Steel Corp., 863 F.2d 279, 283 (3d Cir.1988). The Hlinka court also observed that an employer is not acting as a fiduciary when he/she designs a benefit plan. Id. at 285. Similarly in Whitaker v. Texaco, Inc., 729 F.Supp. 845 (N.D.Ga.1989), a case brought under ERISA for pension benefits and challenging the plan’s reliance on actuarial tables, the court noted: “It is an elementary principle of trust law that a fiduciary analysis applies to situations where a trustee has discretion.” Id. at 854, citing Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 187. Thus where “a trustee’s challenged action is merely ministerial, e.g., required by the terms of the trust ... the court will invoke a contractual analysis.” Id. at 854. Defendants also cite to Hickman v. Tosco Corp., 840 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc., 613
holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary holding that even if a thirdparty administrator is not a fiduciary under erisa such an administrator still has standing  pursuant to   1331