"Information about risk transfers is critical to PBGC's ability to assess its future financial condition," according to a summary of the filing posted on the Federal Resister's website. 

A comment period on the proposed amendment to the filing procedure, which the PBGC has proposed for 2015 plan filings, will close on Feb. 15. 

In September, PBGC published a notice of its intention to submit new filing procedures for approval by the OMB, which elicited nine comments, some in support, some not. 

Significant dissent came from the business and insurance company lobbies. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce "strongly" discouraged the collection of information of risk transfers, saying "we see no benefit to it and also because no reason has been offered for it." 

Also read: Corporate pension funding takes a nosedive

Aon's comments suggested requiring sponsors to file details on lump-sum payments and annuity purchases made in the transfers are not "reportable" events under Section 4043 of ERISA, which grants PBGC statutory authority to collect information on plans. 

The American Council of Life Insurers said that while the proposed filing changes would not directly limit a plan sponsor's right to de-risk, the PBGC had failed to provide evidence about how the new filing requirements would benefit participants, sponsors, or even the agency itself. 

ACLI's comments also noted the PBGC's estimates of the cost created by the amending filing requirements – $53.2 million annually and 8,000 hours of labor. 

"While the extra time burden may not seem that significant, the $53 million does seem significant when distributed among 25,700 plans ($2,062 per plan)," the ACLI's lawyers wrote. 

There was also strong support for the proposed filing requirements. 

The AFL-CIO urged the proposed changes be implemented, citing the pensions of thousands of retirees affected by risk-transfer agreements made at GM, Ford, Verizon, Motorola and Boeing. 

"It is time for the PBGC, as well as the other regulatory agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Department of Treasury, to take action before the retirement security of even more workers are retirees is undermined," wrote a policy specialist from the AFL-CIO. 

The National Retiree Legislative Network, an advocacy group for 2 million retirees, said it supports the proposal and "hopes that this is only the beginning of swift action by the PBGC" to address pension de-risking, which the organization says presents risk to participants. 

"The PBGC needs this information to anticipate and verify changes in the number of participants for whom premium payments must be paid. The NRLN agrees completely with the agency's rationale," wrote NRLN's executive director.