| 87-7 |
| July 21, 1987 |
| REFERENCE: |
| Miscellaneous |
| OPINION: |
| This relates to your recent letter and our subsequent conversations on the binding effect of the opinion letters issued by |
| the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC"). |
| As you are aware, the PBGC issues opinion letters to advise the public of its views of the meaning of the provisions of |
| Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Such letters are not intended to dispose of particular |
| controversies between private parties. Moreover, because they are the PBGC's interpretations of Title IV and not |
| substantive rules promulgated in accordance with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure |
| Act, they are not binding on the public or on the courts. However, interpretative rulings of government agencies "do |
| constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance." |
| Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). As the agency charged with the responsibility for enforcing the |
| provisions of Title IV, the PBGC's construction of Title IV is entitled to deference. Belland v. PBGC, 726 F.2d 839, 843 |
| (D.C. Cir. 1984); see also, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 381 (1969). |
| In addition to issuing opinion letters, the PBGC, in light of its responsibility to see that Title IV of ERISA is properly |
| interpreted, will take other action to support its interpretation of statutory terms, e.g., filing amicus briefs. |
| I hope this response is of assistance. |
| Gary M. Ford |
| General Counsel |