4642 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Under 29 CFR 4041A.2, ‘‘insolvent’’ means that 

a plan is unable to pay benefits when due during 

the plan year. 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999; 

email meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. For 

technical inquiries, contact William 

Perry or David O’Connor, Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance, Room N–3718, 

OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1950 or 

fax (202) 693–1678. For hearing 

inquiries, contact Frank Meilinger, 

Director, Office of Communications, 

Room N–3647, OSHA, U.S. Department 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–1999; email meilinger.francis2@

dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on September 12, 2013, for 

occupational exposure to respirable 

crystalline silica (78 FR 56274). This 

notice requested comments and written 

testimony by December 11, 2013 and 

established the public hearing to 

commence on March 4, 2014. OSHA 

subsequently extended the deadline for 

submitting comments and written 

testimony to January 27, 2014; and the 

commencement of the hearings to now 

begin March 18, 2014 (78 FR 65242). 

OSHA is now extending the deadline for 

submitting comments and written 

testimony until February 11, 2014. The 

date for commencement of the hearings 

remains March 18. 

Authority and Signature: This 

document was prepared under the 

direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., 

MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); section 

107 of the Contract Work Hours and 

Safety Standards Act (the Construction 

Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); section 41 

of the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s 

Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 

(77 FR 3912, January 25, 2012); and 29 

CFR Part 1911. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01728 Filed 1–24–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Parts 4041A, 4231, and 4281 

RIN 1212–AB13 

Multiemployer Plans; Valuation and 

Notice Requirements 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: PBGC is proposing to amend 

its multiemployer regulations to make 

the provision of information to PBGC 

and plan participants more efficient and 

effective and to reduce burden on plans 

and sponsors. The amendments would 

reduce the number of actuarial 

valuations required for certain small 

terminated but not insolvent plans, 

shorten the advance notice filing 

requirements for mergers in situations 

that do not involve a compliance 

determination, and remove certain 

insolvency notice and update 

requirements. The amendments are a 

result of PBGC’s regulatory review 

under Executive Order 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

1212–AB13, may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: reg.comments@pbgc.gov. 

• Fax: 202–326–4224. 

• Mail or hand delivery: Regulatory 

Affairs Group, Office of the General 

Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20005–4026. 

All submissions must include the 

Regulation Identifier Number for this 

rulemaking (RIN 1212–AB13). 

Comments received, including personal 

information provided, will be posted to 

www.pbgc.gov. 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, or 

calling 202–326–4500 during normal 

business hours. (TTY and TDD users 

may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4500.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion (klion.catherine@

pbgc.gov), Assistant General Counsel for 

Regulatory Affairs, or Daniel Liebman 

(liebman.daniel@pbgc.gov), Attorney, 

Office of the General Counsel, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005– 

4026; 202–326–4024. (TTY/TDD users 

may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary—Purpose of the 

Regulatory Action 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) is proposing to 

amend certain regulations governing its 

multiemployer program to make the 

provision of information to PBGC and 

plan participants more efficient and 

effective. This rule is needed to reduce 

burden on multiemployer plans and 

sponsors and to facilitate potentially 

beneficial plan merger transactions. The 

rule would reduce burden by allowing 

certain small terminated but not 

insolvent plans to provide valuations 

less frequently, easing reporting 

requirements for plan sponsors 

contemplating a merger transaction, and 

streamlining and removing certain 

notice requirements for insolvent 

plans.1 These requirements impose 

administrative costs and reduce plan 

assets that could otherwise be used to 

fund plan benefits. 

PBGC’s legal authority for this 

regulatory 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; section 4041A(f)(2), 

which gives PBGC authority to prescribe 

reporting requirements for terminated 

plans; section 4231(a), which gives 

PBGC authority to prescribe regulations 

setting the requirements for one or more 

multiemployer plans to merge; and 

section 4281(d), which directs PBGC to 

prescribe by regulation the notice 

requirements to plan participants and 

beneficiaries in the event of a benefit 

suspension. 

Executive Summary—Major Provisions 

of the Regulatory Action 

Annual Valuations 

When a multiemployer plan 

terminates, the plan must perform an 

annual valuation of the plan’s assets and 

benefits. This proposed rule would 

allow valuations for plans that were 

terminated by mass withdrawal but are 

not insolvent and where the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits is $25 million or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4643 

2See http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/plan-forregulatory-review.pdf. 

3Once a plan terminates, professional and 

administrative costs of paying plan benefits and 

continuing regulatory compliance come out of plan 

assets without additional contributions being made 

by the former employers as would be the case prior 

to termination. Thus, with the exception of the 

potential inflow of some funds from withdrawal 

liability recoveries, plan assets continue to decrease 

in a wasting trust. 

4There are two other exceptions to the 

requirement that a valuation be performed each 

plan year that are preserved from the current 

regulation. No valuation is required for a plan year 

(1) for which the plan receives financial assistance 

from PBGC under section 4261 of ERISA, or (2) in 

which the plan is closed out in accordance with 

subpart D of Part 4041A. 

less to be performed every three years 

instead of annually as required under 

the current regulations. 

Filing Requirements for Mergers 

Under the current regulations, a 

merger or a transfer of assets and 

liabilities between multiemployer plans 

must satisfy certain requirements, 

including a requirement that plan 

sponsors of all plans involved in a 

merger or transfer must jointly file a 

notice with PBGC 120 days before the 

transaction. This proposed rule would 

shorten the notice period to 45 days 

where no compliance determination is 

requested. 

Insolvency Notices and Updates 

Terminated multiemployer plans that 

determine that they will be insolvent for 

a plan year must provide a series of 

notices and updates to notices to PBGC 

and participants and beneficiaries, 

including a notice of insolvency. The 

proposed rule would eliminate the 

requirement to provide annual updates 

to the notice of insolvency. 

Background 

PBGC administers two insurance 

programs for private-sector defined 

benefit 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. 

A multiemployer plan is a collectively 

bargained pension arrangement 

involving several employers that are not 

within the same controlled group, 

usually in a common industry, such as 

construction, trucking, textiles, or coal 

mining. By contrast, a single-employer 

plan may be sponsored by either one 

employer (pursuant or not pursuant to 

a collective bargaining agreement) or by 

several unrelated employers (but not 

pursuant to a collective bargaining 

agreement). 

ERISA section 4041A provides for two 

types of multiemployer plan 

terminations: mass withdrawal and plan 

amendment. A mass withdrawal 

termination occurs when all employers 

withdraw or cease to be obligated to 

contribute to the plan. A plan 

amendment termination occurs when 

the plan adopts an amendment that 

provides that participants will receive 

no credit for service with any employer 

after a specified date, or an amendment 

that makes it no longer a covered plan. 

Unlike terminated single-employer 

plans, terminated multiemployer plans 

continue to pay all vested benefits out 

of existing plan assets and withdrawal 

liability payments. PBGC’s guarantee of 

the benefits in a multiemployer plan— 

payable as financial assistance to the 

plan—starts only if and when the plan 

is unable to make payments at the 

statutorily guaranteed level. 

This proposed rule would reduce 

certain requirements for multiemployer 

plans that are terminated by mass 

withdrawal and mergers and transfers 

among multiemployer plans. 

On January 18, 2011, the President 

issued Executive Order 13563 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ to ensure that Federal 

regulations seek more affordable, less 

intrusive means to achieve policy goals, 

and that agencies give careful 

consideration to the benefits and costs 

of those regulations. PBGC’s Plan for 

Regulatory Review,2 identifies several 

regulatory areas for review, including 

the multiemployer regulations referred 

to above. 

This proposed rule would amend 

those regulations to reduce burden on 

plans and sponsors. PBGC will continue 

to review its regulations with a view to 

developing more ideas for improvement. 

Public comment on these specific 

proposals will help PBGC determine 

whether its regulatory review process is 

moving in the right direction. 

Proposed Regulatory Changes 

Annual Valuation Requirement 

ERISA section 4281(b) provides that 

the value of nonforfeitable benefits 

under a terminated plan to which 

section 4041A(d) applies, and the value 

of the plan’s assets shall be determined 

in writing as of the end of the plan year 

during which section 4041A(d) becomes 

applicable, and each plan year 

thereafter. Part 4041A of PBGC’s 

regulations establishes rules for 

notifying PBGC of the termination of a 

multiemployer plan and rules for the 

administration of multiemployer plans 

that have terminated by mass 

withdrawal. Subpart C prescribes basic 

duties of plan sponsors of plans 

terminated by mass withdrawal, 

including the annual valuation 

requirement at § 4041A.24. Section 

4281.11(a) states that the valuation dates 

for the annual valuation required under 

section 4281(b) of ERISA shall be the 

last day of the plan year in which the 

plan terminates and the last day of each 

plan year thereafter. The details of the 

annual valuation requirement are set 

forth in the remainder of Subpart B of 

Part 4281, Duties of Plan Sponsor 

Following Mass Withdrawal. 

The annual valuation requirement 

serves the statutory purpose of allowing 

the terminated plan to determine 

whether it needs to eliminate benefits 

that are not eligible for PBGC’s 

guarantee. However, once the plan has 

reached the point where it has 

eliminated all nonguaranteed benefits, 

further valuations serve only to help 

PBGC estimate the liabilities it will 

incur when the plan becomes insolvent. 

While measuring PBGC’s liabilities 

annually provides PBGC with 

information needed to understand its 

potential exposure, the requirement to 

do so results in the plan using scarce 

resources, at a potentially significant 

cost, for a limited purpose.3 This may 

result in a faster diminution of assets 

that could lead to a reduced ability to 

pay plan benefits, a quicker insolvency, 

and an earlier elimination of any 

nonforfeitable benefits that exceed 

PBGC’s statutory guarantee. 

PBGC is proposing to amend 

§ 4041A.24 to ensure that PBGC has 

reasonably reliable data to measure its 

liabilities without significantly 

depleting plan assets. Terminated plans 

that are not insolvent and where the 

value of nonforfeitable benefits is $25 

million or less (as of the valuation date 

of the most recent required valuation), 

would be required to perform the next 

valuation in accordance with Subpart B 

of Part 4281 three years later instead of 

the following year as under the current 

regulation. To comply with the statutory 

requirement that there be a written 

determination of the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits each year, such 

plans may use the most recently 

performed valuation for the next two 

plan years. 

All other plans would continue to be 

required to perform valuations in 

accordance with Subpart B of Part 4281 

annually.4 Plans could move in and out 

of the three-year or annual valuation 

cycle, as applicable, as the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits changes. Thus, a 

plan that had been performing new 

valuations every three years would be 

required to perform valuations annually 

if the next valuation indicates that the 

value of nonforfeitable benefits exceeds 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4644 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5The four criteria under section 4231(b) are: 

(1) The 120-day notice requirement is met. 

(2) No accrued benefits will be lower immediately 

after the transaction’s effective date than 

immediately before that date. 

(3) Benefits are not reasonably expected to be 

subject to suspension under ERISA section 4245. 

(4) The applicable actuarial valuation of assets 

and liabilities of each affected plan has been 

performed. 

6See § 4231.3(b). Plan sponsors requesting a 

compliance determination must submit the 

information required by § 4231.9 in addition to the 

information required by § 4231.8. 

7 In 1998, PBGC amended its regulations to 

expand the applicability of the waiver of this notice 

under § 4231.8(f). Prior to that amendment, the 

requirement for 120 days’ notice could be waived 

only if PBGC was satisfied that failure to complete 

the transaction in a shorter time would harm 

participants or beneficiaries. However, at the time 

PBGC was typically completing its reviews in 60 to 

90 days, and there was usually no reason to wait 

the full 120 days. Thus, the regulation was 

amended to also permit a merger or transfer to be 

consummated if PBGC determined that the 

transaction complied with ERISA section 4231, or 

PBGC completed its review of the transaction. See 

63 FR 24421 (May 4, 1998). 

8Transfers take more time for PBGC to analyze 

than mergers, primarily because of the need to 

perform a rigorous solvency test that is not needed 

for merger transactions. Because assets are leaving 

a plan, PBGC analyzes a transfer to make sure there 

are adequate assets available to fund the remaining 

benefit obligations and the receiving plan can 

adequately fund its obligations. In a merger, the 

assets and liabilities are combined and therefore the 

same types of concerns are not present. 

9The floor benefit is set for each participant at the 

participant’s retirement. 

10See footnote 2. 

11PBGC is also making a minor change to the 

insolvency notice’s content by deleting an outdated 

reference to IRS Key District offices. 

$25 million. Similarly, a plan that has 

been performing the valuation annually 

would only have to do the next 

valuation in accordance with Subpart B 

of Part 4281 in three years if the most 

recent valuation shows the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits to be $25 million 

or less. This amendment would target 

the plans that expose PBGC to larger 

liability, while reducing burden on 

plans that present smaller exposure. 

PBGC believes that this change 

appropriately balances PBGC’s need to 

fairly measure its exposure with 

minimizing the cost to plans and 

potentially to participants. 

Advance Notice of Multiemployer 

Mergers 

ERISA section 4231 sets forth the 

statutory requirements for mergers of 

two or more multiemployer plans and 

transfers of plan assets or benefit 

liabilities among two or more 

multiemployer plans, including a 

requirement that a plan must give 120 

days’ advance notice of a merger or 

transfer to PBGC. Part 4231 of PBGC 

regulations implements this statutory 

requirement. 

29 CFR 4231.8 provides that plan 

sponsors of all plans involved in a 

merger or transfer, or their duly 

authorized representatives, must jointly 

file a notice with PBGC 120 days in 

advance of the transaction. The notice 

must include information about the 

plans, the plan sponsors, the 

transaction, the proposed effective date, 

a copy of each provision stating that no 

participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued 

benefit will be lower immediately after 

the effective date of the transaction than 

the benefit immediately before that date, 

and various actuarial and plan asset and 

benefit valuation information. 

The purpose of the notice provision is 

to confirm that plan sponsors have met 

the four criteria listed in section 4231(b) 

for a statutory transaction.5 Plan 

sponsors may request a determination 

from PBGC that a merger or transfer that 

may otherwise be prohibited by sections 

406(a) or (b)(2) of ERISA satisfies the 

requirements of ERISA section 4231.6

Under § 4231.8(f), PBGC may waive the 

statutory notice requirement.7

However, PBGC now believes that the 

interests of PBGC and plan participants 

involved in such transactions are 

adequately protected by other parts of 

ERISA, particularly Title I, and there is 

little benefit to having such a long 

period to merely confirm that the notice 

requirements have been met. 

Thus, to reduce burden, PBGC is 

proposing to shorten the advance notice 

period to 45 days for transactions that 

do not involve a compliance 

determination under § 4231.9. PBGC’s 

experience has been that many merger 

requests are received by PBGC with less 

than 120 days’ notice and ask for a 

waiver of the notice requirement so that 

the merger can proceed as of the end of 

the plan year. The change to 45 days 

would avoid the need for a waiver and 

still allow PBGC enough time to review 

these later filed requests. PBGC believes 

the change to 45 days would strike the 

appropriate balance to better 

accommodate work flows and end of 

year rushes for both plan sponsors and 

PBGC staff. The current reporting 

requirements would remain in effect 

where a compliance determination is 

requested, as well as for transactions 

involving a transfer of plan assets or 

benefit liabilities, because those 

transactions may require a substantive 

investigation by PBGC that may well 

require more than 45 days to complete.8

Annual Notice Updates Following Mass 

Withdrawal 

When a multiemployer plan 

terminates by mass withdrawal under 

ERISA section 4041A(a)(2), the plan’s 

assets and benefits are required to be 

valued annually and plan benefits may 

have to be reduced or suspended to the 

extent provided in ERISA section 

4281(c) or (d). A terminated 

multiemployer plan that determines that 

it will be insolvent for a plan year must 

provide a series of notices and updates 

to notices to PBGC and participants and 

beneficiaries under part 4281 of PBGC’s 

regulations. 

Once the plan projects that it can only 

pay benefits at the PBGC guarantee 

level, ERISA section 4281.43(b) requires 

the plan to issue a notice of insolvency 

and annual updates to PBGC and plan 

participants and beneficiaries. Subpart 

D of Part 4281 of PBGC’s regulations 

sets forth the notice requirements for a 

terminated plan when plan assets are 

sufficient to pay PBGC guaranteed 

benefits, but not sufficient to pay at the 

promised plan level. In such situations, 

the plan sponsor must determine what 

benefits the assets will cover, and 

suspend benefits above that amount. At 

all times, however, the plan has a 

‘‘floor’’ benefit set at the PBGC 

guarantee level (i.e., benefits cannot be 

suspended to an amount that would pay 

less than the guarantee).9

At the time this regulation was first 

issued, PBGC anticipated that a plan’s 

insolvency would be short in duration 

and that it could financially recover. 

However, PBGC’s experience has been 

that once a multiemployer plan becomes 

insolvent, it will remain so. Thus, once 

a plan has made the initial notices, there 

is little need to require similar 

subsequent notices. After reviewing the 

regulation, PBGC now believes that 

eliminating such annual updates would 

not pose any increase in the risk of loss 

to PBGC or to plan participants. 

These notice requirements can be 

detrimental to plan participants because 

the costs of compliance may deplete 

assets that otherwise would be available 

to pay plan benefits. PBGC’s experience 

is that the rules for annual updates to a 

notice of insolvency can be confusing to 

practitioners. While the incremental 

cost to the plan is small, PBGC believes 

that the professional time spent 

understanding the rules and other costs 

in the actual compliance would be 

better spent on benefits.10

Consequently, for these reasons PBGC 

is proposing to eliminate the annual 

updates to the notice of insolvency.11

Applicability 

The amendment to § 4041A.24 that 

would change the annual valuation 

requirement for terminated but not 

insolvent plans where the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits is $25 million or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4645 

12Although PBGC does not have data on 

multiemployer plans with fewer than 100 

participants, approximately 165 multiemployer 

plans have 250 participants or fewer. See http://

www.pbgc.gov/Documents/pension-insurance-datatables-2010.pdf. 

less would be applicable to the first 

post-termination valuation after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

The amendment to § 4231.8 that 

would change the notification 

requirements for a proposed merger 

would be applicable to mergers planned 

to be consummated on or after the 45th 

day after the effective date of the final 

rule. 

The amendment to § 4281.43 that 

would eliminate the annual update 

notices to PBGC and participants and 

beneficiaries would be applicable as of 

the effective date of the final rule. 

PBGC invites comments on whether a 

longer applicability period would better 

effectuate the purposes of these 

amendments. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

PBGC has determined, in consultation 

with the Office of Management and 

Budget, that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct 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). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule is 

associated with retrospective review 

and analysis in PBGC’s Plan for 

Regulatory Review issued in accordance 

with Executive Order 13563. 

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.’’ PBGC 

has determined that this proposed rule 

does not cross the $100 million 

threshold for economic significance and 

is not otherwise economically 

significant. 

As explained below, PBGC estimates 

that aggregate annual savings from the 

combined regulatory changes would be 

about $460,000. 

Annual Valuation Requirement 

PBGC has estimated the value of this 

proposed rule on the annual valuation 

requirement for plans terminated by 

mass withdrawal. As of the end of its 

2012 fiscal year, PBGC’s total estimated 

liability for nonforfeitable benefits of the 

61 mass withdrawal-terminated plans 

that were not insolvent was $1.7 billion. 

Of that total, there were 23 plans in the 

over $25 million category; such plans 

constituted nearly 80 percent of such 

liabilities in all 61 terminated plans, 

thus preserving a high degree of 

exactitude for PBGC’s measurement of 

its financial contingencies. At the same 

time, each year that the 38 plans where 

the value of nonforfeitable benefits was 

$25 million or less would not have to 

do an annual valuation, there would be 

an annual aggregate savings of 

approximately $399,000 (assuming an 

annual valuation cost of $10,500 per 

plan) to these plans. These savings 

would grow as the terminated plan 

universe grows. 

Advance Notice of Multiemployer 

Mergers 

PBGC believes that reducing the 

required notice period in advance of a 

proposed merger transaction from 120 

days to 45 days prior to the effectiveness 

of the merger would result in a small 

decrease in administrative burden on 

plan sponsors. By reducing the notice 

period, PBGC expects that there will be 

less interaction between plan sponsors, 

their representatives, and PBGC staff to 

address timing and approval issues. 

PBGC estimates that 18 plans submit 

advance notice of a merger in a given 

year. PBGC further estimates that an 

affected plan would save about onequarter hour of professional time, at 

$350 per hour, and one-quarter hour 

managerial time, at $115 per hour, 

resulting in an aggregate annual savings 

of $2,093, as a result of the reduced 

length of the notice period. 

Annual Notice Updates Following Mass 

Withdrawal 

PBGC estimates that the annual 

aggregate cost of conducting the annual 

insolvency update is $61,425. This 

estimate is based on an estimated 54 

plans required to issue the update 

annually at 12.5 hours of combined 

professional, clerical, and managerial 

time at an average rate of $91 per hour. 

Eliminating the annual update would 

save plan sponsors approximately 

$1,138 each per year and $61,425 in the 

aggregate. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 seeking 

public comment on such impact. Small 

entities include small businesses, 

organizations and governmental 

jurisdictions. 

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 the same criterion PBGC uses in other 

aspects of its regulations involving 

small plans, and is consistent with 

certain requirements in Title I of ERISA 

and the Internal Revenue Code, as well 

as the definition of a small entity that 

the Department of Labor (DOL) has used 

for purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Using this proposed 

definition, less than one percent of the 

26,100 of plans covered by Title IV of 

ERISA in 2011 were small 

multiemployer plans.12

Further, PBGC is not aware of a 

multiemployer plan that was 

established and covered by ERISA that 

was not initially a large plan. Generally 

it is only after a plan terminates and 

employers withdraw from the plan that 

a plan might reduce in size to fewer 

than 100 participants. Thus, PBGC 

believes that assessing the impact of the 

proposal 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 (13 CFR 

121.201) pursuant to the Small Business 

Act. PBGC therefore requests comments 

on the appropriateness of the size 

standard used in evaluating the impact 

on small entities of the proposed 

amendments to the reportable events 

regulation. 

On the basis of its proposed definition 

of small entity, PBGC certifies under 

section 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that 

the amendments in this rule would not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4646 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Based on data for the 2012 fiscal year, 

PBGC estimates that 61 plans, very few 

of which would be considered a small 

plan, would be required to do the 

valuation requirement (19 would be 

required to perform the valuation 

annually while 42 would do so every 

three years). Seventeen plans, very few 

of which would be considered a small 

plan, would be required to submit a 

notice of proposed merger. Fifty-four 

plans, very few of which would be 

considered a small plan, would be 

relieved of the burden to issue an 

annual insolvency update. Accordingly, 

as provided in section 605 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), sections 603 and 604 would not 

apply. PBGC invites public comment on 

this burden estimate. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

PBGC is submitting the information 

requirements under this proposed rule 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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. 

The collection of information in Part 

4231 is approved under control number 

1212–0022 (expires March 31, 2014). 

PBGC estimates that there will be 21 

respondents each year and that the total 

annual burden of the collection of 

information will be about 5 hours and 

$6,900. 

The collection of information in Part 

4281 is approved under control number 

1212–0032 (expires May 31, 2014). 

PBGC estimates that there will be 378 

respondents each year and that the total 

annual burden of the collection of 

information will be about 6,160 hours 

and $43,050. 

The collection of information in Part 

4041A is not affected by this proposed 

rule. 

Copies of PBGC’s requests are posted 

at http://www.pbgc.gov/res/laws-andregulations/information-collectionsunder-omb-review.html and may also be 

obtained free of charge by contacting the 

Disclosure Division of the Office of the 

General Counsel of PBGC, 1200 K Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202–326– 

4040. PBGC is proposing the following 

changes to these information 

requirements: 

• PBGC proposes to change the 

requirement to provide advance notice 

to PBGC of a proposed merger from 120 

days prior to the effective date of the 

merger to 45 days. 

• PBGC proposes to eliminate the 

requirement to provide annual 

insolvency updates to PBGC and 

participants. 

Comments on the paperwork 

provisions under this proposed rule 

should be sent to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Attention: Desk Officer for Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via 

electronic mail at OIRA_DOCKET@

omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395– 

6974. Although comments may be 

submitted through March 31, 2014, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

requests that comments be received on 

or before February 28, 2014 to ensure 

their consideration. Comments may 

address (among other things)— 

• Whether each proposed collection 

of information is needed for the proper 

performance of PBGC’s functions and 

will have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of PBGC’s estimate of 

the burden of each proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhancement of the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimizing the burden of each 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

List of Subjects 

29 CFR Part 4041A 

Pensions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

29 CFR Part 4231 

Pensions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

29 CFR Part 4281 

Pensions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons given above, PBGC 

proposes to amend 29 CFR Parts 4041A, 

4231, and 4281 as follows: 

PART 4041A—TERMINATION OF 

MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 

4041A continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341a, 

1441. 

■ 2. Amend § 4041A.24 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading, 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a), 

■ c. Amending the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) by removing the word 

‘‘annual’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 4041A.24 Plan valuations and 

monitoring. 

(a) Annual valuation. The plan 

sponsor shall determine or cause to be 

determined in writing the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits under the plan 

and the value of the plan’s assets, in 

accordance with part 4281, subpart B. 

This valuation shall be done not later 

than 150 days after the end of the plan 

year in which the plan terminates and 

each plan year thereafter except as 

provided in this paragraph. A plan year 

for which a valuation is performed is 

called a valuation year. 

(1) If the value of nonforfeitable 

benefits for the plan is $25 million or 

less as determined for a valuation year, 

the plan sponsor may use the valuation 

for the next two plan years and, subject 

to paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this 

section, perform a new valuation 

pursuant to this paragraph for the third 

plan year after the previous valuation 

year. 

(2) No valuation is required for a plan 

year for which the plan receives 

financial assistance from PBGC under 

section 4261 of ERISA. 

(3) No valuation is required for the 

plan year in which the plan is closed 

out in accordance with subpart D of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

PART 4231—MERGERS AND 

TRANSFERS BETWEEN 

MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 4231 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1411. 

■ 4. Amend § 4231.8 by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(1). 

■ b. Amending paragraph (f)(1) by 

removing the words ‘‘120 days after 

filing the notice’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘the applicable notice 

period set forth in paragraph (a) of this 

section’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 4231.8 Notice of merger or transfer. 

(a)(1) When to file. Except as provided 

in paragraph (f) of this section, a notice 

of a proposed merger or transfer must be 

filed not less than 120 days, or not less 

than 45 days in the case of a merger for 

which a compliance determination 

under § 4231.9 is not requested, before 

the effective date of the transaction. 

* * * 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4647 

PART 4281—DUTIES OF PLAN 

SPONSOR FOLLOWING MASS 

WITHDRAWAL 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 4281 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341(a), 

1399(c)(1)(D), and 1441. 

§ 4281.43 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 4281.43 by: 

■ a. Revising the section to read 

‘‘Notices of Insolvency.’’. 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b), (d), and 

(f); redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (b); and redesignating 

paragraph (e) as paragraph (c). 

§ 4281.44 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 4281.44 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading to read 

‘‘Contents of notices of insolvency.’’. 

■ b. Amending paragraph (a) by 

removing paragraph (a)(4) and 

redesignating paragraphs (a)(5) through 

(a)(13) as paragraphs (a)(4) through 

(a)(12), respectively. 

■ c. Removing paragraphs (c) and (d). 

§ 4281.46 [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 4281.46, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing the words 

‘‘§ 4281.44(a)(1) through (a)(5) and (a)(7) 

through (a)(11)’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘§ 4281.44(a)(1) 

through (a)(4) and (a)(6) through 

(a)(10)’’. 

§ 4281.47 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 4281.47, paragraph (c) is 

amended by removing the word ‘‘(a)(5)’’ 

and adding in its place the word 

‘‘(a)(4)’’. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

January, 2014. 

Joshua Gotbaum, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01337 Filed 1–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 212, 225, 232, and 252 

RIN 0750–AH86 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Payment in 

Local Currency (Afghanistan) (DFARS 

Case 2013–D029) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

incorporate into the DFARS policies and 

procedures concerning payment for 

contracts for performance in 

Afghanistan. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule should be submitted 

in writing to the address shown below 

on or before March 31, 2014, to be 

considered in the formation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2013–D029, 

using any of the following methods: 

Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inserting ‘‘DFARS Case 2013–D029’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2013– 

D029.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2013– 

D029’’ on your attached document. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Email: dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2013–D029 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 

3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Gomersall, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark 

Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Telephone 571–372–6099. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to amend the 

DFARS to provide policy and 

procedures at DFARS 212.301 and 

232.72 on the use of a new solicitation 

provision at 252.232–7XXX, 

Notification of Payment in Local 

Currency (Afghanistan). This provision 

provides notification that the payment 

currency to be used for contracts for 

performance in Afghanistan shall be 

dependent on the nationality of the 

vendor. This rule implements the 

procedures concerning payment 

currency contained in the U.S. Central 

Command’s Fragmentary Order 

(FRAGO) 09–1567 and FRAGO 10–143. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

The solicitation provision, 252.232– 

7XXX, provides that if the contract is 

awarded to a host nation vendor 

(Afghan), the contractor will receive 

payment in Afghani (local currency) via 

electronic funds transfer to a local 

(Afghan) banking institution. Contracts 

shall not be awarded to host nation 

vendors (Afghans) who do not bank 

locally. If awarded to other than a host 

nation vendor, the contract will be 

awarded in U.S. dollars. 

Additionally, DFARS 225.7703–1 is 

added to provide direction to 

contracting officers to follow the 

procedures included at DFARS 

Procedures, Guidance, and Information 

(PGI) 225.7703–1(c) when issuing 

solicitations and contracts for 

performance in Afghanistan. The PGI 

reference provides a link to the U.S. 

Central Command’s (CENTCOM) 

Operational Contract Support Policies 

and Procedures, Theater Business 

Clearance process for clearing contracts 

to be performed in CENTCOM’s area of 

responsibility. 

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does not expect this proposed 

rule to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. However, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis has been performed 

and is summarized as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS