Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Notices 11929

1See ERISA §§ 101(b)(4) and 103, and 29 CFR

2520.103–1.

2See ERISA §§ 104(a)(5) and 502(c)(2), and 29

CFR 2560.502c-2.

3ERISA § 3(37)(A) defines ‘‘multiemployer plan’’

to mean a ‘‘plan—(i) to which more than one

employer is required to contribute, (ii) which is

maintained pursuant to one or more collective

bargaining agreements between one or more

employee organizations and more than one

employer, and (iii) which satisfies such other

requirements as the Secretary [of Labor] may

prescribe by regulation.’’

4SOP 92–6, ‘‘Accounting and Reporting by Health

and Welfare Benefit Plans’’, was issued by the

AICPA on August 3, 1992. SOP 92–6 is effective for

audits of financial statements of single employer

plans with more than 500 participants for plan

years beginning after December 15, 1992 and for

single employer plans with no more than 500

participants for plan years beginning after

December 15, 1994. SOP 92–6 is effective for audits

of financial statements of multiemployer plans for

plan years beginning after December 15, 1995.

5See paragraphs 36–49 of SOP 92–6.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Farms; Non-profit institutions;

Small businesses or organizations.

Number or respondents: 6,349.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 0.25

hours.

Total Estimated Cost: $47,610.

Total Burden Hours: 1,587.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request. They

will also become a matter of public

record.

Dated: March 6, 1997.

Joseph DuBois,

Director, Division of Data Analysis, OSHA

Office of Statistics.

[FR Doc. 97–6150 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration

RIN 1210 AA57

Notice and Request for Comments on

Annual Reporting Enforcement Policy

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to invite public comment on the

Department of Labor’s adoption of an

annual reporting enforcement policy

pursuant to which the Department

would not reject the annual report of a

multiemployer welfare benefit plan

solely because the accountant’s opinion

accompanying the report is ‘‘qualified’’

or ‘‘adverse’’ due to a failure to account

and report for post-retirement benefit

obligations in accordance with the

financial statement disclosure

requirements of the American Institute

of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

Statement of Position 92–6 (SOP 92–6).

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before May 12, 1997 to

be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be directed to: Office of Regulations and

Interpretations, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration, Room N–5669,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington,

DC 20210. Attention: Reporting

Enforcement Policy. All submissions

will be open to public inspection at the

Public Documents Room, Pension and

Welfare Benefits Administration, Room

N–5638, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

A. Raps, Office of Regulations and

Interpretations, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Washington D.C.

20210, (202) 219–8515 (not a toll free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

In general, the administrator of an

employee benefit plan with 100 or more

participants at the beginning of a plan

year is required under Title I of the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and

the Department’s regulations issued

thereunder, to file a Form 5500 and to

include as part of that report the

opinion of an independent qualified

public accountant.1 The requirements

governing the content of the opinion

and report of the independent qualified

public accountant are set forth in ERISA

section 103(a)(3)(A) and 29 CFR

2520.103–1(b)(5).

ERISA section 104(a)(4) permits the

Department to reject an annual report if

it determines that there is a material

qualification by an accountant

contained in the opinion required to be

submitted pursuant to section

103(a)(3)(A). If the Department rejects a

filing under section 104(a)(4), and the

administrator fails to submit a

satisfactory filing within 45 days, the

Department may, among other things,

assess a civil penalty of up to a $1,000

a day against the administrator for

failing or refusing to file an annual

report.2

The Department has received a

number of inquiries from multiemployer

plan administrators, trustees, benefit

consultants, and accountants

concerning whether a Form 5500 filed

by an administrator of a multiemployer

plan 3 that provides for post-retirement

welfare benefits would be rejected by

the Department solely because the

independent qualified public

accountant’s opinion accompanying

such report is ‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘adverse’’

due to a failure to account and report for

post-retirement welfare benefit

obligations in accordance with the

financial statement disclosure

requirements of SOP 92–6.4 Postretirement welfare benefits would

include, for example, health and

medical benefits for eligible retirees

provided under a welfare benefit plan.

In general, compliance with SOP 92–6

is required for financial statements of

employee welfare benefit plans to be

prepared in accordance with generally

accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Among other things, SOP 92–6 amends

the welfare plan financial statement

disclosure requirements in the AICPA’s

Audit and Accounting Guide, ‘‘Audits

of Employee Benefit Plans,’’ to require

welfare plans to account for and report

post-retirement benefit obligations.5

The inquiries from multiemployer

plan representatives generally

questioned the usefulness of the postretirement benefit obligation disclosure

required under SOP 92–6 to

multiemployer plan trustees or

participants and beneficiaries. The

inquiries also indicated that accounting

and reporting for post-retirement

obligations in accordance with the

financial statement disclosure

requirements of SOP 92–6 would result

in substantial increases in both

administrative burdens and costs to

affected multiemployer plans.

The Department is considering

whether the proposed annual reporting

enforcement policy, as described below,

should be adopted. In view of the fact

that the AICPA made the SOP 92–6

guidelines applicable to multiemployer

plans for plan years beginning after

December 15, 1995, and the fact that the

Department heretofore had not provided

guidance on the issue, the Department

decided that while this proposal is

pending it would not reject annual

reports of multiemployer plans filed for

the 1996 and 1997 plan years solely

because the accountant’s opinion

accompanying such report is

‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘adverse’’ due to a failure

to account and report for postretirement welfare benefit obligations in

accordance with SOP 92–6.

B. Proposed Annual Reporting

Enforcement Policy

Pursuant to section 103(a)(3)(A), the

independent qualified public

accountant engaged on behalf of
11930 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Notices

6See Advisory Opinion No. 84–45A (November

16, 1984).

7See 29 CFR 2520.103–1(b)(3).

8For annual reporting purposes, ‘‘benefit claims’’

and other payables, reported as plan liabilities on

the Form 5500, are generally limited, in the case of

noncash basis welfare plans, to amounts processed

and approved for payment by the plan. See items

31g–31k of the 1996 Form 5500. The enforcement

policy described in this Release does not change

these requirements.

participants and beneficiaries is

required to conduct ‘‘an examination of

any financial statements of the plan, and

of other books and records of the plan,

as the accountant may deem necessary

to enable the accountant to form an

opinion as to whether the financial

statements and schedules * * * are

presented fairly in conformity with

generally accepted accounting

principles applied on a basis consistent

with that of the preceding year.’’ The

Department has taken the position that

section 103(a)(3)(A) does not require

plans to maintain their statements,

books and records in accordance with

GAAP.6 However, for purposes of

compliance with ERISA’s annual

reporting requirements, the notes to the

financial statements must describe,

among other things, the accounting

principles and practices reflected in the

financial statements and, if applicable,

variances from GAAP.7 Accordingly, an

accountant’s opinion that notes

variances from GAAP would not for that

reason alone be unacceptable to the

Department.

With regard to accounting and

reporting for post-retirement welfare

benefit obligations in accordance with

the financial statement disclosure

requirements of SOP 92–6, in particular,

the Department notes that there is

nothing in Title I of ERISA, the

Department’s regulations issued

thereunder, or the Form 5500, including

instructions thereto, that specifically

requires an accounting or reporting by

welfare benefit plans for post-retirement

welfare benefit obligations.8 The

Department also notes that, unlike

pension benefit plans, ERISA does not

impose minimum funding requirements

on welfare benefit plans.

In view of the foregoing, the

Department is proposing to adopt an

annual reporting enforcement policy

pursuant to which the Department will

not reject the Form 5500 Annual

Return/Report of a multiemployer plan,

within the meaning of ERISA section

3(37), solely because the accountant’s

opinion accompanying such report is

‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘adverse’’ due to a failure

to account and report for postretirement welfare benefit obligations in

accordance with the financial statement

disclosure requirements of SOP 92–6.

Such variance with GAAP, however,

would, in accordance with 29 CFR

2520.103–(b)(3), be required to be set

forth in the notes to the financial

statements included as part of the

Annual Return/Report.

This proposed enforcement policy

would extend only to multiemployer

welfare plans subject to the financial

statement disclosure requirements of

SOP 92–6 because only multiemployer

plans formally requested relief citing a

substantial increase in their

administrative burdens and costs that

would result from being forced to

comply with SOP 92–6. The

enforcement policy, therefore, if

adopted as proposed, will treat

multiemployer plans differently than

single employer plans. The Department

is interested in receiving comments on

this issue.

While the Department is proposing

not to reject Annual Return/Reports of

multiemployer plans solely because of a

failure to account and report for postretirement welfare benefit obligations in

accordance with the financial statement

disclosure requirements of SOP 92–6,

the Department nonetheless believes

that administrators of such plans must

determine, taking into account their

particular plan, benefit commitments

thereunder, and compliance cost, to

what extent evaluation of postretirement welfare benefit obligations

may provide information necessary to

the discharge of the plan fiduciaries’

duties under ERISA.

This enforcement policy would, on

adoption, remain in effect until

amended or revoked by a document

published in the Federal Register.

C. Public Comment

In considering whether to adopt the

above described proposed annual

reporting enforcement policy, the

Department is inviting interested

persons to submit comments, data,

information, and views that they believe

may be relevant to the Department’s

determination to implement the

enforcement policy. The Department

specifically invites interested persons to

provide comments, data, information

and views concerning the following:

1. Whether, and to what extent,

accounting and reporting of postretirement welfare benefit obligations in

accordance with SOP 92–6 would

produce useful information for

fiduciaries, participants and

beneficiaries of affected plans that

would be unavailable if the proposed

policy were adopted. Comments should

specify how the SOP 92–6 information

would be either useful or not useful to

satisfy any responsibility or exercise any

right under ERISA or the plan.

2. How the proposed policy, if

adopted, would affect the quality of

accountant’s examinations, required

under ERISA section 103(a)(3)(A), of

multiemployer plans’ financial

statements, books and records.

3. Estimates of any increased

administrative, information collection,

and recordkeeping costs or burden

hours for multiemployer plans

attributable to compliance with SOP 92–

6 that would be avoided if the proposed

enforcement policy is adopted. Cost and

burden hour estimates should be

specific and distinguish between initial/

start-up costs or burdens and any

recurring annual costs or burdens.

Estimates should also include a

description of the administrative,

information collection, and

recordkeeping services or activities.

Variables affecting the estimates, such

as size of the plan, demographic

characteristics, existing recordkeeping

systems, etc., should be noted.

4. Estimates of any increased

accounting and actuarial costs for

multiemployer welfare benefit plans

attributable to compliance with SOP 92–

6 that would be avoided if the proposed

enforcement policy is adopted. Cost

estimates should be specific and

distinguish between initial/start-up

costs and any recurring annual costs.

Estimates should also include a

description of the accounting and

actuarial services or activities. Variables

affecting the estimates, such as size of

the plan, demographic characteristics,

existing recordkeeping systems, etc.,

should be noted.

5. Whether availability of the

proposed enforcement policy should be

conditioned on the multiemployer

welfare benefit plan including an

‘‘Additional Explanation’’ section in its

summary annual report pursuant to 29

CFR 2520.104b–10(d)(2) explaining that

the accountant’s opinion accompanying

its annual report is ‘‘qualified’’ or

‘‘adverse’’ due to a failure to account

and report for post-retirement welfare

benefit obligations in accordance with

the financial statement disclosure

requirements of SOP 92–6.

6. The Department notes that the

proposed enforcement policy extends

only to multiemployer plans, and,

therefore, if adopted as proposed, will

treat multiemployer plans differently

than single employer plans. We request

comments on this issue.

Executive Order 12866 Statement

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), it must be

determined whether a departmental
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Notices 11931

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

Under section 3(f), the Order defines a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an

action that is likely to result in a rule

(1) having an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely and materially affecting a

sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local or

tribal governments or communities (also

referred to as ‘‘economically

significant’’); (2) creating a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfering

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially altering

the budgetary impacts of entitlement,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, the proposed action that is the

subject of this notice has been

determined to be ‘‘significant’’ under

category (4), supra, and, therefore, has

been reviewed by OMB.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The notice issued here is not subject

to the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.) because it contains no

‘‘collection of information’’ as defined

in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

Signed at Washington D.C., this 6th day of

March 1997.

Olena Berg,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration U.S. Department of

Labor.

[FR Doc. 97–6153 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 96–3 CARP SRA]

Rate Adjustment for the Satellite

Carrier Compulsory License

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Announcement of the schedule

for the proceeding.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is announcing the

schedule for the 180 day arbitration

period for the adjustment of the royalty

rates for the satellite carrier compulsory

license, as required by the regulations

governing this proceeding.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All hearings and meetings

for the rate adjustment of the royalty

fees for the satellite compulsory license

shall take place in the James Madison

Building, Room 414, First and

Independence Avenue, S.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20540.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nanette Petruzzelli, Acting General

Counsel, or Tanya Sandros, Attorney

Advisor, at: Copyright Arbitration

Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O. Box 70977,

Southwest Station, Washington, D.C.

20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.

Telefax: (202) 707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

251.11(b) of the regulations governing

the Copyright Arbitration Royalty

Panels, 37 CFR subchapter B, provides

that:

At the beginning of each proceeding, the

CARP shall develop the original schedule of

the proceeding which shall be published in

the Federal Register at least seven calendar

days in advance of the first meeting. Such

announcement shall state the times, dates,

and places of the meetings, the testimony to

be heard, whether any of the meetings, or any

portion of a meeting, is to be closed, and if

so, which ones, and the name and telephone

number of the person to contact for further

information.

This notice fulfills those requirements

of § 251.11(b) for the proceeding to

adjust the royalty fees for the satellite

compulsory license.

By notice dated June 11, 1996, the

Library announced the precontroversy

discovery period for this docket and

requested interested parties to file

Notices of Intent to Participate. 61 FR

29573 (June 11, 1996). Subsequently,

the Library adjusted the schedule, and

informed the participating parties that

the 180-day arbitration period would

begin on March 3, 1997. Order in Docket

No. 96–3 CARP SRA (October 29, 1996).

On February 28, 1997, the Office

published a notice announcing the

initiation of the 180 day period for this

proceeding. 62 FR 9212 (February 28,

1997). The 180 day period commenced

on March 3, 1997, and will end on

August 29, 1997.

On March 4, 1997, the first Tuesday

immediately following the initiation of

the proceeding, the parties to this

proceeding met with the arbitrators for

the purpose of setting a schedule for this

proceeding. At that meeting, the parties

and the arbitrators agreed to the

following schedule:

Presentation of direct

cases Dates

Copyright Owners ..... March 13–March 14,

1997.

March 17–March 20,

1997.

March 24–March 25,

1997.

Satellite Carriers ....... April 7–April 10,

1997.

ASkyB ....................... April 15–April 17,

1997.

Close of 180 day period.August 29, 1997.

The regulations require that the

Copyright Office publish the original

schedule for the CARP proceeding in

the Federal Register at least seven

calendar days in advance of the first

meeting. 37 CFR 251.11(b). Pursuant to

37 CFR 251.11(d), however, the

arbitrators voted to publish the schedule

on shorter notice than the required

seven days in order to maximize the

allotted time to hear the evidence and

write their report. The results of the vote

on the question, whether the

requirement for a seven calendar notice

should be waived, are:

The Hon. Lewis Hall Griffith,

Chairperson—Yes

The Hon. John W. Cooley—Yes

The Hon. Jeffrey S. Gulin—Yes

At this time, the parties have not

moved to close any portion of the

proceeding to the public. Further

refinements to the schedule will be

announced in open meetings and issued

as orders to the parties participating in

the proceeding. All changes will be

noted in the docket file of the

proceeding, as required by the

Copyright Office regulations governing

the administration of CARP

proceedings. 37 CFR 251.11(c).

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 97–6328 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414]

Duke Power Company, et al.; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–35