7592 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

1Throughout this notice, the terms ‘‘concerns,’’

‘‘a safety problem,’’ or ‘‘safety concerns’’ refer to

concerns associated with issues within the

Commission’s jurisdiction, whether or not a

violation of NRC requirements is involved.

2Throughout this Notice, the term ‘‘contractor’’

includes contractors and subcontractors of

licensees.

closed to public attendance to discuss

information the release of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy pursuant to

5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

J. Miscellaneous—Discuss

miscellaneous matters related to the

conduct of Committee activities and

organizational activities and complete

discussion of matters and specific issues

that were not completed during

previous meetings, as time and

availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACNW meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51219). In

accordance with these procedures, oral

or written statements may be presented

by members of the public, electronic

recordings will be permitted only

during those portions of the meeting

that are open to the public, and

questions may be asked only by

members of the Committee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the ACNW Executive Director, Dr. John

T. Larkins, as far in advance as

practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made to allow the

necessary time during the meeting for

such statements. Use of still, motion

picture, and television cameras during

this meeting may be limited to selected

portions of the meeting as determined

by the ACNW Chairman. Information

regarding the time to be set aside for this

purpose may be obtained by contacting

the ACNW Executive Director prior to

the meeting. In view of the possibility

that the schedule for ACNW meetings

may be adjusted by the Chairman as

necessary to facilitate the conduct of the

meeting, persons planning to attend

should check with the ACNW Executive

Director if such rescheduling would

result in major inconvenience.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting the ACNW

Executive Director, Dr. John T. Larkins

(telephone 301/415–7360), between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST.

Dated: February 3, 1995.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–3152 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear

Industry To Raise Safety Concerns

Without Fear of Retaliation; Draft

Policy Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Draft statement of policy.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is issuing this draft policy

statement for public comment. The draft

policy statement emphasizes the

importance that the Commission places

on maintaining a quality-conscious

environment in which all employees in

the nuclear industry feel free to raise

safety concerns, both to their

management and to the NRC, without

fear of retaliation. The responsibility for

maintaining this type of an environment

rests with each NRC licensee, as well as

with contractors, subcontractors and

employees in the nuclear industry. This

policy statement would be applicable to

licensed activities of all NRC licensees

and their contractors and

subcontractors.

DATES: The comment period expires

April 10, 1995. Comments received after

this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to assure consideration only for

comments received on or before this

date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: Secretary, Attn: Docketing and

Service Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, Federal

workdays. Copies of comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW,

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Lieberman, Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

(301) 504–2741.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NRC licensees have the primary

responsibility to ensure the safety of

nuclear operations. Identification and

communication of potential safety

concerns 1 and the freedom of

employees to raise such concerns is an

integral part of carrying out this

responsibility.

In the past, employees have raised

important issues and as a result, the

public health and safety has benefited.

Although the Commission recognizes

that not every concern raised by

employees is safety significant or, for

that matter, is valid, the Commission

concludes that it is important that

licensees’ management establish an

environment in which safety issues are

promptly identified and effectively

resolved and in which employees feel

free to raise concerns.

Although hundreds of concerns are

raised and resolved daily in the nuclear

industry, the Commission, on occasion,

receives reports of individuals being

retaliated against for raising concerns.

This retaliation is unacceptable and

unlawful. In addition to the hardship

caused to the individual employee, the

perception by fellow workers that

raising concerns has resulted in

retaliation can generate a chilling effect

that may discourage other workers from

raising concerns. A reluctance on the

part of employees to raise concerns is

detrimental to nuclear safety.

As a result of questions raised about

NRC’s efforts to address retaliation

against individuals who raise health and

safety concerns, the Commission

established a review team in 1993 to

reassess the NRC’s program for

protecting allegers against retaliation. In

its report (NUREG–1499, ‘‘Reassessment

of the NRC’s Program for Protecting

Allegers Against Retaliation,’’ January 7,

1994) the review team made numerous

recommendations, including several

recommendations that addressed the

need to encourage responsible licensee

action with regard to encouraging a

quality-conscious environment in which

to raise safety concerns

(recommendations II.A–1, II.A–2, and

II.A–4). This policy statement is being

issued after considering those

recommendations and the bases for

them. The policy statement and the

principles set forth in it are intended to

apply to licensed activities of all NRC

licensees and their contractors,2

although it is recognized that some of

the suggestions, programs, or steps that

might be taken to improve the quality of

the work environment (e.g.,

establishment of an employee concerns

program) may not be practical or may

not be needed for very small licensees

that have only a few employees and a

very simple management structure.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7593

3 In developing these programs, it is important for

reactor licensees to be able to capture all concerns,

not just concerns related to ‘‘safety related’’

activities covered by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

For example, concerns relating to environmental,

safeguards, and radiation protection issues should

also be captured.

Statement of Policy

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, the NRC has the authority

to investigate allegations that employees

of licensees or their contractors have

been discriminated against for raising

concerns and to take enforcement action

if discrimination is substantiated. The

Commission has promulgated

regulations to prohibit discrimination

(See, e.g., 10 CFR 30.7 and 50.7). Under

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, the Department of Labor

(DOL) also has the authority to

investigate complaints of discrimination

and to provide a personal remedy to the

employee when discrimination is found

to have occurred. However, the

processes for providing personal

remedies and taking enforcement action

can be time-consuming. To the extent

that retaliation can be avoided

altogether or addressed and resolved

quickly when it occurs, the interests of

all parties are well served.

The Commission believes that the

most effective improvements to the

environment for raising concerns will

come from within a licensee’s

organization (or the organization of the

licensee’s contractor), as communicated

and demonstrated by licensee and

contractor management. Management

should recognize the value of effective

processes for problem identification and

resolution, understand the negative

effect produced by the perception that

employee concerns are unwelcome, and

appreciate the importance of ensuring

that multiple channels exist for raising

concerns. As the Commission noted in

its 1989 Policy Statement on the

Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant

Operations (January 24, 1989; 54 FR

3424), management must provide the

leadership that nurtures and perpetuates

the safety environment.

The Commission is issuing this

statement to state clearly its expectation

that licensees will ensure the freedom

for all employees to raise concerns both

to their management and to the NRC

without fear of retaliation. In developing

this policy statement, the Commission

considered the need for:

(1) Licensees and their contractors to

establish work environments, with

effective processes for problem

identification and resolution, where

employees feel free to raise concerns,

both to their management and to the

NRC, without fear of retaliation;

(2) Improving contractors’ awareness

of their responsibilities in this area;

(3) Senior management of licensees

and contractors to become directly

involved in investigating and addressing

or resolving cases of alleged

discrimination; and

(4) Employees in the regulated

industry to recognize their

responsibility to raise safety concerns to

licensees and their right to raise

concerns to the NRC.

Effective Processes for Problem

Identification and Resolution

Licensees bear the primary

responsibility for the safe use of nuclear

materials in their various licensed

activities. Effective problem

identification and resolution processes

are essential to ensuring safety. Thus, it

is important that each licensee establish

a quality-conscious environment where

employees are encouraged to raise

concerns and where such concerns are

promptly reviewed, given the proper

priority based on their potential safety

significance, and appropriately resolved

with timely feedback to employees.

A quality-conscious environment is

reinforced by a management attitude

that promotes employee confidence in

raising and resolving concerns. Other

attributes of a work place with this type

of an environment include welldeveloped systems or approaches for

prioritizing problems and directing

resources accordingly; effective

communications among various

departments or elements of the

licensee’s organization for openly

sharing information and analyzing the

root causes of identified problems; and

employees and managers with an open

and questioning attitude, a focus on

safety, and a positive orientation toward

admitting and correcting personnel

errors.

Initial and periodic training

(including contractor training) for both

employees and supervisors is also an

important factor in achieving a work

environment in which employees feel

free to raise concerns. In addition to

communicating management

expectations, training can clarify

options for problem identification. This

would include use of licensee’s internal

processes as well as providing concerns

directly to the NRC. Training of

supervisors may also minimize the

potential that efforts to reduce operating

and maintenance costs may cause

supervisors to be less receptive to

employee concerns if identification and

resolution of concerns involve

significant costs or schedule delays.

Incentive programs may provide a

highly visible method for demonstrating

management’s commitment to safety, by

rewarding ideas not based solely on

their cost savings but also on their

contribution to safety. Credible selfassessments of the environment for

raising concerns can contribute to

program effectiveness by evaluating the

adequacy and timeliness of problem

resolution. Self assessments can also be

used to determine whether employees

believe their concerns have been

adequately addressed and whether

employees feel free to raise concerns.

When problems are identified through

self-assessment, prompt corrective

action should be taken.

A basic measure of licensee success in

this area is the degree to which concerns

are identified and resolved through

established internal procedures. The use

of normal processes (e.g., raising issues

to the employee supervisors or utilizing

quality assurance programs) for problem

identification and resolution is both

more efficient and less likely to result in

conflict. While licensees should

encourage employees to resolve

problems using normal processes, safety

considerations dictate that no method of

raising concerns should be discouraged.

Thus, each licensee should develop a

dual focus: achieving and maintaining

an environment where employees feel

free to raise their concerns directly to

their supervisors and to licensee

management; and ensuring that

alternate means of raising and

addressing concerns are accessible,

credible, and effective.

It is important to recognize that the

fact that some employees do not desire

to use the normal line management

processes does not mean that they do

not have legitimate concerns. Even in a

generally good environment, some

employees may not be comfortable in

raising concerns through the normal

channels. From a safety perspective,

these concerns need to be captured by

the licensee’s resolution processes.

Therefore, it is important that licensees

provide methods for raising concerns

that can serve as internal ‘‘escape

valves’’ or ‘‘safety nets.’’ 3 Examples of

these methods include:

(1) An ‘‘open-door’’ policy that allows

the employee to bring the concern to a

higher-level manager;

(2) A policy that permits employees to

raise concerns to the licensee’s quality

assurance group; or

(3) Some form of an employee

concerns program.

NUREG–1499 may provide some helpful

insights on various employee-concern

programs. The success of a licensee

‘‘safety-net’’ program is influenced by
7594 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

4When other employees know that the individual

who was the recipient of an adverse action may

have engaged in protected activities, it may be

appropriate for the licensee to let the other

employees know, consistent with privacy

considerations, that (1) management reviewed the

matter and determined that its action was

warranted, (2) the action was not in retaliation for

engaging in protected activity and the reason why,

and (3) licensee management continues to

encourage them to raise issues. This may reduce

any perception that retaliation occurred.

the program’s accessibility to

employees, prioritization processes,

independence, ability to protect the

identity of employees, and adequate

resources. However, the prime factors in

the success of a given program appear

to be demonstrated management

support and how employees perceive

the program. Therefore, timely feedback

on the follow-up and resolution of

concerns raised by employees is a

necessary element of these programs.

Improving Contractors Awareness of

Their Responsibilities

The Commission’s long-standing

policy has been and continues to be to

hold its licensees responsible for

compliance with NRC requirements,

even if licensees use contractors for

products or services related to licensed

activities. Thus, licensees are

responsible for having their contractors

maintain an environment in which

contractor employees are free to raise

concerns without fear of retaliation.

Nevertheless, certain NRC

requirements apply directly to

contractors of licensees (see, for

example, the rules on deliberate

misconduct, such as 10 CFR 30.10, and

50.5 and the rules on reporting of

defects and noncompliances in 10 CFR

Part 21). In particular, the Commission’s

prohibition on discriminating against

employees for raising safety concerns

applies to the contractors of its

licensees, as well as to licensees (see, for

example, 10 CFR 30.7 and 50.7).

Accordingly, if a licensee contractor

discriminates against one of its

employees in violation of applicable

Commission rules, the Commission

intends to consider enforcement action

against both the licensee, who remains

responsible for the environment

maintained by its contractors, and the

employer who actually discriminated

against the employee.

The Commission is concerned that a

large number of discrimination

complaints are made by employees of

contractors. The Commission expects its

licensees to take action so that:

(1) Each contractor is aware of the

applicable regulations that prohibit

discrimination;

(2) Each contractor is aware of its

responsibilities in fostering an

environment for raising concerns;

(3) The licensee has the ability to

oversee the contractor’s efforts to

encourage employees to raise concerns,

prevent discrimination, and resolve

allegations of discrimination by

obtaining reports of alleged contractor

discrimination and associated

investigations conducted by or on behalf

of its contractors; conducting its own

investigations of such discrimination;

and, if warranted, by directing that

remedial action be undertaken; and

(4) Contractor employees and

management are informed of (a) the

importance of raising safety concerns

and (b) how to raise concerns through

normal processes, alternative internal

processes, and directly to the NRC.

Adoption of contract provisions

covering the matters discussed above

may provide additional assurance that

contractor employees will be able to

raise concerns without fear of

retaliation.

Involvement of Senior Management in

Cases of Alleged Discrimination

The Commission reminds licensees of

their obligation both to ensure that

personnel actions against employees

who have raised concerns, including

personnel actions by contractors, have a

well-founded, legitimate nondiscriminatory basis and to make clear

to all employees that any adverse action

taken against an employee was for

legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. If

employees allege retaliation for

engaging in protected activities, senior

licensee management should become

involved, review the particular facts,

and consider or reconsider the action.

In some cases, management may

desire to use a holding period, that is,

to maintain or restore the pay and

benefits of the employee alleging

retaliation, pending resolution of the

matter or pending the outcome of an

investigation by the Department of

Labor (DOL). This holding period may

calm feelings on site and could be used

to demonstrate management

encouragement of an environment

conducive to raising concerns. By this

approach, management would be

acknowledging that although a dispute

exists as to whether discrimination

occurred, in the interest of not

discouraging other employees from

raising concerns, the employee involved

in the dispute will not lose pay and

benefits while the dispute is being

resolved. In addition, this approach

encourages licensees and employees to

resolve their differences without the

need for NRC or DOL involvement.

Nothing in this policy statement

should be taken to alter the existing

rights of either the licensee or the

employee, or be taken as a direction by,

or an expectation of, the Commission,

for licensees to adopt the holding period

concept. For both the employee and the

employer, participation in a holding

period under the conditions of a specific

case is entirely voluntary.

The intent of this policy statement is

to emphasize the importance of licensee

management taking an active role to

resolve promptly situations involving

alleged discrimination internally, with

minimal disruption of the work place

and without government involvement.

Because of the complex nature of labormanagement conflicts, any externallyimposed resolution is not as desirable as

one achieved internally. The

Commission emphasizes that internal

resolution is the licensee’s

responsibility, and that early resolution

is in the best interests of both the

licensee and the employee. For this

reason, the Commission has recently

amended its enforcement policy (10

CFR Part 2, Appendix C) to provide

greater consideration of the actions

taken by licensees in addressing and

resolving issues of discrimination when

the Commission develops enforcement

sanctions for violations involving

discrimination. 59 FR 60697 (November

28, 1994).

A licensee may conclude after a full

review that an adverse action against an

employee is warranted. 4 The

Commission recognizes the need for

licensees to take disciplinary action

when such action is justified.

Commission regulations do not render a

person who engages in protected

activity immune from discharge or

discipline stemming from nonprohibited considerations (see, for

example, 10 CFR 50.7(d)). The

Commission expects licensees to make

personnel decisions that are consistent

with regulatory requirements and that

will enhance the effectiveness and

safety of the licensee’s operations.

Responsibilities of Employees

As emphasized above, the

responsibility for maintaining a qualityconscious environment rests with

licensee management. However,

employees in the nuclear industry also

have responsibilities in this area. As a

general principle, the Commission

expects employees in the nuclear

industry to raise safety and compliance

concerns directly to licensees, or

indirectly to licensees through

contractors, since it is the licensee, and

not the Commission, who has the

primary responsibility for, and is most

able to ensure, safe operation of nuclear
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7595

5The expectation that employees provide safety

and compliance concerns to licensees is not

applicable to concerns of possible wrongdoing by

NRC employees or NRC contractors. Such concerns

are subject to investigation by the NRC Office of

Inspector General. Concerns related to fraud, waste

or abuse in NRC operations or NRC programs

including retaliation against a person for raising

such issues should be reported directly to the NRC

Office of Inspector General. The Inspector General’s

toll free hotline is 800–233–3497.

6Except in the area of radiological working

conditions, the Commission has not codified this

obligation. Licensees are required by 10 CFR 19.12

to train certain employees in their responsibility to

raise issues related to radiation safety.

facilities and safe use of nuclear

materials. 5 Employees have a variety of

responsibilities to their employers to

raise concerns to them, based on

employment contracts, employers’ rules,

and NRC requirements. In fact, many

employees in the nuclear industry have

been specifically hired to fulfill NRC

requirements that licensees identify

deficiencies, violations and safety

issues. Examples of these include many

employees who conduct surveillance,

quality assurance, radiation protection,

and security activities. In addition to

individuals who specifically perform

functions to meet monitoring

requirements, the Commission believes

that all employees have a responsibility

to raise concerns to licensees if they

identify safety issues 6 so that licensees

can address them before an event with

safety consequences occurs.

The Commission emphasizes that

employees who raise concerns serve an

important role in addressing potential

safety issues. Retaliation against

employees who, in good faith, attempt

to carry out this responsibility cannot

and will not be tolerated.

The Commission’s expectation that

employees will raise safety concerns to

licensees does not mean that employees

may not come to the NRC. The

Commission encourages employees,

when they are not satisfied that

licensees have been responsive to their

concerns, or for that matter at any time

when they believe that the Commission

should be aware of their concerns, to

come to the NRC. But the Commission

does expect that employees normally

will have raised the issue with the

licensee either prior to or

contemporaneously with coming to the

NRC. This is because the licensee, and

not the NRC, is usually in the best

position and has the detailed knowledge

of the specific operations and the

resources to deal promptly and

effectively with concerns raised by

employees. The NRC can only serve as

a supplementary avenue for raising

concerns, not the primary conduit. This

is another reason why the Commission

expects licensees to establish an

environment in which employees feel

free to raise concerns to the licensees

themselves.

Employees should be aware that

except in limited fact-specific instances,

advising the Commission of safety

information would not absolve an

employee of his or her duty also to

inform the employer of matters that

could bear on public, including worker,

health and safety. Examples of those

exceptions would include situations in

which the employee had a reasonable

expectation that he or she may be

subject to retaliation for raising an issue

to his or her employer even if an

alternative internal process is used,

situations where the licensee has

threatened adverse action for identifying

noncompliances or other safety

concerns, and circumstances in which

the employee believes that supervisors

and management may have engaged in

wrongdoing and that raising the matter

internally could result in a cover-up or

destruction of evidence.

The Commission cautions licensees

that although licensees should expect

employees to normally raise issues to

them, disciplining employees for not

doing so when they have come directly

to the NRC will be closely scrutinized

by the Commission. The Commission

will give high priority to investigating

allegations of such discrimination.

Whether it was reasonable for an

employee not to have raised a safety

concern to the licensee depends on all

the relevant facts and circumstances in

the particular situation. If disciplinary

action is found to have occurred solely

because the person came to the NRC,

enforcement action will be taken against

the licensee.

Summary

In summary, the Commission expects

that NRC licensees will establish

quality-conscious environments in

which employees of licensees and

licensee contractors are free, and feel

free, to raise concerns to their

management and to the NRC without

fear of retaliation.

(a) The Commission expects that each

of its licensees will:

(1) With the exception of relatively

small licensees with few employees,

have a defined alternate method for

raising and addressing concerns

internally beyond the normal process of

identifying concerns to supervisors;

(2) Inform its employees and

supervisors, including contractor and

subcontractor employees and

supervisors, of (a) the importance of

raising concerns and (b) how to raise

concerns through normal processes,

alternative internal processes, and

directly to the NRC; and

(3) Address all potential safety and

compliance concerns. For reactor

licensees this means their programs

should not focus solely on concerns

related to ‘‘safety-related’’ activities.

(b) In situations where licensees use

contractors to assist them in carrying

out licensed activities, the Commission

expects that:

(1) Each contractor or subcontractor

will be made aware of the applicable

regulations which prohibit

discrimination;

(2) Each contractor or subcontractor

will be made aware of its responsibility

to foster an environment in which

employees are free to raise concerns,

and of the need to provide training for

supervisors and employees; and

(3) The licensee will have the ability

to oversee the contractor’s or

subcontractor’s efforts to encourage

employees to raise concerns, prevent

discrimination, and resolve allegations

of discrimination.

Licensees must ensure that

employment actions against employees

who have raised concerns have a wellfounded, non-discriminatory basis.

When allegations of discrimination arise

in licensee, contractor, or subcontractor

organizations, the Commission expects

that senior licensee management will

get directly involved, review the

particular facts, consider or reconsider

the action, and, where warranted,

remedy the matter.

Employees also have a role in

contributing to a quality-conscious

environment. The Commission expects

that each employee will raise concerns

to the employer when the employee

identifies a safety or compliance issue.

Although employees are free to come to

the NRC at any time, the Commission

expects that employees will normally

raise concerns with the involved

licensee because the licensee has the

primary responsibility for safety and is

normally in the best position to

promptly and effectively address the

matter. Except in limited circumstances,

the NRC should be viewed as a safety

valve and not as a substitute forum for

raising safety concerns.

This policy statement has been issued

to highlight licensees’ existing

obligation to maintain an environment

in which employees are free to raise

concerns without retaliation. However,

if a licensee has not met this obligation,

as evidenced by retaliation against an

individual for engaging in a protected

activity, whether the activity involves

providing information to the licensee or

the NRC, appropriate enforcement

action can and will be taken against the
7596 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

licensee, its contractors, and the

involved individual supervisors.

The Commission recognizes that the

actions discussed in this policy

statement will not necessarily insulate

an employee from retaliation, nor will

they remove all personal cost should the

employee seek a personal remedy.

However, these measures, if adopted by

licensees, should improve the

environment for raising concerns.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of February, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–3089 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Disaster Relief

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of disaster relief in

response to California floods.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation is waiving penalties for

certain late payments of premiums, is

forgoing assessment of penalties for

failure to comply with certain

information submission requirements,

and is extending the deadlines for

complying with certain requirements of

its administrative review and standard

and distress termination regulations.

This relief is generally available to

persons residing, in, or whose principal

place of business is within, an area

designated by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency as affected by the

major disaster declared by the President

of the United States on account of the

severe floods in California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Suite 340, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005, 202–326–4024

(202–326–4179 for TTY and TDD).

(These are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(‘‘PBGC’’) administers the pension plan

termination insurance program under

title IV of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974, as

amended (‘‘ERISA’’), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et

seq. Under ERISA and the PBGC’s

regulations, a number of deadlines must

be met in order to avoid the imposition

of penalties or other consequences. Five

areas in which the PBGC is providing

relief are (1) penalties for late payment

of premiums due the PBGC, (2) ERISA

section 4071 penalties for failure to

provide required notices or other

material information by the applicable

time limit, (3) deadlines for filing a

standard termination notice and

distributing plan assets in a standard

termination, (4) deadlines for filing a

distress termination notice and, in the

case of a plan that is sufficient for

guaranteed benefits, issuing notices of

benefit distribution and completing the

distribution of plan assets, and (5)

deadlines for filing requests for

reconsideration or appeals of certain

agency determinations.

On January 10, 1995, the President of

the United States declared, under the

Disaster Relief Act of 1974, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 5121, 5122(2), 5141(b)), that

a major disaster exists because of the

severe floods in California. At this time,

thirty-eight California counties are

designated areas (within the meaning of

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(‘‘FEMA’’) regulations; 44 CFR

205.2(a)(5)).

Given the severity of this major

disaster, as the Executive Director of the

PBGC, I have decided to provide relief

from certain PBGC deadlines and

penalties. For purposes of premium

penalties, section 4071 penalties, and

standard termination deadlines, this

notice is applicable with respect to

plans whose administrators’ or

sponsors’ principal place of business, or

for which the office of a service

provider, bank, insurance company, or

other person maintaining information

necessary to meet the applicable

deadlines, is located in a designated

disaster area. For purposes of filing

requests for reconsideration or appeals,

this notice is applicable to any

aggrieved person who is residing in, or

whose principal place of business is

within, a designated disaster area, or

with respect to whom the office of the

service provider, bank, insurance

company, or other person maintaining

the information necessary to file the

request for reconsideration or appeal is

within such an area.

Premiums

The PBGC will waive the late

payment penalty charge with respect to

any premium payment required to be

made on or after January 6, 1995, and

before March 2, 1995, if the payment is

made by March 2, 1995. The PBGC is

not permitted by law to waive late

payment interest charges. (ERISA

section 4007(b); 29 CFR 2610.7 and

2610.8(b)(3).)

Section 4071 penalties

The PBGC will not assess a section

4071 penalty for a failure to file any of

the following notices that were, or will

be, required to be filed with the PBGC

on or after January 6, 1995, and before

March 2, 1995, if the notice is filed by

March 2, 1995:

(1) Post-distribution certification for

single-employer plan (PBGC Form 501

or 602; ERISA section 4041(b)(3)(B) or

(c)(3)(B); 29 CFR 2617.28(h) or

2616.29(b)),

(2) Notice of termination for

multiemployer plans (ERISA section

4041A; 29 CFR 2673.2),

(3) Notice of plan amendments

increasing benefits by more than $10

million (ERISA section 307(e)), and

(4) Reportable event notice, except for

reportable events related to bankruptcy

or insolvency (or similar proceeding or

settlement), liquidation or dissolution,

or transactions involving a change in

contributing sponsor or controlled

group (29 CFR 2615.21, 2615.22, and

2615.23), or reportable events described

in amended ERISA section 4043(c)(9)–

(12). (Subsection (b) of section 4043 as

it presently appears in 29 U.S.C. 1343

was redesignated as subsection (c) and

amended, in part, with the addition of

new reportable events in paragraphs (9)

through (12) by the Retirement

Protection Act of 1994, Subtitle F, Title

VII, Uruguay Round Agreements Act,

Sec. 771(c)(3), Pub. L. 103–465, 108

Stat. 5042 (1994) (the (‘‘RPA

amendments’’).)

The PBGC will not assess a section

4071 penalty for a failure to provide

certain supporting information and

documentation when any of the

following notices is timely filed:

(1) Notice of failure to make required

contributions totaling more than $1

million (including interest) (PBGC Form

200; ERISA section 302(f)(4); 29 CFR

2615.31). The timely filed notice must

include at least items 1 through 7 and

items 11 and 12 of Form 200; the

responses to items 8 through 10, with

the certifications in items 11 and 12,

may be filed late.

(2) Notice of a reportable event related

to bankruptcy or insolvency (or similar

proceeding or settlement), liquidation or

dissolution, or a transaction involving a

change in contributing sponsor or

controlled group. The timely filed

notice must include at least the

information specified in 29 CFR

2615.3(b)(1) through (5); the information

that may be filed late is that specified

in 29 CFR 2615.3(b)(6) through (9) and

2615.3(c)(5) and (6), as applicable.

(3) Notice of a reportable event

described in the RPA amendments for