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

Start Date

Select Reference

**1995**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
1995-20A 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.
1995-19A 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.
1995-18A 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.
1995-17A 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.
1995-16A 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).
1995-15A 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.
1995-14A 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.
1995-13A 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.
1995-12A 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).
1995-11A 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.