Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 248 / Thursday, December 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations concurred, provides the necessary transparency. Moreover, it appears that the union betterment fund constitutes a wholly-owned subsidiary of the members union, which the union already reports on its annual Form LM
2 report. As for the market recovery fund mentioned by the commenter, it appears from a review of the commenters unions Form LM2 report that the fund constitutes a union fund that the union already reports on the Form LM2. Thus, the Form T1 would not have covered those funds. Further, the Form LM2 actually provides greater detail than the Form T1 would have provided, and OLMS retains authority to pursue an amended Form LM2 report if the union did not submit it accurately. OLMS also retains investigative authority, in the event union officials committed fraud in maintaining the fund. The Form T1
would also have not covered the management-side betterment fund, since it would not appear to meet either the Form T1s union managerial control or financial domination test.
The commenter also indicated that he attempts to keep track of the unions financial affairs, and the Form T1
would help rank-and-file members to put the pieces of the financial puzzle together. The Department appreciates the commenters input but respectfully disagrees. A separate trust is not, per se, part of the unions financial affairs, unless the trust is being used to circumvent or evade the unions reporting. The commenter did not describe how the Form T1 would serve such a purpose, nor how existing reporting requirements, such as the Form 990, are inadequate to provide general trust transparency even assuming that the LMRDA authorizes such transparency, which it does not.
As shown, the 2020 rules rulemaking record does not reflect the benefits of the Form T1 that would justify the significant, additional burden on unions, particularly since union trusts typically already file the Form 990, generally providing similar if not greater detail than does the Form T1. The Department reiterates that greater transparency alone is not sufficient to justify LMRDA section 208 rulemaking.
Instead, there must be a showing that the report is necessary to prevent circumvention and evasion of the statutory reporting requirements.
Finally, the commenter, seemingly acknowledging the costs of the Form T
1, suggested that the union could offset those costs by forgoing purportedly wasteful expenses. Even assuming that unions could or should curtail certain expenses, an assumption not supported
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Dec 29, 2021

Jkt 256001

by the rulemaking record, this fact would not independently justify the cost and burden of the Form T1 in light of the limited benefits that the Form would provide.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing concerns, the Department rescinds the rule implementing the Form T1
because, after reviewing the 2020
rulemaking record as well as the current rulemaking record, it no longer views the separate reporting requirements as set forth in the 2020 Form T1 rule as justified in light of the burden they impose. Further, as it concerns TaftHartley plans, the trust reporting required under the rule is overly broad and thus not necessary to prevent the circumvention and evasion of the Title II reporting requirements.
IV. Specific Changes to the Form LM
2 Instructions and the LMRDA
Regulations A. Changes to the Form LM2
The Department received no comments upon, and therefore implements, the following changes to the Form LM2 Labor Organization Annual Report, which implement the rescission of the Form T1:
1. Section IXLabor Organizations In Trusteeship: The Department revises this section to remove any reference to the Form T1.
2. Section XICompleting Form LM
2: The Department changes the instructions to Item 10 Trusts or Funds. The instructions for Item 10 are changed to remove any reference to the Form T1, although basic information about the trust would still be required, as would a cite to any report filed for the trust with another government agency, such as the Departments Employee Benefits Security Administration EBSA or the Internal Revenue Service IRS.
The public can view the Form LM2
changes in the accompanying Information Collection Request ICR, pursuant to the PRA. See Part V
Regulatory Procedures, PRA section.
B. Changes to the LMRDA Regulations As described in the below regulatory procedures section, and in order to implement the rescission of the 2020
Form T1 rule, the Department also removes the references to the Form T
1 located in the Departments LMRDA
regulations at 29 CFR Part 403.
Additionally, as described in the below regulatory procedures section, and as proposed, the Department will now require mandatory electronic filing for labor organizations that submit simplified annual reports pursuant to 29

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

74367

CFR 403.4b. The Departments experience with Form LM2, LM3, and LM4 reporting demonstrates that labor organizations can submit such reports electronically with little difficulty and with burden reductions for the labor organization filers and the Department.
Further, the public benefits from more timely disclosure on the OLMS website.
The Department anticipates such benefits for electronic simplified annual reports, as well. The Department did not receive any comments on mandatory electronic filing.
V. Regulatory Procedures Executive Orders 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review and 13563
Improving Regulation and Review Under Executive Order E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget OMBs Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866 and OMB
review.12 Section 3f of E.O. 12866
defines a significant regulatory action as an action that is likely to result in a rule that 1 has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way 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 creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; 3
materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 4 raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the Presidents priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
OMB has determined that this rule is significant under section 3f of E.O.
12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , OIRA
has designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 8042.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563
recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by 12 See
E:FRFM30DER1.SGM

58 FR 51735 September 30, 1993.

30DER1