1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DOL Announces New LM-10 Guidance and Extended Filing Deadline

DOL Announces New LM-10 Guidance and Extended Filing Deadline

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.09.06

On March 7, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") issued new guidance on employers' LM-10 reporting requirements in the form of additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) added to the DOL's Advisory and FAQ issued in November 2005.

The DOL's November 2005 Advisory indicated a much more aggressive enforcement posture with respect to LM-10 reporting, but also created a grace period for reporting -- employers who file compliant LM-10 forms within 90 days of the company's 2005 fiscal year will not be penalized for their failure to submit reports for any prior years. The revised FAQ announces that employers whose fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 will now have until May 15, 2006 to file their fiscal year 1005 LM-10s

The revised Advisory and FAQs clarify who must file annual LM-10 reports, provide additional examples of reportable expenditures, and explain how an employer who has no reportable expenditures for the 2005 fiscal year can still take advantage of the grace period. Unionized employers should carefully review the revised FAQ, as well as the underlying statutes and case law in this very complicated area of the law, to determine their reporting requirements and ensure that appropriate processes are in place to track reportable expenditures.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.24.25

In a Move Affecting the Future of Data Centers, DOE Directs FERC to Act On Large Load Interconnections

On October 23rd, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) containing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANOPR”) with principles for all large load interconnections across the US, including those co-located with generating facilities.[1] Significantly, the Secretary of Energy states that the interconnection of large loads to the transmission system “falls squarely” within FERC’s jurisdiction, thus weighing in on a dispute that has been pending before FERC for over a year. This move appears to be a reaction to the continued pendency before FERC of the colocation dockets[2] and a technical conference on colocation held almost a year ago.[3]...