Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

Companies and users of financial statements should be alert to the potentially far-reaching consequences of a June 27, 2013, proposal issued by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). If adopted, the proposal would likely change how certain companies that provide insurance (not policyholders) account for insurance contracts. Maybe most importantly, the proposal would affect financial accounting by many companies that don’t consider themselves an “insurance company.” Financial institutions, including banks, are just one example. Undoubtedly, the scope of this proposal will surprise many—possibly even the FASB. This proposal, titled Insurance Contracts (Topic 834), is a whopping 405 pages in length—not exactly light reading!

One of the Dodd-Frank Act’s many directives to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was to require annual disclosures by publicly listed “resource extraction issuers” of payments they make to the U.S. federal government or foreign governments, related to commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.  SEC thought it met this directive when it issued Rule 13q-1 and associated Form SD in August 2012.  However, on July 2, 2013 a federal judge decided that SEC misapplied its authority, and so vacated these provisions and remanded the issue to SEC to try again (American Petroleum Institute v. SEC).  Since Dodd-Frank required issuer reporting to begin no less than one year after SEC issued rules, the issuer reporting requirement is now on hold—but the statutory requirement remains in place so further rulemaking should be expected.

Partisan divides in Washington are preventing legislative action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, but President Obama recently announced administrative initiatives to advance these efforts even without Congressional action.  His new Climate Action Plan reaffirms domestic initiatives led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and international GHG emission reduction and climate change efforts.  The Plan has the following three main “pillars”:

Cal/OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) is designed to ensure that employers evaluate and classify the hazards of workplace chemicals, and that both employers and employees receive relevant information about those hazards. HCS requires all employers with hazardous chemicals in the workplace to develop, implement, and maintain a workplace hazard communication program to inform employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they may be exposed. HCS also requires manufacturers and importers of hazardous chemicals to classify the hazards of the chemicals that they produce or import, and distributors to pass this information to end-users.

Organizations increasingly need specialized guidance in order to self-audit and show efforts to comply with legislation, and demonstrate due diligence.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a wide range of anti-discrimination measures, including prohibitions against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (or “gender”), and national origin.  Title VII is administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and enforced when EEOC or aggrieved employees file lawsuits in federal court.

On July 1, 2013, the FASB issued three proposals designed to reduce the complexity of certain accounting requirements for private companies. While that is certainly the intent, some unintended consequences may result as discussed below.

July 1 was the deadline for subject facilities to file their annual toxic chemical release inventory (TRI) reports with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their state, on one of two EPA-mandated forms, Form R or Form A.  These TRI reports are mandated by Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which was adopted as the first Congressional response to the December 1984 toxic gas disaster in Bhopal, India.

California Revises Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Certification Rules

The latest State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulatory tweaks broaden coverage but also give wastewater treatment plant owners some welcome wiggle room. Effective April 1, 2013, the SWRCB has revised its regulations regarding wastewater treatment plant classification, operator certification, and contractor registration. The rules have been expanded to cover privately owned wastewater treatment plants. However, they also establish a provisional operator certification. This means owners of Class I wastewater treatment plants who are finding it hard to recruit certified operators may employ provisional operators while conducting their search. In addition, the definition of wastewater treatment plant has been revised to clearly state that water recycling treatment plants are included within the definition. Numerous other key changes affecting California CCR compliance have been made to these regulations.

On May 22, 2013, the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) issued a post-implementation review (PIR) report on the accounting rule that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) prescribes for business combination accounting—specifically, FASB Statement No. 141 (Revised 2007), Business Combinations, now codified into FASB Codification Topic 805. In general, the report found that Statement 141(R) improved rules for the purchase method of accounting for business combinations but that problems remain, particularly in relation to fair value measurements. The PIR report also acknowledges unexpected compliance costs for companies that have applied the requirements in Statement 141(R).