Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices 11505

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to (Project

Director): petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–001, and to the attorney for

the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for a hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that

the petition and/or request should be

granted based upon a balancing of the

factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)

(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

Northern States Power Company,

Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie

Island Nuclear Generating Plant,

Goodhue County, Minnesota

Date of application for amendments:

February 6, 1997, as supplemented

February 12, 1997.

Brief description of amendments: The

amendments revise Technical

Specification 3.3.A to allow safety

injection pump testing and evolutions

during low-temperature shutdown

conditions provided controls for reactor

coolant system conditions are in place

to provide low temperature

overpressurization protection.

Date of issuance: February 20, 1997.

Effective date: February 20, 1997,

with full implementation within 30

days.

Amendment Nos.: 127 and 119.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

42 and DPR–60. Amendments revised

the Technical Specifications and Bases.

Public comments requested as to

proposed no significant hazards

consideration (NSHC): Yes. NRC

published a public notice of the

proposed amendments, issued a

proposed finding of no significant

hazards consideration, and requested

that any comments on the proposed

finding be provided to the staff by close

of business on February 14, 1997. The

notice was published in the Red Wing

Republican Eagle on February 12, 1997,

the Minneapolis Star Tribune on

February 9, 1997, and the St. Paul

Pioneer Press on February 10, 1997. No

comments have been received.

The Commission’s related evaluation

of the amendments, finding of exigent

circumstances, consultation with the

State of Minnesota, and final

determination of NSHC are contained in

a Safety Evaluation dated February 20,

1997.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC

20037.

Local Public Document Room

location: Minneapolis Public Library,

Technology and Science Department,

300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of March 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack W. Roe,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–5999 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7500–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Interpretation Numbers 1 and 2 Related

to Statement of Federal Financial

Accounting Standards Numbers 4, 5,

and 7

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget.

ACTION: Notice of interpretations.

SUMMARY: This notice includes two

interpretations of Statements of Federal

Financial Accounting Standards

(SFFAS), adopted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). These

interpretations were recommended by

the Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board (FASAB) and adopted

in their entirety by OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norwood J. Jackson, Jr. (telephone: 202–

395–3993), Office of Federal Financial

Management, Office of Management and

Budget.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Notice includes two interpretations of

Statements of Federal Financial

Accounting Standards (SFFAS), adopted

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). These interpretations

were recommended by the Federal

Accounting Standards Advisory Board

(FASAB) and adopted in their entirety

by OMB.

Under a Memorandum of

Understanding among the General

Accounting Office, the Department of

the Treasury, and OMB on Federal

Government Accounting Standards, the

Comptroller General, the Secretary of

the Treasury, and the Director of OMB

(the Principals) decide upon standards

and concepts after considering the

recommendations of FASAB. After

agreement to specific standards and

concepts, they are published in the

Federal Register and distributed

throughout the Federal Government.

An Interpretation is a document,

originally developed by FASAB, of

narrow scope which provides

clarification of the meaning of a

standard, concept or other related

guidance. Once approved by the

designated representatives of the

Principals, they are published in the

Federal Register.

This Notice, including the first two

interpretations of SFFAS, is available on

the OMB home page on the internet

which is currently located at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/

html/ombhome.html, under the caption

‘‘Federal Register Submissions.’’

G. Edward DeSeve,

Controller, Office of Federal Financial

Management, Office of Management and

Budget.

Interpretation Number 1 of Statement

of Federal Financial Accounting

Standards Number 7

Reporting on Indian Trust Funds in

General Purpose Financial Reports of

the Department of the Interior (DOI) and

in the Consolidated Financial

Statements of the United States

Government: An Interpretation of

SFFAS No. 7

Introduction

1. The DOI requested guidance about

how to report information on Indian

trust funds in the general purpose

financial report of the Department. The

Indian trust funds are managed by DOI’s

Office of Special Trustee, Office of the

Secretary. (Prior to FY 1996, the trust

funds were managed by the Bureau of

Indian Affairs.) Some of the funds

belong to individual Indians, others

belong to tribes. The funds are managed

by the Federal Government in a trust

arrangement. While the government’s

responsibility for all of these funds is of

a fiduciary nature, some portion of the

annual flows for some of the funds have
11506 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices

1This restriction on the scope of this

interpretation does not imply that this treatment

would be inappropriate for the other fiduciary

funds. Other funds were not included in the

research supporting this Interpretation and are,

therefore, excluded.

been included in the Budget of the

United States Government. (Further

discussion regarding types of funds

involved is provided in paragraphs 7

and 8.)

2. According to Statement of Federal

Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC)

No. 2, ‘‘Entity and Display,’’ inclusion

of a program in the section of the

Federal Budget, currently entitled

‘‘Federal Programs by Agency and

Account,’’ is conclusive evidence that

the program should be part of the

reporting entity. The question thus

arises whether the assets and activities

of the Indian trust funds should be

reported in DOI’s general purpose

financial statements. Also, Statement of

Federal Financial Accounting Standards

(SFFAS) No. 7, ‘‘Accounting for

Revenue and Other Financing Sources,’’

requires certain disclosures regarding

‘‘dedicated collections,’’ including

fiduciary funds. During discussion of

this issue at the Federal Accounting

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB),

questions arose about what type of

disclosures should be provided

regarding the Indian trust funds.

Interpretation

3. The assets, liabilities and operating

transactions of the Indian trust funds are

not part of DOI and should not be

included in the balance sheet, statement

of net cost, and statement of changes in

financial position of the Department or

of the United States Government.

However, the Department does have a

fiduciary responsibility for these funds

and is required to report on them in

footnotes to the financial statements by

SFFAS No. 7, paragraphs 83–87.

Scope of Interpretation

4. This Interpretation deals with what

information about Indian trust funds

should be included in the general

purpose financial report of DOI and the

consolidated financial statements of the

United States Government. It does not

address issues regarding: (1) reporting

formats for the footnote disclosure

required by SFFAS No. 7, (2) inclusion

or exclusion of other fiduciary funds as

components of the Federal reporting

entity, (3) inclusion or exclusion of any

funds or entities in the Budget of the

United States Government, or (4)

reporting on other funds labeled ‘‘trust

funds’’ in the Federal Budget, reporting

for trust funds, or reporting on deposit

funds generally.1

Effective Date

5. The interpretation is effective upon

implementation of SFFAS No. 7, which

is effective for reporting periods that

begin after September 30, 1997. Earlier

application of SFFAS No. 7 is

encouraged.

Appendix: Basis For Conclusions

Entity Criteria

6. In its discussion of the budgetary

perspective, SFFAC No. 2 notes:

18. Care must be taken in determining the

nature of all trust funds and their

relationship to the entity responsible for

them. A few trust funds are truly fiduciary

in nature. Most trust funds included in the

Federal Budget are not of a fiduciary nature

and are used in Federal financing in a way

that differs from the common understanding

of trust funds outside the Federal

Government. In many ways, these trust funds

can be similar to revolving or special funds

in that their spending is financed by

earmarked collections.

19. In customary usage, the term ‘‘trust

fund’’ refers to money belonging to one party

and held ‘‘in trust’’ by another party

operating as a fiduciary. The money in a trust

must be used in accordance with the trust’s

terms, which the trustee cannot unilaterally

modify, and is maintained separately and not

commingled with the trustee’s own funds.

This is not the case for most Federal funds

that are included in the Federal Budget—the

fiduciary relationship usually does not exist.

The beneficiaries do not own the funds and

the terms in the law that created the trust

fund can be unilaterally altered by Congress.

7. Indian trust funds are ‘‘true’’ trust

funds in the customary sense, in which

there is a legal fiduciary relationship

between the Federal Government as

trustee and the Indians as trustor. The

Federal Government does not own the

assets of the funds. In some cases, the

Federal Government’s trustee

relationship is with individuals, in

other cases with tribes. For many of the

funds involved, a tribe or individual can

use the funds or dissolve the trust at any

time; however, there is a restriction on

the use of funds that have been received

through legal judgments. Those funds

are generally not available until the

beneficiaries agree how the funds are to

be distributed among them.

8. The Federal Budget treats the two

types of Indian trust funds differently.

Tribal funds are included in the Federal

Budget. Individuals’ funds are not in the

Federal Budget; they are treated as

deposit funds. The Indian tribal trust

funds appear to meet SFFAC No. 2’s

conclusive criterion because of their

budgetary treatment. The question

regarding these funds is whether this

implies that these funds should be

reported on the face of DOI’s financial

statements, with the assets, liabilities,

revenues and expenses of the

Department.

9. Another question arises regarding

the Indian trust funds that do not appear

to meet the conclusive criterion: would

they meet the indicative criteria? DOI

interprets the indicative criteria in

paragraph 44 of SFFAC No. 2 to mean

that the Indian trust funds do not

possess any of these characteristics.

10. Some people believe that the sixth

indicative criterion does, in fact, apply:

‘‘* * * a fiduciary relationship with a

reporting entity * * *’’ However, they

believe that meeting any single

indicative criterion is not necessarily

sufficient to define the Indian trust

funds as part of a reporting entity.

SFFAC No. 2 cautioned expressly that

‘‘no single indicative criterion is a

conclusive criterion.’’

11. Other people do not believe that

even this indicative criterion applies.

They believe that, notwithstanding the

use of this terminology, the relationship

discussed in the sixth indicative

criterion concerns factors relating to

committing the component entity

financially, controlling the collection

and disbursement of funds, or having

financial interdependence. They believe

that this type of financial control and

interdependence does not exist between

the Indian trust funds and the Federal

Government.

12. While the Indian tribal funds

might appear to meet the criteria for

inclusion as a component of the Federal

reporting entity (by virtue of the

budgetary criterion, if no other), the

sovereignty of the Indian tribes as

entities outside the Federal

Government, and the fiduciary

relationship between the Federal

Government and the Indians, indicate

that the criteria stated in SFFAC No. 2

should not be interpreted to suggest that

the assets, liabilities, revenues and

expenses of these fiduciary funds

should be reported on the face of DOI’s

financial statements.

13. SFFAC No. 2’s discussion of the

budget perspective cautions that, when

defining a reporting entity, care must be

taken in determining the nature of all

trust funds and their relationship to the

entity responsible for them (SFFAC No.

2, paragraph 18). This provides some

common sense advice relevant to the

Indian trust funds.

Disclosures for Dedicated Collections

14. As noted, the disclosure

requirements for dedicated collections

in SFFAS No. 7, paragraphs 83–87, are

applicable to the Indian trust funds. DOI

should include this information in

footnotes to its basic financial

statements. In addressing the comments
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices 11507

1See paragraph 39 in SFFAS No. 5 for the

complete discussion on ‘‘Estimating Contingent

Liabilities.’’

2See paragraph 73 in SFFAS No. 7 for the

complete discussion on ‘‘Financing Imputed for

Cost Subsidies.’’

3 In most cases this determination involves DOJ.

4A contingency is an existing condition, situation

or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to

possible gain or loss to an entity. The uncertainty

will ultimately be resolved when one or more future

events occur or fail to occur. Resolution of the

uncertainty may confirm a gain or loss.

5See paragraphs 35–42 in SFFAS No. 5 for the

complete discussion on ‘‘Contingencies.’’

6See paragraphs 89–104 and 105–115 in SFFAS

No. 4 for the complete discussion on ‘‘Full Cost’’

and ‘‘Inter-entity Costs,’’ respectively.

7Actual journal entries are under the authority of

the Standard General Ledger.

received on the exposure draft leading

to SFFAS No. 7, the Board specifically

noted that:

226.1 The proposed standard did not

cover funds administered by a Federal entity

in a fiduciary relationship with beneficiaries

that were not included in the entity’s

financial statement. In addition, it did not

cover other funds which are of the same

nature as many trust funds. The standard

now requires disclosures for these funds also.

Interpretation Number 2 of Statement

of Federal Financial Accounting

Standards Numbers 4 and 5

Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund

Transactions: An Interpretation of

SFFAS No. 4 and SFFAS No. 5

Introduction

1. The Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board (FASAB) was asked to

clarify Federal accounting standards as

they relate to the Treasury Judgment

Fund. The Treasury Judgment Fund was

established by Congress in the 1950’s to

pay in whole or in part the court

judgments and settlement agreements

negotiated by the Department of Justice

(DOJ) on behalf of agencies, as well as

certain types of administrative awards.

The Congress established the Judgment

Fund as a permanent, indefinite

appropriation.

2. The clarification addresses (1) how

Federal entities should report the costs

and liabilities arising from claims to be

paid by the Treasury Judgment Fund

and (2) how the Judgment Fund should

account for the amounts that it is

required to pay on behalf of Federal

entities. This interpretation has been

prepared on the basis of the following

three accounting Standards:

—Statement of Federal Financial

Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4,

‘‘Managerial Cost Accounting

Concepts and Standards for the

Federal Government’’

—SFFAS No. 5, ‘‘Accounting for

Liabilities of the Federal

Government’’

—SFFAS No. 7, ‘‘Accounting for

Revenue and Other Financing Sources

and Concepts for Reconciling

Budgetary and Financial

Accounting.’’

The provisions of this interpretation

need not be applied to immaterial items.

Interpretation

Accounting by the Federal Entity

3. SFFAS No. 5 states that a

contingent liability should be

recognized when a past event or

exchange transaction has occurred; a

future outflow or other sacrifice of

resources is probable; and the future

outflow or sacrifice of resources is

measurable. The Federal entity’s

management, as advised by DOJ, must

determine whether it is probable that a

legal claim will end in a loss for the

Federal entity and the loss is estimable.

If the loss is probable and estimable, the

entity would recognize an expense and

liability for the full amount of the

expected loss.1 The expense and

liability would be adjusted periodically,

as necessary, based on any changes in

the estimated loss. The Federal entity

involved in the litigations shall discuss

in a footnote to the financial statements

the Judgment Fund’s role in the

payment of a possible loss.

4. Once the claim is either settled or

a court judgment is assessed against the

Federal entity and the Judgment Fund is

determined to be the appropriate source

for the payment of the claim, the

liability should be removed from the

financial statements of the entity that

incurred the liability and an ‘‘other

financing source’’ 2 amount (which

represents the amount to be paid by the

Judgment Fund) would be recognized. If

the Judgment Fund is responsible for

only a portion of the claim or

settlement, the imputed financing

source amount would reflect only that

amount to be paid by the Judgment

Fund on behalf of the Federal entity.

Accounting by the Treasury Judgment

Fund

5. Once the claim is either settled or

a court judgment is assessed and the

Judgment Fund is determined to be the

appropriate source for payment of the

claim, the Judgment Fund would

recognize an expense and an accounts

payable or a cash outlay for the full cost

of the loss. According to SFFAS No. 4,

the imputed financing source amount

recognized by the Federal entity and the

expense recognized by the Judgment

Fund would be eliminated at the

Federal consolidated financial report

level.

Effective Date

6. This interpretation is effective upon

implementation of SFFAS No. 4 and

SFFAS No. 5, which become effective

for fiscal periods beginning after

September 30, 1996.

Appendix A: Basis For Conclusions

7. This interpretation is primarily

based on the principles of SFFAS No. 5

and SFFAS No. 4. The following brief

discussion explains the basis for the

interpretation in terms of those

standards which are the foundation for

the interpretation.

8. In accordance with the general

principles of the liability standard

(SFFAS No. 5), once a legal claim is

filed against a Federal entity, the

entity’s management should determine

the likelihood that the Federal entity

will incur a loss related to the claim,3

regardless of the fact that the payment

may be paid in full or in part by the

Judgment Fund. The contingencies 4

section of SFFAS No. 5 states that, if the

likelihood of the contingent loss is

remote, no reporting is necessary; if the

likelihood of the loss is reasonably

possible and the amount is measurable,

the estimated loss should be disclosed;

and, if the likelihood of loss is probable

(more likely than not which is a greater

than 50 percent chance of occurrence)

and estimable, the estimated loss must

be recognized as a liability. If the

probability of the loss is changed at any

time prior to payment of the claim, the

proper adjustments should be

recognized (e.g., from disclosure

(reasonably possible) to recognition

(probable)). If at any time the estimated

loss amount changes, the liability and

expense should be adjusted to reflect

the change.5

9. In accordance with the principles

of SFFAS No. 4,6 a Federal entity

incurring a loss or expense must

recognize the full cost of the loss

(claim), regardless of who is actually

paying the (settlement or judgment)

amount. The standard requires the

Federal entity incurring a loss or

expense to use an estimate of the cost

if the actual cost information is not

provided. The estimate must be

reasonable and should be aimed at

determining realistic losses expected.

Appendix B: Illustrative Journal Entries

Based on the above noted accounting

standards and the generalized events

described below, the conceptual journal

entries 7 should be as follows:

Federal entity entries:

The Federal entity’s management,

through the advisement of DOJ, has
11508 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices

8According to SFFAS No. 4, the imputed

financing source and expenses paid for other

entities amounts would be eliminated at the

consolidation level.

determined that the probability of the

legal claim ending in a loss against the

Federal entity is probable and the loss

is estimable. The entity would recognize

an expense and liability for the full

amount of the expected loss. The

expense and liability would be adjusted

as necessary based on any changes in

the estimated loss.

Entry #1:

Debit Expense

Credit Liability—Legal claims

Once the claim is either settled or a

court judgment is assessed against the

Federal entity and the Judgment Fund is

determined to be the appropriate source

for payment of the claim, the liability

should be removed and an other

financing source recognized. If the

Judgment Fund is responsible for only

a portion of the claim or settlement, the

imputed financing source amount

would only reflect that amount paid by

the Judgment Fund on behalf of the

Federal entity.

Entry #2:

Debit Liability—Legal claims

Credit Imputed Financing Source—

Expenses Paid by Other Entities 8

Treasury Judgment Fund entries:

The claim is either settled or a court

judgment is assessed and the Judgment

Fund is determined to be the

appropriate source for payment.

Entry #3:

Debit Expenses Paid for Other

Entities 8

Credit Cash or Fund Balance with

Treasury

[FR Doc. 97–6134 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Summary: In accordance with the

requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

which provides opportunity for public

comment on new or revised data

collections, the Railroad Retirement

Board (RRB) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed data collections.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed information collection is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information has practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s

estimate of the burden of the collection

of the information; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden related to

the collection of information on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title and purpose of information

collection: Investigation of Claim for

Possible Days of Employment or State

Benefits Received; OMB 3220–0049.

Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA),

unemployment and sickness benefits are

not payable for any day with respect to

which remuneration is payable or

accrues to the claimant. Also Section

4(a–1) of the RUIA provides that

unemployment or sickness benefits are

not payable for any day the claimant

receives the same benefits under any

law other than the RUIA. Under

Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)

regulations, 20 CFR 322.4(a), a

claimant’s certification or statement on

an RRB provided claim form that he or

she did not work on any day claimed

and did not receive inform such as

vacation pay or pay for time lost shall

constitute sufficient evidence unless

there is conflicting evidence. Further,

under 20 CFR 322.4(b), when there is

question raised as to whether or not

remuneration is payable or has accrued

to a claimant with respect to a claimed

day or days, investigation shall be made

with a view to obtaining information

sufficient for a finding. The RRB utilizes

the following four forms, to obtain

information from railroad employers,

nonrailroad employers and claimants,

that are needed to determne whether a

claimed days or days of unemployment

or sickness were improperly or

fraudulently claimed: Form ID–5I, Letter

to Non-Railroad Employers on

Employment and Earnings of a

Claimant; Form ID–5R(SUP), Report of

Employees Paid RUIA Benefits for Every

Day in Month Reported as Month of

Creditable Service; Form ID–49R, Letter

to Railroad Employee for Payroll

Information; and Form UI–48,

Claimant’s Statement Regarding Benefit

Claim for Days of Employment.

Completion is voluntary. One response

is requested of each respondent.

All of the forms are being revised to

include language required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The

RRB also proposes the addition of an

item to Form ID–51 to request the

employee’s occupation. No other

changes are proposed.

The RRB burden estimates for forms

associated with the collection follow:

Form No. Annual

responses

Time

(min)

Burden

(hours)

ID–5I ............................................................................................................................................. 4,500 15 1,125

ID–5R (SUP) ................................................................................................................................ 900 10 150

ID–49R ......................................................................................................................................... 250 15 63

UI–48 ............................................................................................................................................ 250 12 50

Total ................................................................................................................................... 5,900 ........................ 1,388