Brian Brown, Ph.D.

I fight corruption, oppression, and the New World Order... One Tumblr at a time at WWW.BRIANBROWN.NET!

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/12/24/russia-begins-a-100-billion-debt-bailout-as-its-bonds-face-junk-rating/

Russia Begins A $100 Billion Debt Bailout As Its Bonds Face 'Junk' Rating

REUTERS/Maxim ZmeyevRussian President Vladimir Putin reacts during his annual end-of-year news conference in Moscow, December 18, 2014.Russia has begun bailing out the debt of its private and state-run companies and banks, which is denominated in dollars, according to Reuters. Banks and companies owe a total of $600 billion in foreign debt, of which $100 billion is due next year. The value of the ruble has fallen so far, however, that those companies can no longer afford to pay back that debt. The ruble fell 0.3% this morning to just over 54 rubles to the dollar. A year ago a ruble was 32 to the dollar. The bailout will not help Russia’s bond rating, which suffered a blow yesterday when the credit rating agency Standard Poor’s said there was at least a 50% chance it would cut Russia’s status to lower than BBB or “junk” status. SP said: “We are reviewing our assessment of Russia’s monetary flexibility and the impact of the weakening economy on its financial system.” The ruble is falling because the price of oil is falling too. Russia’s economy depends on oil. So falling oil prices are devastating Russia’s export economy, threatening $79 billion from its export revenue, as The Telegraph notes this morning: Should the current price of Brent, at around $60 per barrel, be sustained over the next 12 months, that would result in Russia’s export income from crude dropping to $95bn, from $174bn in 2013.  That combination — falling oil prices dragging down the ruble, and increased debt payments as everything not denominated in the ruble becomes staggeringly expensive — has triggered a high-inflation/recession scenario in Russia, Reuters says: But the economic crisis in Russia’s heavily oil-dependent economy goes wider. Moody’s ratings agency said late on Tuesday that it expected Russia’s GDP to contract by 5.5 percent in 2015 and 3 percent in 2016, under the effect of the plunge in oil prices and the ruble’s slide. “These developments will likely lead to a severe deterioration in the operating environment for Russian corporates, namely higher inflation, unemployment and debt-servicing costs as well as lower domestic demand, resulting in a deeper and more protracted decline in domestic economic activity than previously anticipated,” Moody’s said. Russia has already spent about $96 billion of its foreign exchange and gold reserves trying to prop up the value of the ruble. It has $414 billion left, Reuters says.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/12/24/st-louis-county-police-officer-shoots-kills-man-near-ferguson/

St. Louis County Police Officer Shoots, Kills Man Near Ferguson

St. Louis County Police said a man was shot and killed by a police officer in Berkeley, Missouri after the officer believed he was threatened with a handgun. The man was unidentified by police but was identified as Antonio Martin, 18, by his mother, Toni Martin, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on its website. The shooting occurred in a community located about two miles from the town of Ferguson, the scene of months of sometimes violent protests following the shooting death of Michael Brown on Aug. 9 by a local police officer. The unidentified officer was conducting a “routine business check” at the Mobile Gas Station at 6800 N. Hanley when he “observed two male subjects on the side of the building,” according to the police report posted on its Facebook page. “The Berkeley Police Officer exited his vehicle and approached the subjects when one of the men pulled a handgun and pointed it at the officer.” “Fearing for his life, the Berkeley Officer fired several shots, striking the subject, fatally wounding him,” according to the report. “The second subject fled the scene.” Several dozen people immediately arrived at the gas station after the shooting, which occurred at 11:15 p.m. local time, according to the police report and the Post-Dispatch report. Berkeley Police are conducting an investigation and recovered the “deceased subject’s” handgun at the scene, according to the statement. A woman who identified herself as Toni Martin told the Post-Dispatch that her son was with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting. The girlfriend remained at the scene but declined to talk to a reporter, according to the paper. Explosive flashes were set off as some of the protesters became rowdy, according to the newspaper report. A QuikTrip store near the Mobil station was damaged before police officers closed access to it, the report said. To contact the reporter on this story: Douglas Lytle in London at [email protected] To contact the editors responsible for this story: Douglas Lytle at [email protected] Morwenna Coniam

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/12/23/why-did-north-korea-lose-the-internet-heres-what-experts-say/

Why did North Korea lose the internet? Here's what experts say

North Korea’s Internet was on the fritz for a second day Tuesday. But the US is staying silent on whether it launched a cyber attack as payback for the hacking of Sony Pictures.And in the murky world of cyber security, experts say there are several plausible scenarios for why North Korea suddenly went dark, stressing it’s impossible to know exactly what happened.While some have been quick to make the link between Pyongyang’s connectivity woes and a pledge by US President Barack Obama to retaliate for last month’s Sony hack, many analysts aren’t convinced.”It’s unlikely, if only because we can’t make decisions that fast,” said cyber expert James Lewis, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).In this file photo, North Korean students use computers in a classroom with portraits of the country’s later leaders Kim Il Sung, left, and his son Kim Jong Il hanging on the wall. APWashington has asked for help from Pyongyang’s ally Beijing to rein the North’s cyber activities, so “monkeying” around with Internet services linked to China would not make much sense, he told AFP.It was also a pretty unsophisticated attack, if it was an attack, said Doug Madory, director of Internet Analysis with Dyn Research, the US monitoring company which broke the story of Pyongyang’s Internet problems.”We don’t have direct evidence of some kind of cyber attack, but it would be consistent with that,” he told AFP. Given the low-level of sophistication “the cast of characters that could have pulled this off is immense.””If a nation state such as the US wanted to take North Korea off, I’m not sure it would have taken them 12 hours.”For its part, the Obama administration is dodging questions and refusing to publicly outline any measures it takes against Pyongyang.It’s certainly near the top of the list. North Korea only has connections to four Internet networks and they all run through China, operated by a single provider, China Unicom.”That’s a fragile state of affairs,” said Jim Cowie, chief scientist with Dyn Research.China has been increasingly frustrated by the erratic behavior of North Korea’s new young leader, Kim Jong-Un.Simply pulling the plug on its Internet would send a strong signal of its displeasure, while at the same time shoring up ties with the United States which has indicted five Chinese military officers for hacking into US companies to steal trade secrets.On the other hand, simply pulling a plug would not have caused the “hours and hours” of instability in the networks, which first alerted Dyn Research to the problem.CSIS analyst Lewis believes the top scenario is the North Koreans either “inadvertently doing this, or more likely combing through their networks” to figure out how the US traced them to the Sony attack.”The pattern of up-and-down connectivity, followed by a total outage, is consistent with a fragile network under external attack,” said Cowie.”But it’s also consistent with more common causes, such as power problems,” he argued, pointing to such things as breaks in fiberoptic cables.” It’s entirely possible that there is a joker out there,” said Madory, adding that what appears to have happened was that the North Korean networks came under some kind of “duress”, began struggling to stay up and then eventually just caved in.Supporting this theory is the fact that North Korea has been targeted by Anonymous in the past.Yes. North Korea is believed to have carried out five cyber attacks on South Korea, according to Lewis.The Stuxnet malware program, widely thought to have been developed by the US and Israel around 2009, was a computer worm reportedly designed to sabotage Iran`s efforts to make a nuclear bomb.At least seven countries are believed to have carried out cyber attacks: Britain, China, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Russia and the United States, Lewis said. About another dozen countries are reportedly trying to develop cyberattack capabilities. An international legal framework on cyber warfare is currently being negotiated through the UN First Committee, which deals with disarmament and threats to international peace.”There’s an agreement that international law applies, but there’s recognition that there are gray areas,” said Lewis. The use of force is prohibited for example, “but how about the erasure of data?”Ironically, the Sony affair could help the negotiators by providing data to guide the discussions.Madory argued, however, that if the United States is not involved it should come out and say so, and similarly China Unicom could share its data in a bid to solve the mystery.AFP

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/the-drug-supply-chain-security-act-standards-for-the-interoperable-exchange-of-information-for-tracing-of-certain-human-finished-prescription-drugs-how-to-exchange-product-tracing-information-avai/

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act Standards for the Interoperable Exchange of Information for Tracing of Certain Human, Finished, Prescription Drugs: How To Exchange Product Tracing Information; Availability

On November 27, 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (Title II of Public Law 113-54) was signed into law. Section 202 of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), which adds new sections 581 and 582 to the FDC Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee and 360eee-1), sets forth new definitions and requirements related to product tracing. The DSCSA outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system by November 27, 2023, that will identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States. Starting in 2015, certain trading partners (manufacturers, wholesale distributors, dispensers, and repackagers) are required under sections 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FDC Act to capture, maintain, and provide the subsequent purchaser with transaction information, transaction history, and a transaction statement (product tracing information) for certain prescription drug products. Manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and repackagers must meet these requirements by January 1, 2015; dispensers must meet them by July 1, 2015. In addition, each manufacturer, wholesale distributor, dispenser, and repackager must comply with all applicable requirements in the event they meet the definition of more than one trading partner under section 582(a)(1), but trading partners are not required to duplicate requirements. Section 582(a)(2)(A) of the FDC Act directs FDA to establish initial standards to facilitate the interoperable exchange of transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements between trading partners. FDA obtained stakeholder input on the development of the initial standards for the interoperable exchange of product tracing information, in paper and electronic formats, through a public docket established in February 2014, as required under section 582(a)(2)(B), and a public workshop that was held May 8 and 9, 2014. The public workshop provided a forum for FDA to obtain input from stakeholders in the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain on how trading partners can best comply with the requirements for the interoperable exchange of product tracing information beginning in 2015, using currently available standards or practices. Comments to the public dockets and from the workshop were considered in the development of this guidance, and will be considered in developing additional guidance to further elaborate on the standards for the interoperable exchange of product tracing information. This initial draft guidance establishes standards to help trading partners comply with the requirements of sections 582(b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) of the FDC Act to provide the subsequent trading partners with product tracing information, in paper or electronic format, through the extension and/or use of current systems and processes. Under these provisions, trading partners are also required to capture and maintain the applicable product tracing information for not less than 6 years after the date of the transaction. Implementation of these provisions will help further improve the security of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and increase confidence in the safety and authenticity of human prescription drugs. FDA intends to issue additional guidance to facilitate the interoperable exchange of product tracing information through standardization of data and documentation practices.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance is marked as a “draft” consistent with its description in section 582(a)(2)(A) of the FDC Act. Under section 582(h)(4) of the FDC Act, FDA intends to eventually “update . . ., as necessary and appropriate, and finalize” this document to reflect standards for interoperable data exchange at the package level. Because the DSCSA clearly intends for stakeholders to rely upon this guidance document before finalization, however, FDA is immediately implementing this document under 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2). As a result, it reflects FDA’s current thinking on this topic and is intended to provide guidance to stakeholders as they implement the DSCSA. Guidance documents generally do not create or confer any rights for or on any person and do not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/intelligent-transportation-systems-program-advisory-committee-notice-of-meeting/

Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC) will hold a teleconference on December 16, 2014, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST). The ITSPAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-established under Section 53003 of Public Law 112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, July 6, 2012, was created to advise the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the ITSPAC makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress. The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1) Call to Order, Welcome, and Roll Call, (2) Meeting Work Plan Review, (3) Discussion of Potential Study Topics, (4) Review Action Items and Next Steps. The teleconference will be open to the public, but limited conference lines will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to participate in the teleconference must submit a request to: Mr. Stephen Glasscock, the Committee Designated Federal Official, at [phone], not later than December 9, 2014. In addition, for planning purposes, your request must also indicate whether you wish to present oral statements during the teleconference. Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, ITS Joint Program Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT, Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to [phone]. The ITS JPO requests that written comments be submitted not later than December 9, 2014. Notice of this teleconference is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory committees.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/request-for-applications-tribal-issues-advisory-group/

Request for Applications; Tribal Issues Advisory Group

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p). Under 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission may create standing or ad hoc advisory groups to facilitate formal and informal input to the Commission. Upon creating an advisory group, the Commission may prescribe the policies regarding the purpose, membership, and operation of the group as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate. The Commission recently adopted a formal charter for the Tribal Issues Advisory Group. Under the charter, the purpose of the advisory group is: (1) To assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on federal sentencing issues relating to American Indian defendants and victims and to offenses committed in Indian Country; (3) to study: (A) the operation of the federal sentencing guidelines as they relate to American Indian defendants and victims and to offenses committed in Indian Country, and any viable methods for revising the guidelines to (i) improve their operation or (ii) address particular concerns of tribal communities and courts; (B) whether there are disparities in the application of the federal sentencing guidelines to American Indian defendants, and, if so, how to address them; (C) the impact of the federal sentencing guidelines on offenses committed in Indian Country in comparison with analogous offenses prosecuted in state courts and tribal courts; (D) the use of tribal court convictions in the computation of criminal history scores, risk assessment, and for other purposes; (E) how the federal sentencing guidelines should account for protection orders issued by tribal courts; and (F) any other issues relating to American Indian defendants and victims, or to offenses committed in Indian Country, that the advisory group considers appropriate; (4) to recommend to the Commission means to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of sentencing policies that have tribal implications; and (5) to perform any other related functions as the Commission requests. The Tribal Issues Advisory Group shall consist of no more than 17 voting members. Of those 17 voting members, not more than 3 shall be Federal judges, not more than 4 shall be from the Executive Branch, 1 shall be from a federal public defender organization or community defender organization, and not more than 9 shall be at-large members. Each voting member is appointed by the Commission. To be eligible to serve as an at-large voting member, an individual must have expertise, knowledge, and/or experience in the issues considered by the Tribal Issues Advisory Group as described above. The Commission intends that the at-large voting membership shall include individuals with membership in or experience with tribal communities, national advocacy groups, legal academia (with expertise in Indian Law and Federal Criminal Law), legal practice (with expertise in Indian Law and Federal Criminal Law, including public or private criminal defense), American Indian crime victimization, federal probation, and federal corrections. The Commission further intends that: (1) No less than 3 at-large voting members shall be tribal officials, or their designees, appointed in a manner that ensures representation among tribal communities diverse in size, geographic location, and other unique characteristics; (2) no less than 2 at-large voting members shall be attorneys with experience in public or private criminal defense; and (3) no less than 1 at-large voting member shall be an individual with knowledge, expertise, and/or experience in the area of American Indian crime victimization.

The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to the at-large voting membership of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group to apply by sending a letter of interest and a resume to the Commission as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above.

28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), § 995; USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2, 5.4.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/changes-in-nautical-chart-catalog-format/

Changes in Nautical Chart Catalog Format

Coast Survey now makes letter-sized “print-at-home” PDF chart catalogs available for download, free, at www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/catalog. Produced with digital technology, the catalogs are easy-to-see, easy-to-use, easy-to-print, and are updated as changes occur. The new format has a higher resolution and more geographic names than the large-format catalog, and heavily trafficked waterways covered by multiple charts have their own dedicated pages.

If users prefer a Web-based search for charts, they can use the interactive catalog that Coast Survey established in early 2014. The interactive catalog is at www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml, or it can be accessed from the Coast Survey home page at nauticalcharts.noaa.gov.

Coast Survey has stopped updating and producing the large-format chart catalogs since the federal government is no longer printing them. We will archive the latest versions in Coast Survey’s Historical Map Chart Collection (nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/history). We could re-start the updating process if there is a market demand and if commercial printing firms decided to carry the catalogs as for-sale products. The updated chart catalogs would only have the front side showing the areas covered by the catalog, with chart outlines and their corresponding chart numbers. They would not show anything on the reverse side. (The Coast Survey Web site nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/staff/print_agents.html now carries regularly updated information about NOAA-certified chart printers.)

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/chief-keystone-power-llc-supplemental-notice-that-initial-market-based-rate-filing-includes-request-for-blanket-section-204-authorization/

Chief Keystone Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Chief Keystone Power, LLC’s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant’s request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is December 11, 2014.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission’s eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call [phone] (toll free). For TTY, call [phone].

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/self-regulatory-organizations-nyse-arca-inc-notice-of-filing-and-immediate-effectiveness-of-proposed-rule-change-amending-rule-6-1a-to-adopt-a-definition-of-professional-customer/

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.1A To Adopt a Definition of “Professional Customer” on the Exchange

In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.1A (Definitions and References—OX) to include a definition of “Professional Customer” and to amend Commentary .03 of Rule 6.69 to specify how all Professional Customer orders should be marked. As proposed, the new term, “Professional Customer” would be defined in Exchange Rule 6.1A(a)(4A), as a person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). In connection with this new definition, the Exchange proposes to add to Commentary of Rule 6.69 the origin code OTP Holders would be required to use to properly represent orders of a “Professional Customer.” [4] To determine whether an order is a Professional Customer order, OTP Holders would be required to review their customers’ activity on at least a quarterly basis to determine whether orders that are not for the account of a broker or dealer should be represented as Customer orders or Professional Customer orders. [5]

The Exchange believes that identifying Professional Customer accounts based upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an appropriate, objective approach that will reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from non-professional, retail investors or market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed threshold of 390 orders per day on average over a calendar month far exceeds the number of orders that are entered by retail investors in a single day and therefore is an appropriate threshold for identifying non-retail Customers. [6] In addition, basing the standard on the number of orders that are entered in listed options for a qualified account(s) assures that Professional Customer account holders cannot inappropriately avoid the purpose of the rule by spreading their trading activity over multiple exchanges, and using an average number over a calendar month will prevent gaming of the 390 order threshold. The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to Rule 6.69 regarding the marking of orders.

The Professional Customer definition proposed by the Exchange, including the 390 orders per day threshold, is similar to designations that have been adopted by all other options exchanges. [7] The Exchange is not proposing at this time to revise any order execution or processing rules, including its priority rules, to change the treatment of Professional Customers. [8] Instead, Professional Customer orders will be treated as Customer orders under Exchange rules for all purposes, except those related to order marking. [9] As the only options Exchange to have not yet adopted the Professional Customer definition, the Exchange’s proposal will allow OTP Holders to mark their Professional Customer orders similarly regardless of whether the order is placed on the Exchange or another options exchange. Moreover, with the proposed Professional Customer designation in place, the Exchange’s rules will facilitate cross-market initiatives (such as harmonizing rules relating to Obvious Errors).

The Exchange will announce by Trader Update when it will implement this proposed rule change and when the functionality to support the marking of Professional Customer orders is available. In order to provide sufficient time for OTP Holders to prepare any system changes, the date of implementation shall be no sooner than 30 calendar days after the publication of the Trader Update. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) [10] of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), [11] in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, by defining Professional Customer, will remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, by providing consistent regulation for OTP Holders that are members of other SROs with analogous rules, thus allowing market participants to route orders to all markets using the same capacity. Further, the Exchange believes that, by harmonizing its rules with every other options market to add the term Professional Customer, it will promote just and equitable principles of trade by better allowing the market participants to be treated similarly across exchanges. In requiring market participants to identify their orders, the Exchange believes it promotes just and equitable principles of trade by allowing it a better understanding of the trading activity on its market. Finally, the Exchange believes that amending Rule 6.69 to conform with the addition of the Professional Customer designation will protect investors and the public interest by providing guidance to OTP Holders regarding the marking of Professional Customer orders. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead, the proposed rule change is designed to adopt a category of market participant on the same terms as that of every other options exchange. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/environmental-review-of-telecommunications-program-projects/

Environmental Review of Telecommunications Program Projects

The RUS Telecommunications Program provides a variety of loans and grants to build and expand broadband networks in rural America. Loans to build broadband networks and deliver service to households and businesses in rural communities provide a necessary source of capital for rural telecommunications companies, broadband, wireless companies, and fiber-to-the-home providers. Grant funding is awarded based on a number of factors relating to the benefits to be derived from the proposed broadband network project, as specified in applicable program regulations.

Eligible applicants for RUS loans and grants include for-profit and non-profit entities, tribes, municipalities, and cooperatives. The agency particularly encourages investment in tribal and economically disadvantaged areas. Through low-cost funding for broadband infrastructure, rural residents can have access to broadband services that will close the digital divide between rural and urban communities, that is sustainable over time, and is crucial for economic development. Once funds are awarded, RUS monitors the projects to make sure they are completed in accordance with program requirements. Each loan and grant program has different applicants, project eligibility requirements, and program objectives. The Telecommunications Program includes the following programs: Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program provides loans for a variety of applicable technologies, for the costs of construction, improvement, expansion, and acquisition (some restrictions apply) of facilities and equipment to provide telecommunications services in rural areas; Farm Bill Broadband Loan Program provides loans for a variety of applicable technologies, for costs of construction, improvement, expansion, and acquisition (some restrictions apply) of facilities and equipment to provide broadband service to eligible rural communities; Community Connect Grant Program provides grants to eligible applicants for broadband access to rural communities currently without broadband service. Priority is given to areas where development of new broadband services will improve economic development and provide enhanced educational and healthcare opportunities. The program serves the most rural, lowest income communities without existing broadband access; and Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program provides grants for distance learning and telemedicine in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies to be used by students, teachers, medical professionals, and other rural residents. Grants are awarded based on rurality and economic need through a competitive process and may be used to fund telecommunications-enabled information, audio, and video equipment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other applicable environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders, RUS must evaluate the environmental impact of its actions prior to taking those actions. RUS actions include the approval of financial assistance for project proposals by eligible applicants within eligible service areas. The application process for requesting financial assistance for the Telecommunications programs varies slightly from a competitive grant program, individual project proposals, or multi-year “loan design” applications. Accordingly, each program’s application process and resulting environmental review process is administered differently. The agency seeks to synchronize future environmental review compliance processes for all Telecommunications Programs and develop a more efficient and effective environmental review process commensurate to the potential environmental impacts of Telecommunications Program projects. The Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Telecommunications Program will provide an analysis of the RUS administrative record of past Telecommunications Program projects regarding NEPA, NHPA, and ESA. The analysis will address telecommunication technologies and construction methods, and evaluate alternative program delivery processes for individual projects and loan design applications relevant to existing and future RUS Telecommunications Program projects. If appropriate, the Programmatic Environmental Assessment will provide a basis for preliminary environmental review decisions.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/call-for-nominations-for-the-california-desert-district-advisory-council/

Call for Nominations for the California Desert District Advisory Council

The California Desert District Advisory Council is comprised of 15 private individuals who represent different interests and advise BLM officials on policies and programs concerning the management of over 10 million acres of public land in Southern California. The Council meets in formal session three to four times each year in various locations throughout the California Desert District. Council members serve without compensation other than travel expenses. Members serve three-year terms and may reapply to be nominated for reappointment to an additional three-year term. Section 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of BLM-administered lands. The Secretary also selects Council nominees consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires nominees appointed to the Council be balanced in terms of points of view and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The Council also is balanced geographically, and the BLM will try to find qualified representatives from areas throughout the California Desert District. The District covers portions of eight counties, and includes more than 10 million acres of public land in the California Desert Conservation Area of Mono, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties, as well as 300,000 acres of scattered parcels in San Diego, western Riverside, western San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties (known as the South Coast). Public notice begins with the publication date of this notice and nominations will be accepted for 45 days from the date of this notice. The six positions to be filled include one elected official, one representative of non-renewable resources groups or organizations, one representative of recreation groups or organizations, one representative of wildlife groups or organizations, and two representatives of the public-at-large. These six positions become vacant on Dec. 7, 2014. Any group or individual may nominate a qualified person, based upon education, training, and knowledge of the BLM, the California Desert, and the issues involving BLM-administered public lands throughout Southern California. Qualified individuals may also nominate themselves.

The nomination form may be found on the Desert Advisory Council Web page: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/rac/dac.html. The following must accompany the form for all nominations: Letters of reference from represented interests or organizations. A completed background information nomination form. Any other information that addresses the nominee’s qualifications. Nominees unable to download the nomination form may contact the BLM California Desert District External Affairs staff at [phone] to request a copy. Advisory Council members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees or councils.

(Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4-1)

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/self-regulatory-organizations-ice-clear-europe-limited-notice-of-filing-of-proposed-rule-change-to-finance-procedures/

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Finance Procedures

In its filing with the Commission, ice Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ice Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify the Finance Procedures to permit certain third party collateral purchase arrangements with respect to Triparty Collateral provided by FO Clearing Members in respect of a Proprietary Account. Under such an arrangement, an FO Clearing Member would, with the permission of the Clearing House, enter into a third party collateral purchase agreement (a “Purchase Agreement”) with the Clearing House and a third party collateral purchaser (the “TPCP”) designated by the Clearing Member. The TPCP may be an affiliate of the Clearing Member. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, if the Clearing House declares the Clearing Member to be a Defaulter under the Rules, then the Clearing House will offer to sell that Clearing Member’s Triparty Collateral to the TPCP, for a specified price established by the Clearing House based on its determination of the market value of the collateral. The TPCP will have a specified period (expected to be two hours) to accept or reject the offer to sell. If the TPCP accepts the offer, the Clearing House will sell the Triparty Collateral to the TPCP at the specified price. The proceeds of such sale would be applied by the Clearing House in the default management process and net sum calculation in the same manner as any other liquidation of margin of a Defaulter. If the TPCP rejects the offer to sell, or does not respond within the specified period, the offer will expire, and the Clearing House will apply or liquidate the Triparty Collateral pursuant to the Rules as part of its usual default management process. These arrangements would not apply to (i) margin, collateral or permitted cover provided by FO Clearing Members other than Triparty Collateral, (ii) any margin, collateral or permitted cover provided with respect to a customer account, or (iii) any margin, collateral or permitted cover provided by CDS or FX Clearing Members in respect of CDS or FX Contracts, respectively. The Clearing House proposes to permit third party collateral purchase arrangements to provide a pre-arranged alternative to collateral liquidation in the default management process for FO Clearing Members. Certain FO Clearing Members have requested that such arrangements be made available in order to facilitate their own collateral management activities. For example, ICE Clear Europe understands that for certain corporate groups, collateral to be transferred to the Clearing House may have been acquired by an affiliated entity (rather than the Clearing Member itself) through repurchase or similar transactions, and such entity may want to have the ability to reacquire the relevant collateral in order to settle such other transactions, even following a Clearing Member default. ICE Clear Europe has determined that the proposed collateral purchase arrangement is consistent with its own default management requirements. In this regard, if the TPCP accepts the offer, the Clearing House will be able to sell the relevant Triparty Collateral at the current market price, as determined by the Clearing House. The ability to sell such collateral to a willing buyer may avoid the need to liquidate such collateral in the market, and accordingly reduce time and transaction costs. In addition, the TPCP is granted only a short period of time (currently expected to be two hours) to respond to the Clearing House’s offer, and if it rejects the offer or does not respond within such period, the Clearing House retains all of its existing rights and remedies with respect to the Triparty Collateral. ICE Clear Europe thus does not believe the proposed two-hour delay would adversely affect its ability to liquidate collateral or otherwise manage the default of an FO Clearing Member.

To implement these arrangements, ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt a new Paragraph 3.32 of the Finance Procedures, the text of which is as follows (new text underlined):

3.32At the request of an FO Clearing Member, the Clearing House may, in its sole discretion, agree to enter into a collateral purchase agreement with a third party collateral purchaser and such FO Clearing Member, under which the Clearing House will agree to offer for sale to the third party collateral purchaser Triparty Collateral deposited by such FO Clearing Member for a Proprietary Account in respect of FO Contracts, in the event of the FO Clearing Member being declared a Defaulter under the Rules. The Clearing House shall have no obligation to enter into any such agreement, and the identity of any such third party collateral purchaser must be approved by the Clearing House pursuant to criteria established by the Clearing House. Any such collateral purchase agreement must be in the form approved by the Clearing House for such purposes from time to time.

Paragraph 3.32 will thus authorize, but not require, the Clearing House to enter into a Purchase Agreement at the request of an FO Clearing Member relating to Triparty Collateral provided with respect to a Proprietary Account. The Clearing House would need to approve the particular arrangement, including the TPCP. Paragraph 3.32 also contemplates that the Clearing House will develop and approve its own form of agreement to be used for this purpose (subject to modification in particular cases) that is consistent with the Clearing House’s default management requirements. With respect to approval of TPCPs, the Clearing House will establish criteria focusing on the credit standing of the entity as well as considerations relating to legal enforceability of the arrangement, treatment of the arrangement in relevant insolvency proceedings and similar matters relevant to maintaining the integrity of the Clearing House’s default management process. 2. Statutory Basis ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act [5] and the regulations thereunder applicable to it, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22. [6] Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act [7] requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) [8] requires that the clearing agency establish default procedures that ensure that the clearing agency can take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations in the event of a clearing member default.

The third party collateral purchase arrangements will use the existing Clearing House procedures for Triparty Collateral, which is held with a triparty collateral service provider such as Euroclear Bank. As a result, the proposed rule change will not adversely affect the manner in which collateral provided by a Clearing Member is currently held, prior to default, and accordingly will not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. [9] It bears noting in this regard that the proposed arrangements are limited to the Proprietary Accounts of FO Clearing Members, and would not apply to any Customer Account. The arrangement also would not apply to CDS Clearing Members or FX Clearing Members acting in their capacities as such.

In terms of default management, as discussed above, ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments would not interfere with its ability to manage a Clearing Member default, consistent with the standards in the Act and Rule 17Ad-22. Under its existing Rules, the Clearing House has broad rights to apply and liquidate collateral provided by a Clearing Member following its default. [10] In ICE Clear Europe’s view, the proposed arrangements provide an additional means by which Triparty Collateral can be liquidated following default. In this regard, the arrangements may provide certain default management benefits if the collateral purchase option is exercised, as the collateral purchase option will provide the Clearing House with the cash value of the relevant collateral promptly, without the need for the Clearing House to undertake the liquidation of the collateral in the market (and incur related expenses). The proposed third party collateral purchase arrangement would provide only a brief period (expected to be two hours) in which the TPCP would have the right to purchase the Triparty Collateral. ICE Clear Europe does not believe this delay, even in the event the TPCP did not elect to purchase the collateral, would materially impact the Clearing House’s ability to manage a default or liquidate collateral following expiration of the period. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11). [11]

As discussed above, ICE Clear Europe is proposing these arrangements at the request of FO Clearing Members seeking to improve their own collateral management. In this respect, ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are also consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(6), [12] which requires that clearing agency procedures be cost-effective in meeting the requirements of participants while maintaining safe and secure operations.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will provide additional flexibility by permitting the use, on a voluntary basis, of third party collateral purchase arrangements for those FO Clearing Members that are interested in such arrangements. No Clearing Member will be required to use these arrangements, and the changes will thus not affect those Clearing Members that do not participate in such arrangements. In addition, the amendments will not otherwise affect the terms or conditions of any cleared contract or the standards or requirements for participation in or use of the Clearing House. Accordingly, the changes should not, in the Clearing House’s view, affect the availability of clearing, access to clearing services or the costs of clearing for clearing members or other market participants. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments relating to the proposed change to the rules have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/energy-answers-arecibo-puerto-rico-renewable-energy-project-notice-of-cancellation-of-a-supplemental-final-environmental-impact-statement-and-notice-of-public-scoping-and-intent-to-prepare-an-environ/

Energy Answers Arecibo Puerto Rico Renewable Energy Project: Notice of Cancellation of a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Public Scoping and Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

On April 12, 2013, RUS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Final Impact Statement (SFEIS) in the Federal Register. RUS is canceling the SFEIS published on April 12, 2013, and is soliciting public comments on the scope of an EIS that it intends to prepare for Energy Answers’ proposal. In accordance with 7 CFR 1794.74 and 40 CFR 1502.21, RUS intends to incorporate by reference the environmental impact analyses and documentation prepared by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO). PRIDCO served as a lead agency in preparation of an EIS prepared under the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Article 4(B)(3), (Law No. 416, September 22, 2004). RUS has copies of this EIS and all associated appendices posted on this Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-AreciboPuertoRico.html. RUS also intends to incorporate by reference all of the environmental impact and air quality analyses and responses to public comments prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as part of its Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. USEPA issued a final PSD permit on June 11, 2013, and information related to the PSD permit can be found on USEPA’s Web site—see: http://www.epa.gov/region02/air/permit/energyanswers/.

RUS is in receipt of all past public involvement activities, public comments, and responses to public comments from both PRIDCO and USEPA actions. While RUS understands the concerns expressed in the past by the public, the Agency strongly encourages all interested parties to submit scoping comments to the RUS contact listed the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

Energy Answers proposes to construct a waste-to-energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The proposed facility would process approximately 2,100 tons of municipal waste per day and generate a net capacity of 77 megawatts (MW). The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority will purchase the power generated from the facility. The preferred location of the facility is the former site of the Global Fibers Paper Mill and would encompass approximately 79.6 acres of the 90-acre parcel. The proposal would include the following facility components: a municipal solid waste receiving and processing building; processed refuse fuel storage building; boiler and steam turbine; emission control system; ash processing and storage building; and other associated infrastructure and buildings. Two other connected actions, which would be constructed by other utilities, include installation of an approximately 2.0-mile raw water line and construction of a 38 kilovolt (kV) transmission line approximately 0.8 miles in length. The connected actions will be addressed in the EIS. Among the alternatives that RUS will address in the EIS is the No Action alternative, under which the proposal would not be undertaken. In the EIS, the effects of the proposal will be compared to the existing conditions in the proposal area. Public health and safety, environmental impacts, and engineering aspects of the proposal will be considered in the EIS. RUS is the lead Federal agency, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5, for preparation of the EIS. With this Notice, Federal and State agencies and federally recognized Native American Tribes with jurisdiction or special expertise are invited to be cooperating agencies. Such agencies or tribes may make a request to RUS to be a cooperating agency by contacting the RUS contact provided in this Notice. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA and scoping process, as specified at 40 CFR 1501.6(b). As part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposal on historic properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and its implementing regulation, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments submitted in response to this Notice will inform RUS decision-making during Section 106 review.

As applicable, the EIS will document changes in the affected environment and environmental consequences that may have occurred since the PRIDCO-prepared Final EIS was published in 2010 and USEPA’s PSD permit action. The PRIDCO-prepared Final EIS is available in both Spanish and English for review at the addresses provided in this Notice. USEPA PSD permit actions are available for review at the address provided in this notice. RUS’s EIS will incorporate this documentation by reference and focus on those topics that have changed since PRIDCO’s Final EIS was published. RUS’s Draft EIS will be available for review and comment for 45 days. Following the 45-day review period, RUS will prepare a Final EIS. After a 30-day review period, RUS will publish a Record of Decision (ROD). Notices announcing the availability of the Draft EIS, Final EIS and the ROD will be published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers. Any final action by RUS related to the proposal will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant executive orders and federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to the completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS’s Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR part 1794, as amended.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/self-regulatory-organizations-new-york-stock-exchange-llc-notice-of-filing-of-proposed-rule-change-amending-rules-311-and-313-to-add-limited-liability-companies-as-eligible-member-organizations-and/

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 311 and 313 To Add Limited Liability Companies as Eligible Member Organizations and Delineate the Information Limited Liability Companies Must Submit to the Exchange as Part of the Membership Process; Eliminate the Requirement That a Member Corporation Be Created or Organized, and Maintain Its Principal Place of Business, in the United States; and Make Additional Related Amendments To Update Its Membership Rules

In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 311 and 313 to add limited liability companies (“LLCs”) to the types of eligible member organizations and delineate the information LLCs must submit to the Exchange as part of the membership process; eliminate the requirement that a member corporation be created or organized, and maintain its principal place of business, in the United States; and make additional related amendments to update its membership rules. Rule 311 NYSE Rule 311 governs the formation and approval of member organizations. The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 311 to explicitly provide for LLCs to apply to become member organizations and eliminate the requirement that a member corporation be created or organized, and maintain its principal place of business, in the United States. First, the Exchange’s membership rules currently provide for member organizations to be corporations or partnerships, but have not explicitly provided for LLCs. [4] The Exchange proposes to add LLCs to the types of potential member organizations and require LLCs to meet the same requirements currently applicable to partnerships and corporations set forth in Rule 311(b). As part of the proposed revision, the Exchange seeks to add a new section (4) to Rule 311(b) requiring every member of an LLC to be a member, principal executive or approved person. [5] Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 311(b)(6) to reflect that proposed LLC member organizations must, like corporations and partnerships, also comply with any additional requirements as the rules of the Exchange may prescribe. The Exchange also proposes to add new Supplementary Material .16 to Rule 311 to specify that LLC applicants for Exchange membership are subject to Rule 313.24 regarding the submission of copies of proposed or existing limited liability company documents and other agreements.

The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 311(f) to eliminate the geographic limitation on incorporation and domicile of corporation members and delete the related interpretations of Rule 311(f). The first sentence of Rule 311(f) currently provides that every member corporation be a corporation “created or organized under the laws of, and shall maintain its principal place of business in, the United States or any State thereof.” [6] The Exchange does not believe that the Exchange’s restriction on whether foreign entities may be a member organization is consistent with either federal rules or those of other self-regulatory organizations (“SRO”). For example supporting its belief, the Exchange states that rules promulgated pursuant to the Act require, under certain circumstances, a foreign broker-dealer to register with the Commission. [7] The Exchange also states that other SROs, including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), do not require their members to be domiciled in the United States. [8]

The Exchange believes that the current restriction in Rule 311(f) puts it at a competitive disadvantage because it restricts foreign broker-dealers that are registered with the Commission and are members of another SRO from also becoming Exchange member organizations. The Exchange notes that its rules already require member organizations to meet prerequisites as specified in Rule 2(b). Specifically, regardless of corporate form, all member organizations must be registered broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities exchange. If a registered broker-dealer transacts business with public customers or conducts business on the Floor of the Exchange, such member organization must be a member of FINRA. The Exchange further notes that a member organization will be subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction for misconduct whether or not it is based in the United States. However, for the avoidance of doubt, as discussed below, the Exchange proposes to add supplementary material to Rule 313 based on NASD Rule 1090 that imposes certain requirements on foreign members that do not maintain an office in the United States. Rule 313 NYSE Rule 313 sets forth certain corporate or partnership documents that each member organization must submit to enter into and continue in NYSE membership. The Rule also sets forth certain restrictions on capital withdrawals and distributions applicable to member corporations and partnerships. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 313 to delineate the types of documents LLCs must submit that, as noted, mirror the requirements currently in place for member corporations and partnerships. First, the Exchange proposes to add a subsection (d) to Rule 313 requiring all articles of organization and operating documents for LLCs to be submitted for Exchange approval prior to becoming effective. Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .24 setting forth that existing LLCs must promptly submit certified copies (to the extent possible) of articles of organization and operating agreements to the Exchange.

Second, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .25 providing restrictions on capital withdrawals by LLC members that are substantially the same as those applicable to corporations and partnerships. The Supplementary Material would provide that the capital contribution of any LLC member may not be withdrawn on less than six months’ written notice of withdrawal given no sooner than six months after such contribution was first made without the prior written approval of the Exchange. The Supplementary Material would also specify that each member firm shall promptly notify the Exchange of the receipt of any notice of withdrawal of any part of a member’s capital contribution or if any withdrawal is not made because prohibited under the provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1. Third, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .26 providing that LLCs not organized under the laws of New York State must subject themselves to the following restrictions: No distributions shall be declared or paid that impair the LLC’s capital; and no distribution of assets shall be made to any member unless the value of the LLC’s assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including capital. These proposed restrictions are based on existing restrictions applicable to member corporations and partnerships. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .27 to Rule 313 specifying the requirements applicable to Foreign Member Organizations. The proposed new rule text would adopt, without substantive change, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of NASD Rule 1090 (Foreign Members), which impose specific requirements on FINRA members that do not maintain an office in the United States responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other reports required to be filed by the SEC and FINRA. [9] As proposed, foreign member organizations that do not maintain an office in the United States responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other reports required to be filed with the Commission and the Exchange would be required to: (1) Prepare all such reports, and maintain a general ledger chart of account and any description thereof, in English and U.S. dollars; (2) reimburse the Exchange or its representatives for expenses incurred in connection with examinations of the member organization to the extent that such expenses exceed the cost of examining a member organization located within the continental United States in the geographic location most distant from the Exchange’s principal office or, in such other amount as the Exchange may deem to be an equitable allocation of such expenses; and (3) ensure the availability of an individual fluent in English and knowledgeable in securities and financial matters to assist representatives of the Exchange during examinations.

The Exchange also proposes to eliminate certain restrictions, which the Exchange considers redundant, on member organizations and prospective member organizations organized as partnerships and corporations. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in Rule 313.11 that the partnership articles of each member firm provide that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the prior written approval of the Exchange. Rule 313.11 already requires the Exchange’s prior written approval for any such capital withdrawals, and member organizations need to monitor for and comply with the prohibition, including whether particular withdrawals violate net capital requirements. The Exchange believes that because Exchange rules already govern this behavior, a partnership seeking approval as a member organization would not need to amend its partnership articles to reflect this existing rule requirement. [10]

Further, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in Rule 313.20 that prospective member corporations submit an opinion of counsel stating, among other things, that the corporation is duly organized and existing, that its stock is validly issued and outstanding, and that the restrictions and provisions required by the Exchange on the transfer, issuance, conversion and redemption of its stock have been made legally effective. Corporate members are required under the Rule to submit relevant corporate documents, including articles of incorporation, that contain the same information required in the opinion of counsel. The Exchange represents that requiring a legal opinion attesting to facts contained in a corporation’s public filings is redundant and, given the expense, potentially a disincentive to smaller entities applying for Exchange membership. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement in Rule 313.23 that the opinion of counsel submitted to the Exchange at the time the corporation applies for approval under Rule 313.20 state the extent to which the corporation has made the following prohibitions legally effective: The prohibition on declaring or paying a dividend that impairs the capital of the corporation and the prohibition on distributing assets to any stockholder unless the value of the corporate assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including capital. Rule 313.23 would continue to prohibit corporation members from declaring or paying dividends or distributing corporate assets that impair the corporation’s capital, and member corporations would not be relieved of the obligation to monitor and enforce these prohibitions. The Exchange believes that requiring these representations in a separate legal opinion is redundant and serves no necessary regulatory or other purpose. [11]

Finally, the Exchange proposes to make certain miscellaneous amendments to Rule 313. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace outdated references to “Regulation and Surveillance” with “the Exchange” in Rules 313.10 and 313.20. [12] Similarly, the Exchange proposes to replace outdated references to “photostatic” copies in Rules 313.10 and 313.20 in connection with the submission of documents to the Exchange and replace them with “electronically or mechanically reproduced.”

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, [13] in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, [14] in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that adding LLCs to the list of eligible member organizations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by expanding the types of organizational forms a member organization may take. The Exchange also believes that permitting LLCs to become member organizations subject to the same restrictions and requirements currently applicable to corporations and partnerships also protects investors and the public interest by holding LLCs to the same high standards.

In addition, the Exchange believes that permitting non-United States-based registered broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities exchange and that do not have their principal place of business in the United States to become Exchange member organizations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by removing geographic restrictions on Exchange membership that are not required by FINRA or other exchanges. The Exchange further believes that broadening the Exchange membership pool by facilitating the participation of additional foreign-based U.S. registered broker-dealers would benefit investors and the public interest by increasing market participation and depth at the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that adoption of specific requirements for foreign members that do not maintain an office in the United States based on NASD Rule 1090 would further assure that foreign Exchange members, once approved, remain subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction. Similarly, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange’s rules to remove requirements, which the Exchange believes are redundant, that a member firm’s partnership articles provide that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the prior written approval of the Exchange, that prospective member corporations submit an opinion of counsel reciting facts contained in its public filings, and that certain prohibitions have been made legally effective would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that potential member organizations, persons subject to the Exchange’s jurisdiction, regulators, and the public could more easily navigate the Exchange’s rulebook and better understand what obligations attach and when. Further, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange’s rules to remove what the Exchange considers redundant requirements is also designed to protect investors as well as the public interest by providing transparency and reducing potential confusion regarding the Exchange membership process that may result from having what the Exchange characterizes as obsolete rules and outdated guidelines in the Exchange’s rulebook. For the same reasons, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange’s rules to remove requirements that the Exchange considers outdated would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and is equally designed to protect investors as well as the public interest. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would foster competition by expanding the types of organizational forms a member organization may take and, by removing geographic restrictions on corporate Exchange membership, permitting foreign broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another SRO and that do not have their principal place of business in the United States to become Exchange member organizations. The Exchange represents that, by removing outdated and redundant provisions from the Exchange membership rules not found in the rules of other SROs and adding a provision found in the rules of another SRO, the proposed rule change also would foster competition by providing greater harmonization between Exchange membership requirements and the requirements of other SROs, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient and consistent standards for prospective member organizations. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/notification-of-deletion-of-system-of-records-confidential-business-information-tracking-system-epa-20/

Notification of Deletion of System of Records: Confidential Business Information Tracking System, EPA-20

The Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS) was created to track confidential information that was available to Confidential Business Information (CBI) cleared federal and contractor personnel and other government staff members on a need to know basis. CBITS was decommissioned on December 31, 2013. The system has since been replaced by the Confidential Information System (CIS) that processes, tracks and stores Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) confidential information. CIS does not contain or store any personally identifiable information (PII). How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-OEI-2014-0820]. Copies of the available docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is [phone]. The telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket is [phone]. How can I get electronic access to this document? You may access this Federal Register document electronically under the “Federal Register” link on www.regulations.gov.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/self-regulatory-organizations-nyse-mkt-llc-notice-of-filing-of-proposed-rule-change-amending-rules-311-equities-and-313-equities-to-add-limited-liability-companies-as-eligible-member-organizations-a/

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 311-Equities and 313-Equities To Add Limited Liability Companies as Eligible Member Organizations and Delineate the Information Limited Liability Companies Must Submit to the Exchange as Part of the Membership Process; Eliminate the Requirement That a Member Corporation Be Created or Organized, and Maintain Its Principal Place of Business, in the United States; and Make Additional Related Amendments To Update Its Membership Rules

In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 311—Equities (“Rule 311”) and 313—Equities (“Rule 313”) to add limited liability companies (“LLCs”) to the types of eligible member organizations and delineate the information LLCs must submit to the Exchange as part of the membership process; eliminate the requirement that a member corporation be created or organized, and maintain its principal place of business, in the United States; and make additional related amendments to update its membership rules. Rule 311 NYSE MKT Rule 311 governs the formation and approval of member organizations. The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 311 to explicitly provide for LLCs to apply to become member organizations and eliminate the requirement that a member corporation be created or organized, and maintain its principal place of business, in the United States. First, the Exchange’s membership rules currently provide for member organizations to be corporations or partnerships, but have not explicitly provided for LLCs. [4]

The Exchange proposes to add LLCs to the types of potential member organizations and require LLCs to meet the same requirements currently applicable to partnerships and corporations set forth in Rule 311(b). As part of the proposed revision, the Exchange seeks to add a new section (4) to Rule 311(b) requiring every member of an LLC to be a member, principal executive or approved person. [5] Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 311(b)(6) to reflect that proposed LLC member organizations must, like corporations and partnerships, also comply with any additional requirements as the rules of the Exchange may prescribe. The Exchange also proposes to add new Supplementary Material .16 to Rule 311 to specify that LLC applicants for Exchange membership are subject to Rule 313.24 regarding the submission of copies of proposed or existing limited liability company documents and other agreements.

The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 311(f) to eliminate the geographic limitation on incorporation and domicile of corporation members. The first sentence of Rule 311(f) currently provides that every member corporation be a corporation “created or organized under the laws of, and shall maintain its principal place of business in, the United States or any State thereof.” [6] The Exchange does not believe that the Exchange’s restriction on whether foreign entities may be a member organization is consistent with either Federal rules or those of other self-regulatory organizations (“SRO”). For an example supporting its belief, the Exchange states that rules promulgated pursuant to the Act require, under certain circumstances, a foreign broker-dealer to register with the Commission. [7] The Exchange also states that other SROs, including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), do not require their members to be domiciled in the United States. [8]

The Exchange believes that the current restriction in Rule 311(f) puts it at a competitive disadvantage because it restricts foreign broker-dealers that are registered with the Commission and are members of another SRO from also becoming Exchange member organizations. The Exchange notes that its rules already require member organizations to meet prerequisites as specified in Rule 2(b). Specifically, regardless of corporate form, all member organizations must be registered broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities exchange. If a registered broker-dealer transacts business with public customers or conducts business on the Floor of the Exchange, such member organization must be a member of FINRA. The Exchange further notes that a member organization will be subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction for misconduct whether or not it is based in the United States. However, for the avoidance of doubt, as discussed below, the Exchange proposes to add supplementary material to Rule 313 based on NASD Rule 1090 that imposes certain requirements on foreign members that do not maintain an office in the United States. Rule 313 Rule 313 sets forth certain corporate or partnership documents that each member organization must submit to enter into and continue in NYSE membership. The Rule also sets forth certain restrictions on capital withdrawals and distributions applicable to member corporations and partnerships. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 313 to delineate the types of documents LLCs must submit that, as noted, mirror the requirements currently in place for member corporations and partnerships. First, the Exchange proposes to add a subsection (d) to Rule 313 requiring all articles of organization and operating documents for LLCs to be submitted for Exchange approval prior to becoming effective. Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .24 setting forth that existing LLCs must promptly submit certified copies (to the extent possible) of articles of organization and operating agreements to the Exchange. Second, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .25 providing restrictions on capital withdrawals by LLC members that are substantially the same as those applicable to corporations and partnerships. The Supplementary Material would provide that the capital contribution of any LLC member may not be withdrawn on less than six months’ written notice of withdrawal given no sooner than six months after such contribution was first made without the prior written approval of the Exchange. The Supplementary Material would also specify that each member firm shall promptly notify the Exchange of the receipt of any notice of withdrawal of any part of a member’s capital contribution or if any withdrawal is not made because prohibited under the provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1. Third, the Exchange proposes to add Supplementary Material .26 providing that LLCs not organized under the laws of New York State must subject themselves to the following restrictions: no distributions shall be declared or paid that impair the LLC’s capital; and no distribution of assets shall be made to any member unless the value of the LLC’s assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including capital. These proposed restrictions are based on existing restrictions applicable to member corporations and partnerships. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .27 to Rule 313 specifying the requirements applicable to Foreign Member Organizations. The proposed new rule text would adopt, without substantive change, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of NASD Rule 1090 (Foreign Members), which impose specific requirements on FINRA members that do not maintain an office in the United States responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other reports required to be filed by the SEC and FINRA. [9] As proposed, foreign member organizations that do not maintain an office in the United States responsible for preparing and maintaining financial and other reports required to be filed with the Commission and the Exchange would be required to: (1) Prepare all such reports, and maintain a general ledger chart of account and any description thereof, in English and U.S. dollars; (2) reimburse the Exchange or its representatives for expenses incurred in connection with examinations of the member organization to the extent that such expenses exceed the cost of examining a member organization located within the continental United States in the geographic location most distant from the Exchange’s principal office or, in such other amount as the Exchange may deem to be an equitable allocation of such expenses; and (3) ensure the availability of an individual fluent in English and knowledgeable in securities and financial matters to assist representatives of the Exchange during examinations.

The Exchange also proposes to eliminate certain restrictions, which the Exchange considers redundant, on member organizations and prospective member organizations organized as partnerships and corporations. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in Rule 313.11 that the partnership articles of each member firm provide that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the prior written approval of the Exchange. Rule 313.11 already requires the Exchange’s prior written approval for any such capital withdrawals, and member organizations need to monitor for and comply with the prohibition, including whether particular withdrawals violate net capital requirements. The Exchange believes that because Exchange rules already govern this behavior, a partnership seeking approval as a member organization would not need to amend its partnership articles to reflect this existing rule requirement. [10]

Further, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement in Rule 313.20 that prospective member corporations submit an opinion of counsel stating, among other things, that the corporation is duly organized and existing, that its stock is validly issued and outstanding, and that the restrictions and provisions required by the Exchange on the transfer, issuance, conversion and redemption of its stock have been made legally effective. Corporate members are required under the Rule to submit relevant corporate documents, including articles of incorporation, that contain the same information required in the opinion of counsel. The Exchange represents that requiring a legal opinion attesting to facts contained in a corporation’s public filings is redundant and, given the expense, potentially a disincentive to smaller entities applying for Exchange membership. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement in Rule 313.23 that the opinion of counsel submitted to the Exchange at the time the corporation applies for approval under Rule 313.20 state the extent to which the corporation has made the following prohibitions legally effective: the prohibition on declaring or paying a dividend that impairs the capital of the corporation and the prohibition on distributing assets to any stockholder unless the value of the corporate assets remaining after such payment or distribution is at least equal to the aggregate of its debts and liabilities, including capital. Rule 313.23 would continue to prohibit corporation members from declaring or paying dividends or distributing corporate assets that impair the corporation’s capital, and member corporations would not be relieved of the obligation to monitor and enforce these prohibitions. The Exchange believes that requiring these representations in a separate legal opinion is redundant and serves no necessary regulatory or other purpose. [11]

Finally, the Exchange proposes to make certain miscellaneous amendments to Rule 313. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace outdated references to “Regulation and Surveillance” with “the Exchange” in Rules 313.10 and 313.20. [12] Similarly, the Exchange proposes to replace outdated references to “photostatic” copies in Rules 313.10 and 313.20 in connection with the submission of documents to the Exchange and replace them with “electronically or mechanically reproduced.”

2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, [13] in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, [14] in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that adding LLCs to the list of eligible member organizations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by expanding the types of organizational forms a member organization may take. The Exchange also believes that permitting LLCs to become member organizations subject to the same restrictions and requirements currently applicable to corporations and partnerships also protects investors and the public interest by holding LLCs to the same high standards.

In addition, the Exchange believes that permitting non-United States-based registered broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another registered securities exchange and that do not have their principal place of business in the United States to become Exchange member organizations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by removing geographic restrictions on Exchange membership that are not required by FINRA or other exchanges. The Exchange further believes that broadening the Exchange membership pool by facilitating the participation of additional foreign-based U.S. registered broker-dealers would benefit investors and the public interest by increasing market participation and depth at the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that adoption of specific requirements for foreign members that do not maintain an office in the United States based on NASD Rule 1090 would further assure that foreign Exchange members, once approved, remain subject to regulatory examination and jurisdiction.

Similarly, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange’s rules to remove requirements, which the Exchange believes are redundant, that a member firm’s partnership articles provide that capital withdrawals by partners cannot be made without the prior written approval of the Exchange, that prospective member corporations submit an opinion of counsel reciting facts contained in its public filings, and that certain prohibitions have been made legally effective would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that potential member organizations, persons subject to the Exchange’s jurisdiction, regulators, and the public could more easily navigate the Exchange’s rulebook and better understand what obligations attach and when. Further, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange’s rules to remove what the Exchange considers redundant requirements is also designed to protect investors as well as the public interest by providing transparency and reducing potential confusion regarding the Exchange membership process that may result from having what the Exchange characterizes as obsolete rules and outdated guidelines in the Exchange’s rulebook. For the same reasons, the Exchange represents that updating the Exchange’s rules to remove requirements that the Exchange considers outdated would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and is equally designed to protect investors as well as the public interest. B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would foster competition by expanding the types of organizational forms a member organization may take and, by removing geographic restrictions on corporate Exchange membership, permitting foreign broker-dealers that are members of FINRA or another SRO and that do not have their principal place of business in the United States to become Exchange member organizations. The Exchange represents that, by removing outdated and redundant provisions from the Exchange membership rules not found in the rules of other SROs and adding a provision found in the rules of another SRO, the proposed rule change also would foster competition by providing greater harmonization between Exchange membership requirements and the requirements of other SROs, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient and consistent standards for prospective member organizations. C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on https://www.brianbrown.net/2014/11/27/culturally-significant-objects-imported-for-exhibition-determinations-islamic-galleries/

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Islamic Galleries”

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Islamic Galleries,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, from on or about December 18, 2014, until on or about November 17, 2017, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends: