This is in response to OMB's comments below:
1. For each IRS or DOL comment,
PBGC either accepted the comment or worked with IRS or DOL to modify or
otherwise address the comment, or the item was removed from consideration. All DOL comments were provided and
discussed in a series of conference calls and e-mail exchanges. IRS e-mailed comments that were discussed
in a conference call.
2. See response to Question
1. All issues have been resolved
with DOL and IRS.
3. The bullet points at the
bottom of page 3 of the supporting statement describe the changes PBGC is
proposing be made to the 2003
booklet (not the changes made in the 2003 booklet , which were relatively
minor). Aside from the DOL/IRS
changes, these are the only changes PBGC is proposing. (The tracked changes you see in the
booklet PBGC submitted June 7 were
from an interim internal draft and should
not have appeared in your version.)
If you have any questions, please call Gail Sevin at (202) 326-4223, ext. 3011, Jo Amato Burns at the same number, ext. 3072, or me. Thank you.
Catherine B. Klion
Manager, Regulatory and Policy
Division
Legislative and Regulatory
Department
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation
(202) 326-4223, ext. 3041
-----Original Message-----
From: Potter, Rachel F. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:35 AM
To: Klion Catherine; FN-OMB-OIRA-Submission
Cc: Hanley John; Sevin Gail; Burns Jo Amato
Subject: RE: PBGC PRA submission; control number1212-0054OMB has the following comments on this information collection:
- Were there any comments from IRS or DOL that PBGC did not accept?
- Did PBGC discuss the revisions that you have agreed to make with DOL and IRS? Have all issues been resolved?
- Page 3 of the supporting statement outlines change made to the booklet in Dec. 2003. What changes is PBGC proposing from the 2003 booklet? The 3.24.06 version of the booklet that OMB received contains some tracked changes � are these the only changes PBGC proposed (aside from the DOL/ IRS changes addressed in above comments)?
Let me know if you have any questions.- Rachel
From: Klion Catherine [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 5:16 PM
To: FN-OMB-OIRA-Submission; Potter, Rachel F.
Cc: Hanley John; Sevin Gail; Burns Jo Amato
Subject: PBGC PRA submission; control number1212-0054On June 7, 2006, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) requested that OMB approve a revision of its collection of information currently approved under control number 1212-0054 (expires 12/31/06). The information collection relates to qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) submitted to the PBGC and consists of guidance and model language contained in the PBGC booklet, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders & PBGC. The PBGC received comments on the booklet from the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Attached is a revised booklet, reflecting those comments and a compare to the booklet submitted on June 7, followed by an explanation of the major changes PBGC made in response to DOL's and IRS's comments. PBGC also made conforming and editorial changes. All page references are to the revised booklet.
<<QDRO Booklet Rev 080406.doc>> <<080406.cmp.2omb.doc>>
Inside front cover
� DOL commented that readers of PBGC�s QDRO booklet might assume that PBGC�s procedures regarding domestic relations orders applied to private sector pension plans. In response to this comment, PBGC added language emphasizing that PBGC�s procedures apply only for purposes of deciding whether an order is a QDRO for purposes of paying benefits under Title IV of ERISA.
� DOL commented that readers of PBGC�s QDRO booklet might conclude that PBGC would not qualify an order unless the order used PBGC�s model forms or language. In response to this comment, PBGC added language emphasizing that PBGC would not condition its qualification determination on the use of any particular form or language.
Page 7, section 9
� DOL commented that the separate interest model in the prior version of the QDRO booklet stated that if an alternate payee died before commencing benefits, the alternate payee�s benefit could go to a contingent alternate payee (or revert to the participant or be forfeited to PBGC). In response to this comment, PBGC restored language that the alternate payee�s benefit could go to a contingent alternate payee and directed readers to Appendix F for substitute model language that could be used if a contingent alternate payee is named.
Page 11, section 9
� DOL commented that the shared payment model in the prior version of the QDRO booklet stated that if an alternate payee died before the participant, the alternate payee�s benefit could go to a contingent alternate payee. In response to this comment, PBGC restored language that the alternate payee�s benefit could go to a contingent alternate payee and directed readers to Appendix F for substitute model language that could be used if a contingent alternate payee is named.
Page 15, example 1
� IRS commented that the example provided that the alternate payee, Mark, was to receive 50% of the benefit earned "during marriage." However, the remainder of the example suggested that Mark�s 50% interest applied to the participant�s total benefit. In response to this comment, PBGC deleted language that the alternate payee was to receive 50% of the benefit earned "during marriage� in order to make the example internally consistent.
Page 18, section 6
� IRS commented that readers might not realize that the monthly payments under a certain and continuous (C&C) optional form would be less than what they would be if the alternate payee elected a straight life annuity. In response to this comment, PBGC added a note at the end of first paragraph advising readers of the effect of electing a C&C optional form.
Pages 24-25, Procedures and Checklist
� DOL commented that PBGC should add protective measures that would apply while it was reviewing a draft domestic relations order. In response to this comment, PBGC added protective measures that would apply generally for 60 days after receipt of a draft domestic relations order (e.g., not putting the participant into pay status, suspension of benefits if the participant is already in pay status). PBGC also strengthened disclosure of the consequences of not submitting a signed domestic relations order within that 60-day period.
Page 34, Appendix D
� DOL commented that readers might think that only shared payment orders would be acceptable to PBGC if the parties wanted to provide benefits to alternate payees who were children because PBGC provided a shared payment model for child support, with no indication that a separate interest order could be used to provide child support. In response to this comment, PBGC revised the introductory language to clarify that parties could submit separate interest, as well as shared payment, orders and explained that only a shared payment model was provided because, in PBGC�s experience, it was more commonly used.
Page 48, Appendix H
� DOL commented that the focus on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements could be viewed as a bar to alternate payees obtaining participant information. DOL also commented that readers might assume procedures for obtaining information from PBGC also applied to obtaining information from private sector pension plans. PBGC revised the Appendix to eliminate references to FOIA and to clarify that PBGC�s procedures derived from Privacy Act requirements. PBGC also added the name of a participant�s pension plan to the information that could be obtained from PBGC.
If you have any questions, please call Gail Sevin at (202) 326-4223, ext. 3011, Jo Amato Burns at the same number, ext. 3072, or me. Thank you.
Catherine B. Klion
Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division
Legislative and Regulatory Department
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(202) 326-4223, ext. 3041
[email protected]
| File Type | text/html |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |