Advisory Opinions

Requests for interpretations and other rulings under Title 1 of ERISA are handled by the Office of Regulations and Interpretations under the provisions established by ERISA Procedure 76-1.  The office answers inquiries from individuals and organizations in the form of advisory opinions, which apply the law to a specific set of facts, or information letters, which merely call attention to well established principles or interpretations.

Data Dictionary

1995
AO/ Date/ Reference Recipient Description of Request
08/23/1995
3(32)

Mr. David Needham 
Assistant General Manager 
Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority 
333 Wealthy Street, S.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

Whether the Grand Rapids City Coach Lines, Inc. and Amalgamated Transit Union Pension Plan is a “governmental plan” within the meaning of section 3(32) and, therefore excluded from ERISA Title I coverage.

08/09/1995
408(b)(1)

Mr. Robert Heimbichner 
Pillsbury Madison & Sutro
P.O. Box 7880 
San Francisco, Ca 94120

Whether a plan, whose participants are members of more than one collective bargaining unit, would fail to satisfy the ERISA section 408(b)(1)(A) requirement that loans be available to all participants and beneficiaries who are parties in interest on a reasonably equivalent basis if loans are available only to participants (and beneficiaries) whose collective bargaining units have agreed to the loan feature.

07/27/1995

Michael S. Melbinger, Esq. 
Schiff, Hardin & Waite
7200 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6473

A request, on behalf of Adoptive Families of America, Inc., for guidance concerning the obligations of group health plans under ERISA section 609(c), relating to coverage of dependent children in connection with adoptions.

06/29/1995

Ms. Linda K. Shore
Groom and Nordberg
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20006

Whether Banc One Corporation and its affiliates would be considered a fiduciary to plans participating in a proposed participant loan program in connection with its processing of participant loan applications and administration of the program.

06/16/1995

Mr. Steven R. Reid 
Reid and Riege, P.C.
One State Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3185

Whether the Connecticut Labor Management Cooperation Committee Trust Fund is an “employee welfare benefit plan” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(1).

06/26/1995

Mr. Dennis J. Murphy 
Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrman & Sommers
3850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1820
Los Angeles, California 90010-2594

Whether the Central Valley Schools Health and Welfare Benefit Trust constitutes a “governmental plan,” as defined in ERISA section 3(32), and is, therefore, excluded from coverage under Title I of ERISA.

06/26/1995

Ms. Barbara E. Tretheway 
Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A.
3400 City Center
33 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Whether the Minnesota Public Employees' Insurance Plan constitutes a “governmental plan”, as defined in ERISA section 3(32) and is, therefore, excluded from coverage under Title I of ERISA.

06/19/1995
3(33)
4(b)(2)

Mr. S. Howard Kline 
Buchanan Ingersoll 
600 Grant Street, 58th Floor 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-2887

Whether the Mercy Life Center Corporation Pension Plan is a “church plan” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33) , and pursuant to section 4(b)(2) thereof, is not required to comply with the provisions of Title I.

06/19/1995
3(33)
4(b)(2)

Mr. S. Howard Kline 
Buchanan Ingersoll
600 Grant Street, 58th Floor
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-2887

Whether the Employees' Retirement Plan of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd is a “church plan” within the meaning of section 3(33) of Title I of ERISA and thus excluded from the requirements of Title I by section 4(b)(2).

06/16/1995
3(32)
4(b)(1)

Mr. Richard A. Gilbert 
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Old Federal Reserve Bank Building
400 Sansome Street
San Francisco, California 94111-3143

Whether the status of the California State Teachers' Retirement System as a “governmental plan” within the meaning of ERISA sections 3(32) and 4(b)(1) would be adversely affected by accepting contributions pursuant to state law from a charter school’s operation where contributions were made on behalf of its employees for the limited period that the school's charter was in effect and were made so the school’s employees may participate in CSTRS for that same period.