F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

B O A R D O F T R U S T E E S O F T H E W E S T E R

N S T A T E S O F F I C E A

N D P R O F E S S I O N

A L E M P L O Y E E S P E

N S I O N F U N D , Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

W E L F A R

E & P E N S I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N S E R V I C E , I N C ., Defendant-Appellee. N o. 20-35545

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00811- SB

OPI NI ON

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oreg on Stacie F . B e ckerman, Mag istrate J udg e, Presiding

A rg ued and Submitted October 5, 2021

Portland, Oreg on

F iled J anuary

31, 2022

B e fore: W illiam A. F letcher, Sandra S. I kuta, and Daniel A. B ress, Circuit J udg es.

Opinion by J udg e I k

utaW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 2

SUMMARY *

ERISA

The panel affirmed the district c ourt’s summary judg ment in favor of the defendant in an E R I S A a c tion broug ht by a multiemploy er p ension plan, seeking a r ecalculation o f d efendant’s annual withdrawal liability pay ments followi n g its withdrawal from the plan.

W hen an employ er withdraws from a multiemploy e r pension plan, it is r equired to pay for it s s h a r e of unfunded benefits. That share, called withdrawal liability

, may be p aid in annual installments, calcu l at e d in part based on the “hig hest contribution rate” the employ er was required to pay into the plan during a specified time period. I n addit i o n , when a multiemploy er plan is underfunded and in critical status, the employ er must pay a surcharg e of f i v e or ten percent of the total amount of contributions the employ er was required to make to the plan each y e ar.

The panel held that, for purpos e s of determining an employ e r’s annual withdrawal pay ment, a surcharg e paid by the employ er when a plan is in critical status is not included in the calculation of the “hig hest contribution rate.”

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o p art o f th e o pin io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 3

COUNSEL

Robert B . Miller, Kilmer Voorhees & L aurick PC, Portland, Oreg on, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

J eremy E. Roller, Arete L aw G roup PL L C, Seattle, W a shing ton, for Defendant-Appellee.

OP INION

I KUTA, Circuit J udg e:

Under E mploy e e R e t i rement I ncome Security A ct o f 1974 (E R I SA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001–1461, w hen an employ er withdraws from a multiemploy er pension plan, the employ er is required to pay for its share of unfu n ded benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1381. That share of unfunded benefits is called “withdrawal liability ,” see id.

, and can be pa i d in annual installments, see id. § 1399(c)(1)(A)(i). The calcula t i o n o f the employ er’s annual withdrawal pay ments is based in part

on the “hig hest contribution rate” the employ er was r equired
to pay into the plan d

uring a specified time peri o d

. Id. § 1399(c)(1)(C)(i)(I I ). Such a c o ntribution rate is usually stated as dollars p er compensable employ ee hour. A different section of E R I SA provides that when a multiemploy er p lan is underfunded and in critical status, the employ er is r equired
t o p a y a surcharg e of five or ten percent of the total amou n t

o f c ontributions the employ er was required to make to t h e plan each y

ear. Id. § 1085(e)(7)(A).

This appeal raises the question w hether a surcharg e paid by an employ er when a plan is in critical status is included in the calculation of the “hig hest contribution rate” for purposesW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 4

of determining the employ er’s a nnual withdrawal pay

ment. W e hold it is not, and affirm the judg ment of the distri ct court.

I

This c ase involves a

n issue of statutory interpretation. An

ex p lanation of the relevant statutory framework is necessary to understand the parties’ arg uments.

I n 1974, Cong ress enacted ERI SA to “mak[ e] sure that if

a worker has been promised a de f i n e d pension benefit upon retirement—and if he h as fulfilled whatever c o nditions a re required to o b t a i n a v ested benefit—he actually will receive it.” Nachman Corp. v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp.
, 446 U.S. 359, 375 ( 1980). To this end, “ERI SA required employ ers to make contributions that would produc e pension plan a ssets sufficient to meet future vested pension liabilities; it mandated termination insurance to protect workers ag a inst a plan' s bankruptcy ; and, if a plan b ecame insolvent, it h eld any

e m p loy er who had withdrawn from the p lan during t h e previous five y e ars liable f or a fair sha re of the plan' s underfunding .” Milwau k

e e Brewery W

orkers' Pension Plan v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.

, 513 U.S. 414, 416 (1995).

I n a multie m p l o y er pension plan ( i.e.
, a plan created throug h an ag r eement among multiple employ ers and one o r

more u n i o ns), “[ t] he c ontributions made by employ ers participating in such a multi e m ploy er plan are pooled in a g eneral f u n d available to pay any benefit oblig ation of the plan.” Concrete P ipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal.

, 508 U.S. 602, 605 (1993). Multiemploy er pension plans “provide the participating employ e rs with such labor market benefits as the opportunityW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 5

t o offer a pension prog ram (a sig nificant part of the cove r e d employ e es’ compensation packag e) w i t h c o s t a n d r i s k

- s h a

ring mechanisms advantag eous to the employ er.” Id. at 606.

Multiemploy er pension plans also g ive rise to distinctive risks. A s ERI SA was orig inally enacted, “the possib i l ity o f liability u pon t e r m i n a tion of a plan created an incentive for employ e rs to w ithdraw from weak multiemploy er plans.” Id.
at 608 (citing Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar

. Corp.
, 475 U.S. 211, 215 (1986)). W h e n an employ er withdrew from a p lan before f

ully fundi n g the benefits owed to its employ e es, the remaining employ ers were required to absorb the cost. S

ee Co n n o l ly

, 475 U.S. at 216 (citation omitted). “[ T] his scheme encourag ed a n employ er to withdraw from a financi a lly shaky plan and risk pay ing its share if the p lan la t e r b ecame insolvent, rather than to remain and ( if others withdrew) risk having to bear alone the e ntire cost of keeping the shaky plan afloat.” Milwaukee Br ewery , 513 U.S. at 416–17. After one e mpl o y er withdrew, the remaining employ e rs h ad an increased incentive to withdraw as well, further imperiling the plan in a “vi c i o us downward spiral.” Connolly

, 475 U.S. at 2 16 (citation omitted)

. I n lig ht of this risk, “a plan’s financial troubles could trig g er a stampede for the ex it doors

, t h ereby ensuring the p lan’s demise.” Milwaukee Brewery , 513 U.S. at 417.

I n 1980, Cong ress addressed this p roblem by ame n ding ERI SA to hold employ ers withdrawing from a multiemploy er pension plan liable for their share of unfunded benefits. See Multiemploy er Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1 3 8 1

– 1 461. Under the MPPAA, when an employ e r withdraws from a multiemploy er pension plan, “the employ e r is liable to the plan in the amount determined under [ the amendments] to be the w ithdrawal liability .” 29 U .S.C.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 6

§ 1381(a). I n imposing this liability for the employ er’s share of unfunded benefits, Cong ress s o ug ht “to discourag e withdrawals ex ante a

nd cushion t heir impact e x post .” Bay A rea Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Fe r b a r Corp. of Cal., Inc. , 522 U.S. 192, 201 (1997).

An employ er’s w ithdrawal liability is “the allocable
amount of unfunded veste d b e n efits” subject to v arious adjustments as determined by a c omplex formula. 29 U .S.C. § 1381(b). An employ er c an sati s f y its withdrawal liability by either pay in g a s i n gl e lump sum or making a series o f annual pay

ments over a specified amortiz ation p eriod. S ee id. § 1399(c)(1)(A)(i).

I f the employ er cho o s e s t o pay on an annual basis, the
amount o f each annual pay ment is determined by a different formula. The annual withdrawal pay m e n t a m ount is the product of: (1) the “averag e annual numb e r of contribution base units for the period of 3 consecutive plan y ears [during the 10 plan y ears preceding the employ e r ’ s w ithdrawal] in which the number of contribution base un i t s f or which the employ e r had an oblig ation to contribute under the plan is the hig hest”; and (2) the “high e s t contribution rate at which the employ e r had a n oblig ation to contribute under the p lan during the 10 plan y ears” p r e ceding the employ er’s withd ra w a l

. Id. § 1399(c)(1)(C)(i). 1 A “contribution base

1 2 9 U.S.C. § 1 3 9 9 (c)(1 )(C)(i) states:

Ex cep t as p ro v id ed i n su

b p arag rap h (E), th e am o u n t of each an n u al p ay m en t sh all b e th e p ro d u ct o f

—
(I) th e av erag e an n

u al n u m b er o f co n trib u tio n base

u n i t s f o r th e p erio d o f 3 co n secu t iv e p lan y ear s , d u rin g th e p e r i o d o f 1 0 co n s ecu tiv e p lan y earsW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 7

unit” is defined as “a unit with respect to which an employ er has an oblig ation to contribute under a multiemploy er plan.” Id. § 1301(a)(11). “F or ex ample, an employ e r’s contribution under a collective barga i n i n g ag reement may be based on a participant’s hours of covered work.” 2 W hen the amortiz ati o n period ex ceeds twenty y ears, the employ er satisfies its wi t h d r a

wal liability by making the first twenty annual pay

ments. See 29 U.S.C. § 1399(c)(1)(B ).

After addressing the problem of employ er withdrawal b y enacting the MPPAA, Cong ress subseq u e ntly enacted the Pension Protection Act of 2006 ( “ PPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1085,
to ta c k l e the problem of helping “severely underfunded multiemploy er pen s i on p lans recover,” Lehman v. Nelson

, 862 F .3d 1203, 1207 (9 th Cir. 2017). This amendment to ERI SA “ requires plan actuaries for multiemploy er p lans to annually certify ‘whether or n ot the plan i s or will be in

en d i n g b e fo r e th e p lan y ear in w h ich th e

w ith d raw al o ccu rs, in w h ich th e n

u m b er of

co n t rib u t io n b ase u n its f

o r w h i ch th e em

p lo y er h ad

an o b lig atio n to co n t

rib u te u n d e r th e p lan is th e h ig h est, an d

(II) th e h i g h est co n trib u tio n r a t e a t w h ich th e

em p lo y er h ad an o b lig atio n to co n trib u t e u n d er th e p lan d u rin g th e 1 0 p lan y ears en d in g w ith th e p lan
y ear in w h ich th e w ith d raw al o ccu rs.

F o r p u rp o ses o f th e p reced in g sen t en ce, a p artial

w ith d raw al d escrib ed in sectio n 1 38 5 (a)(1 ) o f th is title sh all b e d eem ed to o ccu r o n th e last d ay o f th e f irst y ear

o f th e 3

- y ear testin g perio d d escrib ed in secti o n 1 3 8 5 (b )(1 )(B )(i) o f

th is title.

2 G lo ssa r

y , P en sio n B en ef

it Gu aran ty Co rp o ratio n (last u pd ated Sep t. 2 1 , 2 0 2 1), h ttp s://w w w .p b g c.g ov /g lo ssary

.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 8

critical status for such plan y ear or for a ny of the succeeding 5 plan y ears’ within ninety day s of the start of the plan y ear.” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1085(b)(3)(A)(i)). A multiemploy er pension plan is in “ c r itical status” if it is less than 65 percent funded and meets certain other criteria. 2 9 U .S.C. § 1085(b)(2)(A). W hen a p l an is in critical status, e ach employ e r who is “otherwise oblig ated to make contributions for the initial critical y e ar” must p a y a s u r c harg e into the plan, calculated as a percentag e o f t h e employ er’s contributions re q uired under a Collective B arg aining Ag reement (“CB A”) or other ag reement. Id. § 1085(e)(7)(A). During the first y ear of c r i tical status, the surcharg e is five
perce n t of the amount of contributions the e mploy er is otherwise oblig ated to make. Id. F or each succeeding critical
y ear, the surcharg e is ten percent o f those contributio n s. Id. The surcharg es “shall b e due a n d pay able on the same schedule as the contributions on whi c h the surcharg es a re based.” I d. § 1085(e)(7)(B ). The surcharg e terminates when

a new CB A is adopted in accordance with a r e h abilitation plan. Id. § 1085(e)(7)(C).

I n 2014, Cong ress made another effort to help cr i t ically underfunded plans. I n the Multiemploy er Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA), Pub. L

. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 213 0
, 2773–882 (2014), Cong ress ag ain amended ERI SA to allow

a multiemploy er pension plan to r educe pension benefits if the plan was project e d t o run out of money b efore all promis e d benefits are paid. These a mendments to the MPPAA “apply to

. . . surcharg es the o blig ation f o r w h ich

accrue on or aft er December 31, 2014.” MPRA § 109(c), 128 Stat. a t 2792. B ecause the surcharg e in this case accrued prior to this date, the parties ag ree that t h e MPRA does not apply to this dispute.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 9

I I

I n 2007, W elfare & Pension A dministration Service, I nc. ( W P AS) entered into a CB A with Office and Professi o n al Employ ees I nternational Union L ocal No. 8, AF L -CI O (the Union) fro m J a n u a ry 1, 2007 to December 3 1
, 2 016. The CB A req uired W PAS to c ontribute to a multiemploy er pension p lan a dministered b y t h e B oard of Trustees of the W e stern S t at e s O ffice and Professional Employ ees Pension F und (the F und). I n A rticle 12 of the CB A, W PAS ag r eed to be bound by the terms of the multiemploy er pension p lan a nd
to “ c o n t r ibute on behalf of each r eg ular full-time a nd e ach
reg ular part-time employ ee cover ed b y this Ag reement, not to e x ceed thirty -seven and o ne half ( 37 1 /2) hours in a ny o ne week.” Th e a rticle then sets out the f ollowing contribution
rates:

Sect ion 12.1(a) Effective April 1, 2007, the Employ er pension contribution rate will increase to $2.50 per compensable hour . . .

Section 12.1(d) Effectiv e April 1, 2 0 10, the Employ er pension contribution rate will increase to $2.95 per compensable hour . . .

F or the purpose of this Article, a compensable hour shall be d efined as any time for w hich an

e m p l o y e e h a s r e c e i v e d c o m p e n s a t i o n , including vacation, holiday s, sick leave, jury duty , etc.

I n 2 009, the multiemploy er pension plan administered b y the F und was determined to be in critical status, as defined in 2 9 U.S.C. § 1085(b)(2). This determination trig g ered t h eW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 10

automatic employ er surcharg e, meaning tha t e ach employ er had an oblig ation to pay a surcharg e of five or ten percent o f the contributions the e m p l o y e r was required to make under the CB A. 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(7) ( A )

. W P A S paid a 5 percent surcharg e in 2009, and then a 1 0 percent surcharg e each y e ar thereafter, in addition to the contributions r equired by the CB A.

I n 2016, W PAS withdrew from the multiemploy er pension p lan. Under § 1381, t h i s m a d e W PAS liable to the plan for the amount of with d rawal liability c alculated under § 1391. Using the statutory fo r m u la, the F und calculated W PAS’s total withdrawal liability as $24,436,947.

As permitted under § 1399, W PAS elected to satisfy its withdrawal liability through annual withdrawal pay ments rather than in a lump sum. W PAS’ s d e c i s ion required the F und to calculate the amount of the annual wi t h d r awal
pay ments using the formula in § 1399(c)(1) (C)(i), which required the calculation of two numbers. 3 The F und first h ad
to calculate W PAS’s hig hest “averag e annual number o f contribution base units for the period of 3 consecutive p lan
y ears.” Id. § 1399(c)(1)(C)(i)(I ). U n der W PAS’s CB A, the “contributio n base units” were the compensable hours o f employ e es, because W PAS’s contribut i o n rate in the CB A

was based on a specified dollar a mount per c o m pensable h our. T he F u nd determined that the relevant numb e r o f

co n tribution base u nits was 296,213 annual compensable employ e e hours.

Second, the F und had to c alculate the “ hig hest contribution rate at which the employ e r had an oblig ation to

3 S ee su pra at 6 n .1

.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 11

contribute under the plan during the 10 plan y ears” preceding W PAS’s withdrawal. I

d

. § 1339(c)(1)(C)(i)(I

I ). Althoug h the hig hest contribution rate s tated in Section 12.1 of the CB A was $2.95 per compensable hour (beg inning A pri l 1, 2010), the F und determined that the r e levant contribution rate was $3.245 per c ompensable hour. The F und arrived at this number by taking te n p ercent of $2.95 ($.295) and adding it
to $ 2.95. The F und justified this approach on the g round that in 2010, W PAS was r equired under § 1 085(e)(7) to pay a ten percent surcharg e of its total contributions to the plan, because the plan was in critical status, see 29 U .S.C. § 1085(e)(7)(A). According to the F und, pay ing a surcharg e of ten p ercent of contributions is eq u i v a lent to pay ing a ten percent hig h e r c ontribution rate. Therefore, the F und reasoned, the contribution rate o f $2.95 per compensable hour

was actually $2.95 plus ten percent, o r $3

. 2 4 5 p er compensable hour. The F und contends that under this formulation, $3.245 per compensable h o ur is the “ hig hest contribution rate” that W PAS p aid u nder the plan for
p u r poses of calculating the annual withdrawal pay ment. Multiply ing $3.245 by 296,213 compensable hours, the F und concluded t h at W PAS’s a nnual withdrawal pay

ment was $961,211.

W P A S d o es not dispute that the number of contribution base units is 296,213 compensable hours. However, W PAS contends that its “ h i g h e st contribution rate” was $2.95 per compensable h our, as stated in the CB A, and tha t t he F und erred in characteriz ing the surcharg e i m p o s ed on W PAS under § 1085(e)(7) (because the plan was in critical status) a s part of the c ontribution ra t e. I f the F und had calculated W PAS’s annual withdrawal p ay me n t u sing $2.95 per compensab l e hour, W PAS arg ues, its annual withdrawal
pay ment would be $873,828.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 12

W PAS challeng ed the F und’s assessment by initiating an arbitration proceeding o n J u ly 10, 2018. The arbitrator f ound i n favor of W PAS and issued a partial f inal award order i n g the F und to recalculate W PAS’s annual withdrawal pay ment using a hig hest contribution rate of $2.95.

O n May 24, 2019, the F und filed a complaint to vacat e the arbit r a t o r ’ s a

ward in district court. The district court g ranted WPAS’s motion for summary judg ment, affirming the arbitrator’s finding that W PAS’s “hig hest co n t ribution rate” was $2.95. 4 The F und timely appealed.

I I I

W e must decide whe t h e r the term “hig hest contribution rate,” as used in the formula for calculating an em ploy er’s

a n n u a l w i t h d r a w a l p a y m e n t s , s e e 2 9 U

. S

. C

. § 1399(c)(1)(C)(i)(II )

, includes the p ercent of the surcharg e imposed on an employ er w hen a multiemploy e r pla n i s in critical status, see id. § 1085.

4 W h ile co u rts’ rev iew o f arb itratio n aw ard s is ty p ically g o v ern ed b y th e Fed e r a l A rb itratio n A ct, th at act is n o t ap p licab le h ere. ERISA

m an d ates arb itratio n f

o r d isp u tes reg ard in g th e calcu latio n o f an

em p l o y er’ s an n

u al w ith d raw al p ay

m en t, s ee 2 9 U.S.C. § 14 0 1 (a)(1 ), an d

au th orizes f

ed eral co u rts to rev iew th e arb itrato r’ s d ecisio n an d “ en f o rce,

v acate, o r m o d if

y th e arb itrato r’ s aw ard ,” id

. § 1 4 0 1 (b )(2 ). T h is l an g u ag e in clu d es “ th e au th o rity to d ecid e d e n o v o all issu es o f l aw

. . .” Bd

. o f Trs.

o f W

. Co n f. o f Tea msters Pen sio n Tr. Fu n d v. T h o mp so n Bld

g

. Ma t eria ls, In c. , 7 4 9 F

. 2 d 1 3 9 6
, 1 40 6 (9 th Cir. 1 98 4 ). B ecau se t h e u n d erly in g arb itratio n h ere w as m an d ated b y ERISA
, its s tan d ard s—an d n o t t h o se of th e FA A —g o v ern o u r rev iew

.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 13

A

W e start with the t e x t of the statute, which provides a formula for determinin g an employ er’s annual withdrawal
pay ment that includes “the hig h est contribution rate at which the employ e r had an ob l i ga tion to c ontribute under the p lan during the 10 p lan y e a rs e n ding with the plan y ear in which the withdrawal occurs.” Id. § 1399(c)(1)(C)(i)(I I ). B ecause the term “contribution rate” i s not defined in the statute, we interpre t t hese words according to “their ordinary

, contemporary , common meaning .” Tra n s w estern Pipeline Co., LLC v. 17.19 Acres o

f Prop. Located in Maricopa Cnty.
, 627 F .3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant dictionary definition of “rate” around the time § 1 399 w as enacted was “the amount, deg ree, etc. o f
any thing in relation to units of something else.” W ebster’s New W orld D ictionary

, Third Colle g e E dition (1986). A specified d ollar amount per c ompensable hour is a “ rate” because it meets this definition. W e co n s i d er these words “with a v iew to their place in the overall stat u t o r y scheme,” Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
, 5 69 F .3d 9 4 6, 953 (9th Cir. 2 009) (internal quotation ma r k s o m itted). I n this c ase, the statute indicates that the definition of “contribution rate” is the r ate imposed on the employ er “under the p l a n

. ” 29 U.S.C. § 1 399(c)(1)(C)(i)(II )

. E R I SA defines “ plan” in relevant part as “an e mploy ee pension benefit p lan.” Id. § 1002( 3 )

. A rticle 12 of the CB A requires WPAS to contribute pursuant to the multiemploy er plan, and describes the employ e r’s “contribution rate” as d o l l ar amount per compensable employ ee h o ur. T herefore, the most straig htforward r eading o f § 1399(c)(1) is that the “ hig hest contribution rate” is the h ig hest dollar amount per compensable hour specified in the pension plan.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 14

B y cont r a s t, the section f or calculating the employ er’s surcharg e, § 1085(e)(7)(A), refers to a “surcharg e” t h a t is a specified percentag e of the contributions required by a plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(7) (“Each employ er otherwise oblig ated to make contribution s f or the initial critical y e ar shall be oblig ated to p ay to the plan for such y e ar a surcharg e equal to 5 percent of the contributions otherwise r e q u i r ed under t h e applicable collective barg aining ag reement (or other ag reement p ursu a n t t o w h i c h t h e e mploy er contributes).”). The surcharg e d oes n ot increase “the amount, deg ree, etc. of any

thing in relation to units o f s o m e t hing else,” and therefore does n ot constitute a rate or part of a rate. I nstead, the surcharg e required by § 1 085 is imposed after the total amount o f contributions h as been determined ( i.e.
, a fter the dollar amount in the contribution rate has been multiplied by the total number of c o mp e n s a b l e h ours). Rather than i n c r e asing the rate (the d ollar amount per each h o ur) by t e n percent, the surcharg e requires a p ay ment o f t e n p er cent o f the total amount of contributions. See id.

Therefore, the surcharg e automati c a l l y imposed on an employ e r when a plan is in critic al status, see id.

, does not increase the a

pplicable contribution rate, which in this case is the dollar amount per compe n sable h ours. I n short, we join the well-reasoned opinion by the Third Circuit in concluding that the surcharg e is not the “hig hest contri b u tion rate” because it is n o t a “contribution r a te” at all. Bd. of Trs. o f IBT Loc. 863 Pension Fund v

. C & S W h o l e s a l e Grocers, Inc.
, 802 F .3d 5 3 4
, 5 4 4 –45 (3d Cir. 2015). Nothing in ERI SA
sug g ests that the imposition of a surcharg e when a plan is in critical status increases the e m p loy er’s contribution rate b y ten percent. According l y , the “hig hest contribution rate” in this contex t means the h ig hest dollar a m o u n t per compensableW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 15

hour that the employ er is oblig ated t o c ontribute under the plan, 5 here $2.95.

B

The F un d a d vances several a rg uments to counter this interpretation. Th e Fu nd arg ues that the surcharg e imposed when a plan is in critical status, 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(7), must be included in W PAS’s “hig hest contribution rate” for annual withdrawal liability

, see id. § 1399(c)(1)(C)(i)(II ), because the surcharg e increases the contribution WPAS was r equired
to make to the multiemploy er plan. This inter p r e t a t ion is contradicted by the lang uag e of the statute, which makes clear that the surcharg e is n ot a contribution, let alone an increase to a contribution rate.

F irst, the section imposing a surcharg e on employ ers when a plan is in c ritical status, id. § 1085(e)(7), disting uishes between the surcharg e imposed on the e m ploy e r by statute, and the contribution required by the p l a n. F or instance, § 1085(e)(7)(B ) p rovides that surcharg es are “due a nd

5 T h e st a t u te p ro v id in g th e calcu latio n f or th e an n

u al w i th d raw al
p en alty ref

ers to “ th e h ig h est co n trib u tio n rate at w h ich t h e em p l o y er h ad

a n o b lig a tio n to c o n t ri b u te u n d er th e p lan .” 2 9 U.S.C. § 1 3 9 9 (c)(1 )(C)(i)(II) (em p h asis ad ded ). T h e p h rase “ o b l i g atio n to

co n trib u te” is d ef

in ed to m ean “ an o b lig atio n to co n trib u te arisin g —(1 ) u n d er o n e o r m o re c o l l e c t iv e b arg ain in g (o r related )
ag reem en ts, o r (2 ) as a resu lt o f a d u ty u n d er ap p licab le lab o r- m an ag em en t relatio n s l aw .” Id

. § 1 39 2 ( a )

. A lth o u g h th e p arties m ak e v ario u s arg u m en ts reg ard in g th e m ean in g o f t h e p h rase “ o b lig atio n to co n trib u te,”

w e d o n o t n eed to ad d ress th ese arg u m en ts h ere. Giv en o u r h o ld in g th at th e su rch arg e im

p o sed u n d er § 1 0 8 5 w

h en a p lan is in critical s tatu s is n o t

a “ co n t rib u tio n rate” at all, th e so u rce o f th e em p lo y er’ s o b lig atio n t o

co n trib u te to a m

u l t iem p l o y er p en sio n p l an (w

h eth er th e CB A o r lab orm an ag em en t relatio n s law ) is n ot relev an t.W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 16

pay able on the same schedule as the contributions o n which the surcharg es are ba sed.” Id. (emphasis added). I f the employ e r f

ails to pay t h e surcharg e, it “shall be treated as a d e linquent contribution.” I d. ( emphasis added). T h i s lang uag e makes clear that t h e s u rcharg e is based on the contribution, but is n o t itself deemed to be part of the contribution.

Second, even if the surcharg e is c onsidered part of the employ e r’s contribution as a pra c t i c al matter, the surcharg e does not cause an increase in a “contribution rate.” The F und fails t o point to any statutory lang uag e supporting its recharacteriz ation of the surcharg e as increasing the number of dolla r s owed ( in the dollars-per-compensable-hour contribution rate set f

o r t h in the CB A) by ten percent. I ndeed, ERI SA undercuts the F und’s interpretation, because i t e x p r e s s l y d i s t i n gu i s h es b et w e e n a n e m p l o y e r ’ s “contribution” to a multiemploy er plan and the employ er’s “contribution rates.” F o r ex ample, in addressing the rules for additional f

unding when a plan is in critical status, the statute states that “[ a] ny failure to make a con t r i b u tion under a schedule o

f contribution rates p rovided under this subsection sha l l b e treated as a delinquent c ontribution.” Id. § 1085(e)(3)(C)(iv) (emphasis a dded). “[ W ] ere contributions the same as contribution r a tes, that provision would be redundant.” C & S W

h olesale Grocers, Inc.
, 802 F .3d at 545. B ecause the surcharge is neither a contribution nor a contribution rate under the statute, it does not affect § 1399’s formula for calculating

annual withdrawal pay

ments.

The F und also arg ues that o ur interpretation is inconsistent with Cong r ess ’ s i ntent in enacting withdrawal liability provisions. The F u nd relies on Milwaukee Brewery W orkers’ Pension Pla n v

. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.
,W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 17

513 U.S. 4 14, which d e s c r ibed the effect of the 1980 amendments adding the withdrawal liability p r o visions to ERI SA. I

d. at 417. According to Milwaukee Brewery
, because “maintaining leve l funding for the plan is an important g oal of” ERI SA, the amendment “fix es the amount of each a nnual pay

ment at a l e v el that (roug hly speaking ) equals the withdrawing emp l o y er’s ty pical contribution in earlier y e ars.” Id. at 418. T h e F und arg ues that because our interpretation today results in a n annual withdrawal pay

ment that is ten percent lower than what the employ er would make if i t d i d n ot withdraw (because it does n ot include the surcharg e for the plan being in critical sta tus), our i n terpretation undermines Cong ress’s intent in enacting the MPPAA.

The F u nd’s reliance o n Milwaukee Brewery is misplaced, because it w as decided eleven y ears before Cong ress enacted the amendment providing for a surcharg e, a n d therefore did not consider the relationship between the annual withdrawal
pay ments and the surcharg e on employ ers when pl a n s were in critical status. Milwaukee Brewery sheds no lig ht on h ow the annual withdrawal p ay ments and the surcharg e for plans in critical status may

interact. I

n deed, the current version of ERI SA contemplates that an employ er’s pay ments to multiemploy er pension pl ans in critical status may decrease after the employ er withdraws fro m t h e p lan. See 29 U .S.C. § 1 399(c)(1)(B ) (ex ting uish ing an employ er’s withdrawal liability after it makes 20 annual pay ments, even where these
pay ments do not equal the total withdrawal liability ).

The F und also a

rg ues that ERI SA requires us to infer that annual w ithdrawal pay

ments include the surcharg e for plans in critical status. The F u nd notes that when Cong ress enacted the surcharg e provisions in the 2006 PPA, it c larified that theW E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 18

imposition of the surcharg e on the employ er w ould not affect the calculat i o n of an employ e r’s total withdrawal liability

, which had been imposed in t h e M P P A A in 1980. See 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(9) ( B) (2006) ( p roviding that “[ a] n y surcharg es

. . . shall b e d i s r eg arded in determining an employ e r’s w ithdrawal liability under section 1391 o f t h i s title,” subject to certain ex ceptions). 6 B ut the 2006 PPA did
not use similar lang uag e to clarify that t h e s u r c harg e would
not affect the calculation of an e mploy er’s annual withdrawal
pay ments. Therefore, the F und arg ues, we must infer that the annual withdrawal pay

ment includes t h e surcharg e. W e

re j e c t t his arg u ment. I n interpreting § 1 399(c)(1)(C)(i), a nd its formula for calculating the annual withdr a wal pay ment,

we g ive effect to the statutory lang uag e, which was enact e d in the 1980 MPPAA; w e d o not chang e o ur interpretation based on neg a tive inference s t hat may be drawn from a subsequent amendment to ERI SA in 200 6

. “ Cong ress may amend a statute simply to clarify ex isting law, to correct a misinterpretation, or to overrule wron gl y decided cases.” Hawkins v

. United States
, 30 F .3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 1994). W e must not attempt to deduce the “intent behind one a ct o f Cong r ess from the implication o f a s ec ond act passed y ears later.” Schrader v. I

daho D ep’t of H

ealth & W

elfare

, 768 F .2d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 1985).

F or the same reason, w e r e j e c t the F und’s similar
arg ument based on Cong ress’s amendment of ERI SA i n the 2014 MPRA. The MPRA a dded the lang uag e the F und notes is missing f

rom the PPA: it ex pressly ex c luded the surcharg e

6 A s ef f ectiv e Decem

b er 1 6
, 20 1 4, th i s s u b s ectio n read s : “ A n y

su rch arg es

. . . sh all be d isreg ard ed in d eterm in in g th e allo c a tio n of

u n f u n d ed v ested b en ef

its to an em

p lo y er u n d er Sectio n 1 3 9 1 o f th is title . . .” S ee 2 9 U.S.C. § 1 0 8 5 (g )(2 ) (2 0 1 4 ).W E S T E R N S T A T E S O F F I C E F U

N D V

. W PAS 19

from an employ er’s “hig hest c ontribution rate.” 29 U .S.C

. § 1085(g )(2). 7 According to the F und, this chang e r aises the inference that, prior to 2014, the surcharg e was a part of an employ e r’s contribution rate

. Ag a in, we conclude that this i n ference is unwarranted. S ee H awkins

, 30 F .3d at 10 8 2 ; S c h r a d e r , 768 F .2d a t 1114. Given that nothing in ERI SA supports a

n interpretation that the surcharg e is a c omponent of a c ontribution r ate, a more plausible inference i s t h at Cong re s s a mended the statute to correct—once and for all—the ty

pe of misinterpretations urg ed by the F und. 8

AF F IRMED.

7 2 9 U.S.C. § 1 0 8 5 (g )(2 ) (ef f ectiv e Decem

b er 2 0 1 4 ) states:

(2 ) Su rch arg es

A n y su rch arg es u n d er su

b sec t i o n (e)(7 ) sh all b e d isreg ard ed in d eterm in in g th e allo catio n o f u n f u n ded

v ested b en ef

its t o an em

plo y e r u n d er s ectio n 1 3 9 1 of th is title an d in d eterm i n in g th e h i g h est co n trib u tio n rate u n d er s e ctio n 1 3 9 9 (c) o f th is t itle, ex cep t f or p u r p o s e s o f d eterm in in g th e u n f u n d ed v ested b en ef

its attrib u t ab le to an em

p lo y er u n d er sectio n 1 3 9 1 (c)(4 ) of th is t itle o r a co m

p arab le m eth od ap p ro v ed u n der sectio n 1 3 91 (c)(5 ) o f

th i s title.

8 T h e Fu n d also cites leg islativ e h isto ry co n cern in g th e MP RA to

su p p o rts i ts in terp retatio n o f ERISA as it ex isted p rio r to th at am en d m en t. Ev en if it w ere ap p ro p riate t o ex am in e leg is l a tiv e h isto ry i n th is case, “[ p ] o st- en actm en t leg islativ e h i sto ry (a co n trad ictio n in term s) is n o t a leg i tim ate t o o l o f statu to ry in terp retatio n .” Bru esewitz v. W yeth LLC
, 5 6 2 U.S. 2 2 3 , 2 42 (2 0 1 1 ). T h eref o re, w e d o n o t ad dress th ese arg u m en ts.