect to this proposed rule, PBGC 

considers a small entity to be a plan 

with fewer than 100 participants. This 

is substantially the same criterion PBGC 

uses in other regulations 8 and is 

consistent with certain requirements in 

title I of ERISA 9 and the Internal 

Revenue Code (Code),10 as well as the 

definition of a small entity that the 

Department of Labor has used for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act.11

Thus, PBGC believes that assessing 

the impact of the final rule on small 

plans is an appropriate substitute for 

evaluating the effect on small entities. 

The definition of small entity 

considered appropriate for this purpose 

differs, however, from a definition of 

small business based on size standards 

promulgated by the Small Business 

Administration 12 under the Small 

Business Act. Therefore, PBGC requests 

comments on the appropriateness of the 

size standard used in evaluating the 

impact of small entities of the 

amendments in this proposed rule on 

small entities. 

Based on its proposed definition of 

small entity, PBGC certifies under 

section 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act that the amendments in 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The amendments clarify existing PBGC 

practices and will have a neutral cost 

impact. Accordingly, as provided in 

section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, sections 603 and 604 do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

PBGC’s Form 723, Request for 

Additional time to file an Appeal of a 

PBGC Benefit Termination and Form 

724, Appeal of a PBGC Benefit 

Determination, are used by aggrieved 

persons to assist them with filing an 

appeal. The collection of information 

with respect to administrative appeals is 

approved under control number 1212– 

0061 (expires August 31, 2019). 

The proposed rule would not require 

changes to the forms used for appeals. 

The proposed rule would eliminate the 

requirement for an appellant to provide 

the names and addresses of persons who 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
53088 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

the appellant believes may be aggrieved 

if PBGC provides the relief sought. As 

few, if any, appellants provide this 

information, PBGC does not expect that 

this proposed change would impact the 

hour burden and cost burden for the 

information collection with respect to 

appeals. 

The administrative review regulation 

requires that a request for 

reconsideration include specified 

information. The collection of 

information with respect to filings for 

reconsideration is approved under 

control number 1212–0063 (expires 

September 30, 2019). 

The proposed rule would make 

clarifications to the information 

required to be submitted for a request 

for reconsideration, including copies of 

any documentation that supports the 

requestor’s claim or assertions 

concerning the request. PBGC expects 

that this proposed clarification would 

make the process more efficient and 

would not impact the hour burden and 

cost burden for the information 

collection with respect to 

reconsideration. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4003 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Pension 

insurance. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR part 

4003 as follows. 

PART 4003—RULES FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF 

AGENCY DECISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4003 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3). 

■ 2. Amend § 4003.1 by: 

■ a. Removing the phrase ‘‘paragraph 

(b)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs 

(d) and (e)’’ in the first sentence of 

paragraph (a); 

■ b. Removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(5)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (d)’’ in the fourth 

sentence of paragraph (a); 

■ c. Removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(b)(6) through (b)(11)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (e)’’ in the fifth 

sentence of paragraph (a); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b); and 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 4003.1 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(b) Scope. This part applies to the 

initial determinations made by PBGC 

that are listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determinations subject to 

reconsideration. Any person aggrieved 

by an initial determination of PBGC 

listed in this paragraph (d) may request 

reconsideration, subject to the terms of 

this part. 

(1) Determinations with respect to 

premiums, interest and late payment 

penalties pursuant to section 4007 of 

ERISA; 

(2) Determinations with respect to 

voluntary terminations under section 

4041 of ERISA, including any of the 

following: 

(i) A determination that a notice 

requirement or a certification 

requirement under section 4041 of 

ERISA has not been met, 

(ii) A determination that the 

requirements for demonstrating distress 

under section 4041(c)(2)(B) of ERISA 

have not been met, 

(iii) A determination with respect to 

the sufficiency of plan assets for benefit 

liabilities or for guaranteed benefits, and 

(iv) A determination with respect to a 

plan terminating under section 4041(b) 

of ERISA or with respect to the 

distribution of residual assets under 

section 4044(d) of ERISA; 

(3) Determinations with respect to 

penalties under section 4071 of ERISA. 

(e) Determinations subject to appeal. 

Any person aggrieved by an initial 

determination of PBGC listed in this 

paragraph (e) may file an appeal, subject 

to the terms of this part. 

(1) Determinations that a plan is or is 

not covered under section 4021 of 

ERISA; 

(2) Determinations of a participant’s 

or beneficiary’s benefit entitlement and 

the amount of benefit payable under a 

covered plan under sections 4022, 

4022B, and 4044 of ERISA (other than 

a determination described in paragraph 

(d)(2)(iv) of this section); 

(3) Determinations that a domestic 

relations order is or is not a qualified 

domestic relations order under section 

206(d)(3) of ERISA and section 414(p) of 

the Code; 

(4) Determinations of the amount of 

money subject to recapture pursuant to 

section 4045 of ERISA; 

(5) Determinations of the amount of 

liability under sections 4062(b)(1), 4063, 

or 4064 of ERISA; 

(6) Determinations with respect to 

benefits payable by PBGC under section 

4050 of ERISA and part 4050 of this 

chapter. 

■ 3. Revise § 4003.3 to read as follows: 

§ 4003.3 PBGC assistance in obtaining 

information. 

(a) General. A person may request 

PBGC’s assistance in obtaining 

information if the person lacks 

information necessary— 

(1) To file a request for review 

pursuant to subpart C or D of this part, 

or to decide whether to seek review; or 

(2) To participate in an appeal 

pursuant to § 4003.57, or to decide 

whether to participate in an appeal. 

(b) Information not in PBGC’s 

possession. A person may request 

PBGC’s assistance in obtaining 

information in the possession of a party 

other than PBGC. The request must — 

(1) Be in writing; 

(2) State or describe the missing 

information, the reason why the person 

needs the information, and the reason 

why the person needs the assistance of 

PBGC in obtaining the information; and 

(3) Be submitted to the Appeals Board 

or the department that is responsible for 

reviewing the initial determination 

under this part. If the determination is 

subject to reconsideration, see § 4003.33 

for information on where to submit the 

request for assistance. If the 

determination is subject to review by 

appeal, see § 4003.53 for information on 

where to submit the request. 

(c) Information in the possession of 

PBGC. A person may request 

information in the possession of PBGC 

pursuant to the Freedom of Information 

Act and part 4901 of this chapter or the 

Privacy Act and part 4902 of this 

chapter, as applicable. See parts 4901 

and 4902 of this chapter for additional 

information. Nothing in this paragraph 

4003.3(c) limits or amends the 

requirements under parts 4901 or 4902 

of this chapter. 

■ 4. Revise § 4003.4 to read as follows: 

§ 4003.4 Extension of time. 

When a document is required under 

this part to be filed within a prescribed 

period of time, an extension of time to 

file will be granted only upon good 

cause shown and only when the request 

for an extension is made before the 

expiration of the time prescribed. The 

request for an extension must be in 

writing and state why additional time is 

needed and the amount of additional 

time requested. The filing of a request 

for an extension will stop the running 

of the prescribed period of time. 

Requests for extension of the time to 

submit an appeal should be sent to the 

Appeals Board; requests for extension of 

the time to submit a request for 

reconsideration should be sent to the 

department that issued the initial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules 53089 

determination. When a request for an 

extension is granted, PBGC will notify 

the person requesting the extension, in 

writing, of the amount of additional 

time granted. When a request for an 

extension is denied, PBGC will notify 

the person requesting the extension in 

writing, and the prescribed period of 

time will resume running from the date 

of denial. 

§ 4003.7 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 4003.7 by removing ‘‘a 

determination’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘an initial determination’’. 

§ 4003.21 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 4003.21 by adding 

‘‘initial’’ before ‘‘determinations’’ and 

removing ‘‘of the ‘‘determination’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘of the initial 

determination’’. 

■ 7. Amend § 4003.22 by removing ‘‘a 

determination’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘an initial determination’’ in the second 

sentence of paragraph (a) and revising 

paragraph (b). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 4003.22 Effective date of determinations. 

* * * * * 

(b) Exception. Except for initial 

determinations listed in § 4003.1(e)(2), 

(3), and (6), PBGC may, in its discretion, 

order that the initial determination in a 

case is effective on the date it is issued. 

When PBGC makes such an order, the 

initial determination will state that it 

constitutes the final agency action 

effective on the date of issuance, there 

is no right to request review under 

subpart C and subpart D, and any 

person aggrieved by the initial 

determination has exhausted all 

administrative remedies. 

§ 4003.31 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 4003.31 by adding 

‘‘initial’’ before ‘‘determination’’ at the 

end of the section. 

§ 4003.33 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend § 4003.33 by removing 

‘‘reconsideration of a determination 

described in § 4003.1(b)(3)(ii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘reconsideration of 

an initial determination described in 

§ 4003.1(d)(2)(ii)’’. 

■ 10. Revise § 4003.34 to read as 

follows: 

§ 4003.34 Contents of request for 

reconsideration. 

A request for reconsideration must— 

(a) Be in writing; 

(b) Be clearly designated as a request 

for reconsideration; 

(c) Specifically explain why PBGC’s 

determination is wrong and the result 

the requestor is seeking; 

(d) Describe the relevant information 

the requestor believes is known by 

PBGC and summarize any other 

information that is relevant to the 

request for reconsideration; and 

(e) Include copies of any 

documentation that supports the 

requestor’s claim or assertions. 

■ 11. Amend § 4003.35 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘Department Director’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘Director of a department’’, 

removing ‘‘final’’ before ‘‘decision’’, and 

removing ‘‘a determination other than 

one described in § 4003.1(b)(3)(ii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘an initial 

determination other than one described 

in § 4003.1(d)(2)(ii)’’ in paragraph (a)(1); 

■ c. Removing ‘‘final decision’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘decision’’ and 

removing ‘‘a determination described in 

§ 4003.1(b)(3)(ii)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘an initial determination 

described in § 4003.1(d)(2)(ii)’’ in 

paragraph (a)(2); 

■ d. Removing ‘‘final decision’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘decision’’ in 

paragraph (b); and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 4003.35 Decision on request for 

reconsideration. 

* * * * * 

(c) The decision on a request for 

reconsideration constitutes the final 

agency action by PBGC with respect to 

the initial determination that was the 

subject of the request for 

reconsideration and is binding on all 

persons who participated in the request 

for reconsideration. 

§ 4003.55 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 4003.55 by removing 

‘‘1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 

20005–4026’’ and adding in its place ‘‘as 

listed on PBGC’s website, 

www.pbgc.gov’’ in paragraph (c). 

§ 4003.57 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 4003.57 by adding 

‘‘initial’’ before ‘‘determination’’ in 

paragraph (a)(6). 

§ 4003.58 [Amended] 

■ 14. Amend § 4003.58 by adding 

‘‘initial’’ before ‘‘determination’’ in the 

last sentence of paragraph (b) 

introductory text and adding ‘‘initial’’ 

before ‘‘determination’’ in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii). 

§ 4003.59 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 4003.59 by adding 

‘‘initial’’ before ‘‘determination’’ in 

paragraph (b). 

§ § 4003.1, 4003.2, 4003.5, 4003.6, 4003.7, 

4003.8, 4003.9, 4003.10, 4003.22, 4003.31, 

4003.33, 4003.35, 4003.54, 4003.55, 4003.57, 

4003.59, and 4003.60 [Amended] 

■ 16. Remove the words ‘‘the PBGC’’ 

and add, in their place, the word 

‘‘PBGC’’ in the following sections: 

■ a. § 4003.1(a) and (c); 

■ b. § 4003.2; 

■ c. § 4003.5; 

■ d. § 4003.6; 

■ e. § 4003.7; 

■ f. § 4003.8; 

■ g. § 4003.9; 

■ h. § 4003.10; 

■ i. § 4003.22(a); 

■ j. § 4003.31; 

■ k. § 4003.33; 

■ l. § 4003.35(a); 

■ m. § 4003.54(b); 

■ n. § 4003.55(c); 

■ o. § 4003.57(a)(6); 

■ p. § 4003.59(b); and 

■ q. § 4003.60. 

§ § 4003.32 and 4003.52 [Amended] 

■ 17. Remove the words ‘‘the PBGC’s’’ 

and add in their place the word 

‘‘PBGC’s’’ wherever they occur in 

§§ 4003.32 and 4003.52. 

§ § 4003.2, 4003.21, 4003.22, 4003.56, 

4003.57, 4003.58, 4003.59, and 4003.60 

[Amended] 

■ 18. Remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add 

in its place the word ‘‘will’’ wherever it 

occurs in the following sections: 

■ a. § 4003.2; 

■ b. § 4003.21; 

■ c. § 4003.22(a); 

■ d. § 4003.56(c); 

■ e. § 4003.57(a); 

■ f. § 4003.58(b); 

■ g. § 4003.59(a) and (c); and 

■ h. § 4003.60. 

§ § 4003.6, 4003.8, 4003.33, 4003.53, and 

4003.54 [Amended] 

■ 19. Remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add 

in its place the word ‘‘must’’ wherever 

it occurs in the following sections: 

■ a. § 4003.6; 

■ b. § 4003.8; 

■ c. § 4003.33; 

■ d. § 4003.53; and 

■ e. § 4003.54(a) and (b). 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Gordon Hartogensis, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2019–21495 Filed 10–3–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS