June 6, 2007

Legislative and Regulatory Department

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

1200 K Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20005-4026

Re: Draft Procedure under PPA Section 1106

[Submitted by E-Mail]

Dear Friends,

These comments are submitted on behalf of a group of professionals representing roughly 20 or
so pension plans that are planning to make the election authorized by Section 1106 of the
Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“Section 1106”), as amended by section 6611(a) of H.R. 2206
of the Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, (the “Amendment”), which became law on May
26, 2007. Our group worked closely with Congress to secure enactment of Section 1106 and the
Amendment, which was designed to assure that Section 1106 would be interpreted and applied in
a way that would make it readily available to the plans intended to benefit.

We applaud the PBGC for making the draft Section 1106 election procedure (the “Draft”)
available for public comment. However, as explained in detail below, we urge the agency to
revise and streamline the election procedure to meet both the substance and the spirit of Section
1106, as amended.

In particular, we call on the PBGC to roll back the data and documentation requirements of the
Draft, asking only for the minimum necessary for plans to demonstrate their eligibility to make
the election. Given the extremely short deadline for plans to make the election, requiring them
to assemble extra data and materials would undercut the streamlining effect of the Amendment
and would be viewed as an effort to thwart its intent.

The Amendment

In summary, the Amendment has two main points.

Maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The Amendment provides an
objective standard for determining, in the case of a plan that makes a Section 1106 election,

 whether an employer is maintaining the plan pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. That
test is met:

if a collective bargaining agreement, expressly or otherwise, provides for or permits
employer contributions to the plan by one or more employers that are signatory to such
agreement, or participation in the plan by one or more employees of an employer that is
signatory to such agreement, regardless of whether the plan was created, established, or
maintained for such employees by virtue of another document that is not a collective
bargaining agreement.

There is no place for agency discretion in the application of this test. If at least two separate
employers are signatory to collective bargaining agreements requiring them to contribute,
authorizing them to cover any of their union-represented employees in the pension plan, or
recognizing such participation, they are maintaining the plan pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement, regardless of any other facts or circumstances surrounding the employees’ plan
participation.

Effective date of 1106 election. The Amendment allows plans to make their 1106 elections
effective as of any plan year starting as early as January 1, 1999 or ending as late as December
31, 2007.

Specific Comments on the PBGC Draft Procedure

1. Three-Agency Solution

A Section 1106 election applies, by its terms, “for all purposes under … [ERISA] and under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 …”, ERISA section 3(37)(g)(ii), see IRC section 414(f)(6)(B).
Sections 1(a) and 2(f) of the Draft reflect this. Yet the Preamble to the Draft implies that the IRS
and DOL have only confirmed their concurrence with a multiemployer status election approved
by PBGC if the plan meets the safe harbor outlined in the Draft.

It is imperative that a plan that elects multiemployer status “for all purposes” under the principal
governing law be assured that that the election will be respected for all those purposes. We urge
that the Preamble be revised to remove any doubt about the across-the-board impact of an 1106
election.

2. Timeliness of Submission

To speed the completion and consideration of these submissions, the procedure should include a
summary checklist of the information and documents required, and make clear that a submission
is considered complete if it includes most of the core information covered in the checklist. It
should also be revised to confirm that the plan sponsor may later supplement or update the filing,
or correct inadvertent errors – whether or not at PBGC’s request – without affecting affect the
timeliness of the submission, as long as the plan sponsor reasonably believed that it was largely
complete at the time it was filed. This is important because a number of these plans cover

 employees of hundreds of employers, many of which are small, with few employees and fewer
still who can respond promptly and correctly to a complex data request.

Of course, once the filing in support of a Section 1106 election is streamlined as we are
suggesting this should be much less of a problem.

3. Collective Bargaining Agreements and Related Data

The Draft asked for inclusion with the Section 1106 election of a copy of each collective
bargaining agreement (“CBA”) requiring the employer to contribute to the plan during each of
the 2003 – 2006 plan years, along with a breakdown of the number of plan participants covered
under each such agreement and the amount contributed or required to be contributed on their
behalf. In our view, this asked for too much documentation even before enactment of the
Amendment. Now it is clear that this part of the information request can and should be pruned
dramatically.

Documentation of one or two CBAs. Under the Amendment a plan need only show that, within
the relevant time frame, it was maintained pursuant to one or more CBAs by at least two
employers for the benefit of at least one employee each. Accordingly, that is all that should have
to be documented in the 1106 election package. Plans should not be called upon to collect and
submit copies of all collective bargaining agreements that covered participants during the
pertinent plan years, if they can demonstrate that they qualify for the election by submitting two
such agreements.

Number and cost of benefits for union-represented participants. Plans could be required to report
how many participants were covered, during the relevant period, under the one or two CBAs that
they file with the Section 1106 election package. Or, to ease the filing requirement and eliminate
another area for possible inadvertent error, the plan sponsor could be required to certify that at
least two employers covered at least one plan participant apiece under those CBAs. There is no
apparent reason for requiring a report on the amount of contributions required specifically with
respect to the union-represented participants, especially since most of the plans that are likely to
make Section 1106 elections do not, to our knowledge, identify the contributions attributable to
bargained and non-bargained participants separately.

Eliminating the head-count and dollar-count features has the additional advantage of eliminating
the need for guidance on how those counts would be conducted.

Relevant CBAs. As now amended, the law treats a plan as maintained pursuant to a CBA if the
agreement, “expressly or otherwise”, authorizes the employer to contribute to the plan or to
facilitate participation in it by the employer’s union-represented employees. The term “expressly
or otherwise” makes clear that the CBA does not need to specify a contribution requirement, or
even to name the pension plan in which the people working under the agreement will participate.
Since it is a fundamental tenet of federal labor law that retirement benefits are a mandatory
subject of bargaining, an employer cannot legally have its bargaining-unit employees participate
in a pension plan unless their union consents, expressly or otherwise. See Inland Steel Co., 77
NLRB 1, enforced, 170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1948), cert. denied 336 U.S. 960 (1949).

Safe harbor. The Draft contains a safe harbor under which a plan will be deemed to be
maintained pursuant to one or more CBAs if at least 50% of its active participants are covered by
CBAs and at least 50% of the contributions are required to be made on their behalf. Consistent
with these comments, we do not believe such a safe harbor is either necessary or appropriate.

4. Contributions from Tax Exempt Employers

The Draft proposes several practical alternatives for plans to show that their contributing
employers are tax exempt. We appreciate and support that decision.

Section 1106 allows plans to make the election if “substantially all of the plan’s employer
contributions” for the relevant period were made or required to be made by tax exempt
organizations. In other contexts, “substantially all” has been interpreted to mean at least 85%,
see Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Robinson Cartage Company,
55 F.3d 1318, 1321 (7th Cir. 1995), Continental Can Co. v. Chicago Truck Drivers Pension
Fund, 916 F2d 1154 (7th Cir. 1990). We recommend that the PBGC adopt that standard as a
safe harbor, to reinforce the objective character of the Section 1106 election.

Note that a plan could meet the substantially-all-contributions standard regardless of how many
or how few contributing employers are tax exempt, as long as tax exempt employers are
responsible for substantially all of contributions. We recommend that PBGC streamline the
procedure further and allow plans to demonstrate that they meet this eligibility requirement by
demonstrating the tax exemption of the employers that made or were required to make
substantially all of the contributions for each of the pertinent plan years, rather than reporting on
the taxable status of all contributing employers. Plans using the proposed 85% safe harbor
would only have to report on employers contributing up to that level, for example.

It would be helpful too if the PBGC clarified that only the first page of the LM-2 need be
provided by a plan using the LM-2 to demonstrate that an employer is tax exempt, rather than
having to submit the entire document.

5. Employers and Their Controlled Groups

Section 3(d)(3)(ii) requires a listing not only of each employer required to contribute to the plan
and any controlled-group connections among the contributing employers, but also of all trades or
businesses of each contributing employer. This asks for more data than the PBGC reasonably
needs to judge whether a plan is eligible to make a Section 1106 election. Since this excess
information is likely to confuse the employers, who may, as a result, delay responding or respond
incorrectly, we urge you to pare this down to the essentials.

Specifically, as emphasized above, a plan needs to be sponsored by at least two employers that
maintain it pursuant to one or more CBAs. For this purpose, corporations, trades or businesses
under common control are treated as a single employer. Thus, at least two employers that are not
part of the same controlled group must be maintaining the plan pursuant to CBAs. A plan
making a Section 1106 election should be required to demonstrate that it satisfies that test, by

 showing that the employers whose CBAs are being submitted are not under common control
within the meaning of the applicable regulations. However, there is no reason to require the plan
to canvass all of its contributing employers in an effort to identify any trades or businesses in
which any of them may have an ownership interest, and then to analyze those links to determine
whether they amount to common control.

We have no objection to PBGC’s asking for a current list of employers that are obligated to
contribute to the plan or whose employees are covered by the plan, and for an indication
whether any of those employers are under common control with one another. We do, however,
recommend dropping the requirement to report any other trades or businesses to which the
contributing employers may be related.

6. Effective Date of the Election: “Relevant Period”

As noted, the Amendment allows eligible plans to designate the first day of any plan year that
starts and ends during the period 1999 – 2008 as the effective date of the shift to multiemployer
status. The plan must have met the criteria for the election – maintained by two or more
employers pursuant to CBAs, substantially all of the contributions from tax exempt organizations
– for the three plan years immediately preceding that effective date.1

Obviously, the revised procedure will have to address this new feature of the Section 1106
election. References in these comments to “the relevant period” or the “relevant plan years” are
references to that 3-year period and, where appropriate, to the year designated as the first year of
multiemployer status.

7. Withdrawal Liability Rules

Section 3(d)(5)(v) of the Draft asks plans that identified themselves as multiemployer plans in
their filings with PBGC for any of their 2003 – 2005 plan years to submit a copy of their
withdrawal liability rules and data concerning withdrawal liability assessed, as part of their
Section 1106 election package. It is not apparent why that was considered relevant to the
Section 1106 election prior to the Amendment.2 Now that plans can make the election
retroactively based solely on a showing that they were maintained pursuant to collective
bargaining agreements and that substantially all of their contributions were from tax exempt
employers the irrelevance of that inquiry is evident. We recommend that it be deleted.

8. Date of Plan Establishment

To be eligible to make a Section 1106 election, a plan must have been established before
September 2, 1974. Section 3(d)(5)(iv) of the Draft asks for the date the plan was established,

1 Section 1106 does not require a demonstration that a plan meet those criteria as of the year the election takes effect or
any later date, although it does provide that the election is terminated following a plan year in which less than half the
contributions are from tax exempt employers.

2 Among other things, MPPAA prescribes a presumptive basis for determining and collecting withdrawal liability
precisely so that multiemployer plans do not have to be amended to do so.

 “as reflected in a plan document, trust instrument … [or certain other formal documentation]
relating back to the period during which the plan was established.” It is not clear whether that
means the documentation must date from that period, or just that it refer to the plan’s
establishment during that period. Since some of the plans expected to make the election date
from the 1960s or earlier, original documents may no longer be available. Plans should be able
to meet this requirement by submitting more recent documents that reliably refer to the plan as
having been established earlier.

Also, given the possible difficulty in locating foundational documents, a plan making a Section
1106 election should only be required to prove by the 8/17/2007 filing deadline that they were
established before September 2, 1974, regardless of how much earlier the plan may in fact have
been adopted.

Plans to Which the 2007 Amendment Applies

In determining the status of any plan that submits a Section 1106 election to be a multiemployer
plan, the law now calls on DOL, IRS and PBGC to apply the concept of “maintained pursuant to
a collective bargaining agreement” as added by the Amendment, whether or not the PBGC
ultimately approves the plan’s submission in support of its election. This point is evident from
the text of the Amendment, and it will be of primary importance if the PBGC continues to
require the submission of exhaustive historical data and supporting documentation as part of the
Section 1106 election process. Given the very short time left for assembling the submission
package and the small size and limited administrative capabilities of many of these plans’
contributing employers, it is essential that a plan’s multiemployer status not be put at risk due to
omissions or inaccuracies.

This is consistent with the most natural reading of the amended law. The Amendment lays out in
detail the approach to be followed in judging whether a plan that uses the Section 1106 process
to formalize its multiemployer status is maintained pursuant to a CBA. Specifically, the
definition in ERISA section 3(37)(G)(vii) applies to “a plan making an election under this
subparagraph …” That formulation includes all plans that submit Section 1106 elections. It is
not limited to those whose elections are ultimately approved by PBGC.

With the enactment of the Amendment, Congress has underscored its determination to allow
plans that meet the Section 1106 description, as amended, to be treated for all purposes under
ERISA and the IRC as multiemployer plans. A rigid, logistically overwhelming election process
would blunt the purpose of the law.

********

We appreciate the PBGC’s prompt consideration of these comments, and will be happy to
provide any additional information that may be of help in evaluating them.

Sincerely,

Judith F. Mazo, The Segal Company, Washington, DC

John Leary, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, Washington, DC

Joyce A. Mader, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, Washington, DC

John M. McIntire, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, Washington, DC

Richard Griffin, General Counsel, International Union of Operating Engineers, Washington, DC

James R. Raborn, Baker & Botts, Houston, TX

James S. Ray, Law Offices of James S. Ray, Alexandria, VA

Marc H. Rifkind, Slevin & Hart, Washington, D.C.

Seymour M. Waldman, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, New York, NY

Adrienne H. Wyker, Blake & Uhlig, Kansas City, KS

June 8,2007

Legislative and Regutat~ry Department

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
1200 K Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20005-4026

I Re: Draft Procedure under PPA Section 1106

Gentle persons:

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association joins in the comments
submitted by The Segal Company on June 6, 2007. In particular, the
Association writes to emphasize the need for a clear and streamlined
election procedure that adheres closely to the terms of the legislation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
General President

MJSIMRlIam

cc: B. Hernandez

BYFAX (202) 326-4224 1
John H. Madey, Director
Constmce Markalcis, Esq.
Legislative and Regulatory Dedarhent
Pension Benefit Guarantee Coryoration

1200 KSi~eet,NIV
Washington. DC 20005-4026

I

Re: Election of Multiemployer blm Status Under the Pension Protection Act
as ,4pplied to the Employem?Retirement Plan of the National Education
Association of the United Skates

Dear MI.. Hanley wd Ms. ~arliakis:

This firm represents th NationaI Staff Orgimization WSO) a~dthe ational
Education Association Rdiree7Organization (NEARO).

Through its affiliated uhions, NSO represents certain active employe s of the

"INational Educational ~ssociatilon(NEA) and X.4aStiIia~eemployers arounld the
country. Reprcscn~ati~t~

of KXO and NSO afi1iarc.d unions sit on the Rctirc~llentBoard
of the Employees' Retirement Plan of ihe National Education Association ('-khe Plan").

I

We are writing on bed fof all actively emplo~edparticipants in the kIan,
including bitt not limited to cqloyees represented by 'NSO afxliates. We a!so wite on
behatf of retired psticipalats wno, allhougli NSO afiliates do not represent hem in
~ollectivebargaining, are reprdsented onthe Retirement Board by represenlaTives of
NEARO.

I I

1

The Plan is a multiple Brnploycrplan controiled by the Executive cobitlee of
the NEA, the governins body tbf the NEA. We have been inf'ormed that the Executive
Conunittee of the NE.4 has vol.ed to convert the Plan to a rn~~ltien~ployer

plai~pursuant to
Section 1106 of the Pension Pfotection Act (PPA), The YEA Executive Cohrnittee vote
fullowed a vote by the ~etierdentBoard, 8 to 6, recommending ihat the NEA Executive
Committee nor elect muliiemp$oyerstatus for the Plai~.

I

Our comments at this jhcture are as follows. We reserve the righ~1 3 submit

Jadditional comments after parlicipants md retirees receive the Notice of Pe ding Election

that we understand the PPA r&uires NEA to send to pnr~icipantsand bencfikiaries in the

1001PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW.SUITE 600,W~SHI~GTON,DC 20001 ( TEL. 2CC.7131381 FIX; 102 783I392 1 WWW.KEA-LIbV.COM

PB/Zfl

39Vd

..----..--

,,,.--,,-L--

3QlV S.INt'l.IN3SI3 lJVdA

Ii


John H. I-Xanley,Director

I

Constance 'Mwrkakis,Esq.
Page 2

1. The Deplrrtmcnt of d,abor's Model Notice of Pending Election of IMultienlployer Status, issued lbecernber 1,2006, staled illat PBGC had advi ed it wouId
"establish procedures and prodidc glLidanct for rnnking the election," and thh the
Deputrnt3nt was "of tl~eview 3(37)(G) [was] eUectiv

at no electioi~~der utlless made
purs-t to such procedures, i cluding;certification by the plan administmtok thal it has
complied with the notice requi ernenis in section 3(31(g)(v)(I)."

i a

Nohyiths~andingthese ssumoer hat PBGC would "establish procehures md
provide guidmcc,"no procedz res ar guidance were published. Instead, on April 13,
2007, PBGC published a notic in the Federal Register entitled "Proposed S'~bmissionof
Xn?FomaiienCollection 0,1Review; Corninenl Recluest; Procedures fa
Implementing Multiemploycr Ian Elections." The April 13 nolice, l~owevek,did not
conlain any procedures or gui mce Tor how multiemployer plan electitions m+re going to

be in~plemented.Rather, the ~pril13 notice referred indirectly to "PBGC pkoposed
proczdures Sar implementing t e multiemployer election'"that, nppareillly, dad already
been drahed, but that had not1?empublished. As far as we know, the procedures md
guidancr have not barn publis ed to date. Nor did the April 13 lloticc seek jommenl on
tht "proposed procedures." T1T notice only sorrght comments on the ix~fonr
proposed to collect from plans!and ~mployersll~ataterr:contemplaling m&i
election.

As a result of the failujic ro publish the procedures, participants and deneficiaries
we= at a disadvantage in undGrstanding exactly what the PBGC was doing kithrespect
to these election procedures, apd were less able to educate tlremselves aboi~~

111e effect 01
the election en their peilsion pjians and their benefits.

t

2. The failurz to publi& procedures and guidance for review by the hlrblic,
including pwticipants and benbiiciaries and organizations representing the .is especially
u~~fortunai'e
in light of the safd harbor created by the dl%Aprocedures that is not at all
apparent from the PPA md FI~JSA.(Our obtaining a copy ulthe draft proc dures
tlrou& the PBGC website wls purely rorluitous.) :i

I

Section 4 of the draft firocedures provides a safe harbor, i-e. that a pl will be
deemed to comply with ERISh and the PPA, and that PBGC will approve he plan's
applicationfor multiemployei status, if the plan complies with Seclioils 2(c and 3 of the
draR proaedurcs, inoludiilg stktion 3(d)(3)(vi).

I

Section 3(d)1)(3)(vi)reduires the plan sponsor to certify tha~the plan 1s nlaintained
by more than one unrelated ehployer pursuant to one or more collective badgaining
agreements between one or mare employee organizations and more Ihm onk enzploycr;
that d least 50% or active pafl,cipants covered by lhe plat? sue employed under collective
bargaining agreements; and Qat at least 50% of contributions required to bd made to the
plan are under collective bxgbining agreements.


John tl. Hnnley, Director
Constance Markakis. Esq.
Page 3
Ow concern is with t
3(d)C3)(vi), The safe harbor
"safe harbor," especially the first prong of
to broaden the EMSA definition of n hultiernployer

plan in seclion 3(37)(A), as 01 e lo which more than one employer contribuks and one
which is maintained pclrsuanl collective bargaining agreements between Qneor more
nnions and more than one em Ioyer. At the very least, the safe harbor provides that this
fundanlental requirement of a multicmpIoycr plan can be met with a

i

NSO and NEAR0 bet eve it is unlikely thal the NEA Plan can meet the
l-equircmenlthat aplan be ma ntained by xnore than one unrelated enlployc . Control
over he Plan is exclusively irikeKEA. Only the NEA may amend or teriinate the
Plan, for example. Its filial employers do not ""maintain" or control the I Ian. Our
concern is that anuncorrabor$ted statemelll by a plan sponsor that controlsthe plan mxy
result in a major change in thd sl~uctureof tlze plan that nil1 affect parirticipab~ts"
guaranteed benefits. I I

NSO and NEAKO, as well as other reprenentativcs of participants
beneficiades in this Plan, have advised that they may file additiond camrn~htson these
and related issuesnRer the Nqtice of Pending EIectiornJis distributed. I

Thank you for consid ring our comments.

I fidt Eiscnrnann Alden, PLL V

F

Chuck Agerstrand, NSO Pres dent
Ran Goldei~slein,NSO Pension & Benefits Cornmiltee Chair
Edna Frady, NEAR0 Preside.lt


LAW OFFICES

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

JOHN H. GOFFSTEIN
4399 MCLEUE AVENUE

GARY H. LANGE
*
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63108

TEFFRm B. HARTNETT 314-531-1054 ILLLAM N.BARTLEY 1937 -2004
RONALD C. GLADNEY Fax 314531-1131 JEROMET. BOI,LhTO, Re*.

A

PAUL C. HETTBRMhN *

IMES R.JUMMEY
1750 New Uork Avenue, N.W., Suite 130

jm~Ei.RF,YF:S-JONES
Washington, D.C. 20006 *ALqO LI CENSEn IN ILLINOIS

BRIAN N.BURNS

I

PLdE RESPOND TO ST LOUIS OFFICE

June 11,2007

Via Overni~htMail

Legislative and Regulatory Department,

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
1200 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-4026

Re:
Comments in Response to Implementing Procedures for a Special ~le(clionConcerning
Multiemployer Plan Status that May be Made Under the Employee libtirernentIncome
Security Act of 1974, as Amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2fl06; Comments of
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and IPeinforcing Iron
lVorkers Local Union District Pension Plan ("the Plan")

I

Dear Sir:

These comments supplement the comments of the Segal Company, in corn ents representing
approximately twenty (20) pension plans that are planning to make the authorized by
Section 1106of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The PIan is one of those twenty pension plans.
As the Notice purp~rtingto establish implementing procedures observes, Sdction 1106 of the
Pension Protection Act of 2006 ("PPA"), amends the definition of "rn~ltiem~lo~er

plan" under
ERISA and the Code, to allow certain plans to elect to be multiemployer plans pursuant to
procedures prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"), I4ovided that PBGC
procedures are followed and the election is made prior to August 17, 2007, suth election may be
made.

I

The Plan is concerned that the extensive fact-gathering data requested by the PI3 'Cunder the guise
of "procedures for implementing multiemployer plan elections" go fat beyokd the procedures
necessary for such implementation. The information requested should be rnerkly the information
minimally required to establish that multiemployer status existsunder the PPA. The PPA test is met:

"if a collective bargaining agreement, expressly or othe
provides for or permits employer contributions to the Plan by
more employers that are signatory."

The procedures must, therefore, establish that this criterion is met. No other adc/itional information
need be obtained, except for the tax-exempt status of the contributing employtrs and the date the
Plan was established. Since with respect to the Plan, all such contributors are lhcal unions, district
councils, labor councils or apprenticeship funds, they are all tax-exempl brganizations, and
multiemployer status exists. If at least two (2) separate employers are sigdatory to collective
bargaining agreements requiring them to contribute, then the Plan is maintdined pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement under ERISA. There is no necessity to provide a copy of each

I


Legislative and Regulatory Department,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
June 11,2007
Page Two

collective bargaining agreement requiring the employer to contribute to the Phan, along with a
breakdown of the number of Plan participants covered and the amount contributekl or required to be
contributed on their behalf. Such data goes only to a point of argument as to the \nkisdomof the PPA
amendment. However, the PPA amendment itself is clear and does not require $uch detail.

To qualify for the election, Section 1 106requires that the Plan be maintained purI-uant to collective
bargaining agreements and that "substantially all of the plan's employer contribuijions" are made by
tax-exempt organizations. The definition of "substantially all" has been used id other contexts to
mean at least 85%. See Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension pund v. Robinson
Cartage Company, 55 Fed. 3cl, 1318, 1321 (7th Cir. 1995j; Continental Can Company v. Chicago
Truck Drivers Pension Fund, 916Fed. 2d, 1 1 54 (7th Cir. 1990). Bierc, the Plan me:cts that definition
and can easily establish that more than 85% of its contributing employers are tax-exempt.

I

While specific requests for tax-exempt status have not gencrally been made, su h requests are not
required to achieve that status. Periodic filings made by the employers all ass1rt the tax-exempt
status of such employers and their nature as local unions, district councils, labor councils or
apprenticeship funds, further, by definition, establish their status as tax-exempt brganizations.

Information beyond that required to show that more than two (2) employers ar to make
contributions pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, that the Plan was
1974, and that substantially all contributing employers are tax-exempt
requested under these implementing procedures.

Furthermore, the 2007 amendment to ERISA Section 1006, calls upon the DepartLent of Labor, the
Internal Revenue Service and the PBGC to apply the concept of "maintained pursuant to a coIlective
bargaining agreement'hwhether or not the PBGC ultimate1y approves the Plan subhission in support
of its election.

I

Congressional intent is now clear, and it is the Plan's contention that such intent das clear, even with
the PPA of 2006. Section 1106is crafted so that pension plans such as the Plan wPre covered, in that
substantially all of the Plan's contributors are tax-exempt organizations, the Pldn's existence pre-
dates September 1974, and it is a multiemployer plan as that term has generally blcen defined in that
more than onc employer's contributions to the plan are required pursuant to cclllective bargaining
agreements. Therefore, the Plan is "maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement."

Conclusion I

It is respectfully submitted that inquiries pertaining to withdrawal liability Ales, control group
information and other inquiries not directly related to the Section 1006definition1are irrelevant and
beyond the scope of the procedures necessary to implement Section 1106of the PPA. Procedures
necessary to make an election should be merely those procedures required to iC,plernent Section
1106, nothing Iess and nothing more.

I

Very truly yours,

RCG:eb

P.\UsersEla~ne\Gladncy\Infcrnatinnsl

IronWorkcrs\PRC;C\PHGC [Commcntp rc Spcclal Flcct~onlHUG wpdEla~ne