Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 47979 

1Section 4203(c)(1) of ERISA applies a similar 

definition of complete withdrawal to the 

entertainment industry, except that the pertinent 

jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the plan rather 

than the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining 

Continued 

DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications 

The information concerning this 

export license application follows. 

NRC EXPORT LICENSE APPLICATION

Name of applicant, date of 

application, date received, 

application No., Docket No. 

Description of material 

End use Recipient 

country Material type Total quantity 

Eastern Technologies, Inc. 

(ETI); August 3, 2009; August 5, 2009; XW016; 

11005825.

Class A radioactive waste as 

slightly contaminated secondary waste resulting from 

the dissolving and decontamination of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) dissolvable protective clothing and related 

items (e.g., zippers, hook & 

loop material, elastic, etc.) 

along with the process filters 

used to decontaminate the 

dissolved clothing retrieved 

from the combustible Class 

A radioactive waste imported in accordance with 

NRC license IW016.

The total quantity authorized 

for export will not exceed 

quantities imported in accordance with NRC license 

IW016.

The secondary waste resulting 

from the Laguna Verde material will be shipped to Impact Services, Oak Ridge, 

TN for further volume reduction and then returned to 

ETI for export back to Laguna Verde in Mexico.

Mexico. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated this 8th day of September 2009 at 

Rockville, Maryland. 

Scott W. Moore, 

Deputy Director, Office of International 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–22560 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Approval of Amendment to Special 

Withdrawal Liability Rules for Service 

Employees International Union Local 1 

Pension Trust Fund 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of approval. 

SUMMARY: The Service Employees 

International Union Local 1 Pension 

Trust Fund requested the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) 

to approve a plan amendment providing 

for special withdrawal liability rules for 

employers that maintain the Plan. PBGC 

published a Notice of Pendency of the 

Request for Approval of the amendment 

on March 2, 2009 (74 FR 9114) (‘‘Notice 

of Pendency’’). In accordance with the 

provisions of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974, as 

amended (‘‘ERISA’’), PBGC is now 

advising the public that the agency has 

approved the requested amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Field, Attorney, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005–4026; telephone 

202–326–4020. (TTY and TDD users 

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

connected to 202–326–4020). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 4201 of ERISA, an 

employer who completely or partially 

withdraws from a defined benefit 

multiemployer pension plan becomes 

liable for a proportional share of the 

plan’s unfunded vested benefits. The 

statute specifies that a ‘‘complete 

withdrawal’’ occurs whenever an 

employer either permanently (1) ceases 

to have an obligation to contribute to the 

plan, or (2) ceases all operations covered 

under the plan. See ERISA section 

4203(a). Under the first test, an 

employer who remains in business but 

no longer has an obligation to contribute 

to the plan will incur withdrawal 

liability. Under the second test, an 

employer who closes or sells its 

operations will also incur withdrawal 

liability. The ‘‘partial withdrawal’’ 

provisions of sections 4205 and 4206 

impose a lesser measure of liability 

upon employers who reduce, but do not 

eliminate, the obligations or operations 

that generate contributions to the plan. 

The withdrawal liability provisions of 

ERISA are a critical factor in 

maintaining the solvency of these 

pension plans and reducing claims 

made on the multiemployer plan 

insurance fund maintained by PBGC. 

Without withdrawal liability rules, an 

employer who participates in an 

underfunded multiemployer plan would 

have a powerful economic incentive to 

reduce expenses by withdrawing from 

the plan. 

Congress nevertheless allowed for the 

possibility that, in certain industries, 

the fact that particular employers go out 

of business (or cease operations in a 

specific geographic region) might not 

result in permanent damage to the 

pension plan’s contribution base. In the 

construction industry, for example, the 

funding base of a pension plan is the 

construction projects in the area covered 

by the collective bargaining agreements 

under which a pension plan is 

maintained. Even if the amount of work 

performed by a particular employer 

fluctuates markedly in any given year, 

individual employees will typically 

continue to work for other contributing 

employers in the same geographic area. 

Consequently, the withdrawal of an 

employer does not remove jobs from or 

damage the pension plan’s contribution 

base unless the employer continues to 

work in the geographic area covered by 

collective bargaining agreement without 

contributing to the plan. 

This reasoning led Congress to adopt 

a special definition of the term 

‘‘withdrawal’’ for construction industry 

plans. Section 4203(b)(2) of ERISA 

provides that a complete withdrawal 

occurs only if an employer ceases to 

have an obligation to contribute under 

a plan, but nevertheless continues to 

perform previously covered work in the 

jurisdiction of the collective bargaining 

agreement or resumes such work within 

five years after the date on which the 

obligations to contribute ceased.1 There 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
47980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 

agreement. No plan has ever requested PBGC to 

determine that it shares the characteristics of an 

entertainment plan. 

2According to the 2007 Form 5500, obtained after 

the notice of pendency, the monthly benefit accrual 

rate has held steady for several years at $21.50, 

although it was increased January 1, 2008 to $23.33. 

is a parallel rule for partial withdrawals 

from construction plans. Under section 

4208(d)(1) of ERISA, an employer to 

whom section 4203(b) (relating to the 

building and construction industry) 

applies is liable for a partial withdrawal 

‘‘only if the employer’s obligation to 

contribute under the plan is continued 

for no more than an insubstantial 

portion of its work in the craft and area 

jurisdiction of the collective bargaining 

agreement of the type for which 

contributions are required. 

Section 4203(f) of ERISA provides 

that PBGC may prescribe regulations 

under which plans that are not in the 

construction industry may be amended 

to use special withdrawal liability rules 

similar to those that apply to 

construction plans. Under the statute, 

the regulations shall permit the use of 

special withdrawal liability rules only 

in industries that PBGC determines have 

characteristics that would make use of 

the special withdrawal liability rules 

appropriate. ERISA § 4203(f)(2)(A). In 

addition, each plan application must 

show that the special rule will not pose 

a significant risk to the PBGC. ERISA 

§ 4203(f)(2)(B). Section 4208(e)(3) of 

ERISA provides that a plan may adopt 

rules for the reduction or elimination of 

partial withdrawal liability—under 

regulations prescribed by PBGC— 

subject to PBGC’s determination that 

such rules are consistent with the 

purpose of ERISA. 

The regulation on Extension of 

Special Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 

CFR Part 4203) prescribes the 

procedures a multiemployer plan must 

follow to request PBGC approval of a 

plan amendment that establishes special 

complete or partial withdrawal liability 

rules. Under 29 CFR 4203.3(a), a 

complete withdrawal rule must be 

similar to the statutory provision that 

applies to construction industry plans 

under section 4203(b) of ERISA. Any 

special rule for partial withdrawals 

must be consistent with the 

construction industry partial 

withdrawal provisions. Each request for 

approval of a plan amendment 

establishing special withdrawal liability 

rules must provide PBGC with detailed 

financial and actuarial data about the 

plan. In addition, the applicant must 

provide PBGC with information about 

the effects of withdrawals on the plan’s 

contribution base. As a practical matter, 

the plan must show that the 

characteristics of employment and labor 

relations in its industry are sufficiently 

similar to those in the construction 

industry that use of the construction 

rule would be appropriate. Relevant 

factors include the mobility of the 

employees, the intermittent nature of 

the employment, the project-by-project 

nature of the work, extreme fluctuations 

in the level of an employer’s covered 

work under the plan, the existence of a 

consistent pattern of entry and 

withdrawal by employers, and the local 

nature of the work performed. PBGC 

will approve a special withdrawal 

liability rule only if a review of the 

record shows that: 

(1) The industry has characteristics 

that would make use of the special 

construction withdrawal rules 

appropriate; and 

(2) The adoption of the special rule 

will note pose a significant risk to the 

PBGC. 

After review of the application and all 

public comments, PBGC may approve 

the amendment in the form proposed by 

the plan, approve the application 

subject to conditions or revisions, or 

deny the application. 

Request 

On March 3, 2009, PBGC published a 

notice soliciting public comment on a 

request on behalf of the Service 

Employees International Union Local 1 

Pension Trust Fund (‘‘Local 1 Plan’’) for 

approval of an amendment prescribing 

special withdrawal liability rules that, if 

approved by PBGC, would be effective 

as of July 1, 2005. PBGC received no 

comments on the notice. 

The Local 1 Plan is a multiemployer 

plan covering the residential building 

cleaning industry in Chicago, Illinois. It 

is maintained pursuant to collective 

bargaining agreements with the 

Apartment Building Owners and 

Managers Association of Chicago 

(‘‘ABOMA’’) and independent cleaning 

contractors. As of July 1, 2006, it had 

approximately 3,800 active participants 

and was paying approximately $5.8 

million in benefits to 1,400 pensioners 

and survivors. 

The Local 1 Plan submitted collective 

bargaining agreements expiring in 2008, 

indicating that ABOMA had over 200 

contributing employer members. Total 

contributions for the 2006 plan year 

were $7.08 million. The contributing 

employers are owners of residential 

apartments in the Chicago area and the 

number of apartments is unlikely to 

decrease. Between 2002 and 2006, the 

number of active participants remained 

stable. 

Contributions have increased at a 

faster rate than benefit payments for the 

last three years in the submission, and 

as of 2006 were running nearly 20 

percent higher than payouts. For fulltime employees, the weekly 

contribution rate to the Local 1 Plan was 

$136.67 for the twelve months starting 

December 1, 2005, $156.00 for the 

following twelve months, and $182 for 

the twelve months starting December 1, 

2007.2

SUMMARY OF ACTUARIAL VALUATION RESULTS, 2003–2006 

Item 

Valuation date (July 1) 

2006 2005 2004 2003 

Active participants ............................................................................................................ 4,063 4,157 4,233 4,259 

Retirees ............................................................................................................................ 1,761 1,749 1,705 1,694 

Monthly benefit accrual rate ($) ....................................................................................... 22 22 22 22 

Max. monthly benefit ($) .................................................................................................. 645 645 645 645 

Contributions ($000) ........................................................................................................ 7,081 6,525 5,864 4,689 

Benefits ($000) ................................................................................................................ 5,812 5,606 5,501 5,391 

Accrued liability ($000) .................................................................................................... 97,335 93,606 92,923 90,274 

Market value of assets ($000) ......................................................................................... 83,630 77,743 72,138 64,582 

Net min. funding charge w/o credit bal. ($000) ............................................................... 6,269 5,982 6,026 6,284 

Normal cost ($000) .......................................................................................................... 2,138 2,251 2,279 2,302 

Unfunded accrued liability* ($000) .................................................................................. 13,705 15,863 20,785 25,692 

Present value of vested benefits ($000) ......................................................................... 103,744 98,711 100,736 92,276 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 47981 

SUMMARY OF ACTUARIAL VALUATION RESULTS, 2003–2006—Continued 

Item 

Valuation date (July 1) 

2006 2005 2004 2003 

Unfunded liability, vested benefits * ($000) ..................................................................... 20,114 20,968 28,598 27,694 

Valuation interest rate (%) ............................................................................................... 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 

* Using market value of assets. 

Decision on the Proposed Amendment 

The statute and the implementing 

regulation state that PBGC must make 

two factual determinations before it 

approves a request for an amendment 

that adopts a special withdrawal 

liability rule. ERISA § 4203(f); 29 CFR 

§ 4203.5(a). First, on the basis of a 

showing by the plan, PBGC must 

determine that the amendment will 

apply to an industry that has 

characteristics that would make use of 

the special rules appropriate. Second, 

PBGC must determine that the plan 

amendment will not pose a significant 

risk to the insurance system. PBGC’s 

discussion on each of those issues 

follows. After review of the record 

submitted by the Local 1 Plan, and 

having received no public comments, 

PBGC has entered the following 

determinations. 

1. What Is the Nature of the Industry? 

In determining whether an industry 

has the characteristics that would make 

an amendment to special rules 

appropriate, an important line of 

inquiry is the extent to which the Local 

1 Plan’s contribution base resembles 

that found in the construction industry. 

This threshold question requires 

consideration of the effect of employer 

withdrawals on the Local 1 Plan’s 

contribution base. 

As the Local 1 Plan has asserted, 

covered work must be performed at a 

residential building located in Chicago. 

The work is local in nature and 

generally continues to be covered by the 

Local 1 Plan regardless of the employer 

retained to do those services. An 

employer ceases to have an obligation to 

contribute when it loses a cleaning or 

security contract because the building 

owner outsources the work or retains a 

different service provider, or when the 

employer closes its business due to 

bankruptcy, retirement, or business 

relocation. Over the past 10 years, 

cessation of contributions by any 

individual employer has not had an 

adverse impact on the Local 1 Plan’s 

contribution base. Most of the 

employers that have ceased to 

contribute have been replaced by 

another employer who begins 

contributions for the same employees at 

the same location for the same work. 

2. What Is the Exposure and Risk of Loss 

to PBGC and Participants? 

Exposure. The bargaining parties had 

maintained the same benefit accrual rate 

for several years. The benefit liabilities 

have grown by 11 percent from 2002 to 

2006. However, over the same time 

period, contributions nearly tripled and 

assets grew by 28 percent. Thus, the 

parties have worked to preserve an 

adequate cushion against market 

downturns. 

Risk of loss. The record shows that the 

Local 1 Plan presents a low risk of loss 

to PBGC insurance funds. The Local 1 

Plan’s active participant population has 

been stable, hovering around 4,000 

actives for several years. Additionally, 

the Local 1 Plan and the covered 

industry have unique characteristics 

that suggest that the Local 1 Plan’s 

contribution base is likely to remain 

stable. Contributions to the Local 1 Plan 

are made with respect to Chicago 

residential buildings. This contribution 

base is secure and the departure of one 

employer from the Local 1 Plan is not 

likely to have an adverse effect on the 

contribution base so long as the number 

of buildings covered does not decline. 

Conclusion 

Based on the Plan’s submissions and 

the representations and statements 

made in connection with the request for 

approval, PBGC has determined that the 

plan amendment adopting the special 

withdrawal liability rules (1) will apply 

only to an industry that has 

characteristics that would make the use 

of special withdrawal liability rules 

appropriate, and (2) will not pose a 

significant risk to the insurance system. 

Therefore, PBGC hereby grants the Local 

1 Plan’s request for approval of a plan 

amendment modifying special 

withdrawal liability rules, as set forth 

herein. Should the Local 1 Plan wish to 

amend these rules at any time, PBGC 

approval of the amendment will be 

required. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on this 11th day 

of September 2009. 

Vincent K. Snowbarger, 

Acting Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–22537 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Submission for Review: OPM Form 

1203–FX, Occupational Questionnaire, 

3206–0040 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: 60-day Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Automated Systems 

Management Group, Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) offers the general 

public and other federal agencies the 

opportunity to comment on an existing 

information collection request (ICR) 

3206–0040, Occupational 

Questionnaire, OPM Form 1203–FX. As 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35) as amended by the ClingerCohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is 

soliciting comments for this collection. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

is particularly interested in comments 

that: 

1. Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES