Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
FCC Wireless Bureau Issues Public Notice on Comment on GeoLinks' Request for Modification of Local Multipoint Distribution Service Licenses
WASHINGTON, May 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (WT Docket No. 24-150) on May 17, 2024:
* * *
By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a request by California Internet, L.P. DBA GeoLinks (GeoLinks) that the Commission modify some of GeoLinks' Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses to substitute unassigned frequencies currently held in Commission inventory for GeoLinks' existing geographically and spectrally separated license holdings./1
There are two available LMDS licenses in each basic trading
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (WT Docket No. 24-150) on May 17, 2024:
* * *
By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a request by California Internet, L.P. DBA GeoLinks (GeoLinks) that the Commission modify some of GeoLinks' Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses to substitute unassigned frequencies currently held in Commission inventory for GeoLinks' existing geographically and spectrally separated license holdings./1
There are two available LMDS licenses in each basic tradingarea (BTA) - the "A Block" and "B Block" licenses./2 The A Block license is comprised of 300 megahertz of total bandwidth, and the B Block license is comprised of 150 megahertz of total bandwidth./3 The A Block consists of the sub bands 29.10-29.25 GHz (the A2 Band) and 31.075-31.225 GHz (the A3 Band)./4 The B Block consists of the sub bands 31.00-31.075 (the B1 Band) and 31.225-31.30 GHz (the B2 Band)./5
GeoLinks is a telecommunications company that uses a combination of fixed wireless and fiber technology to serve commercial, residential, and community anchor institution customers in California and in parts of Nevada and Arizona./6 GeoLinks is a participant in the Commission's Connect America Fund Phase II (CAFII) and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) programs. With funding from these programs, GeoLinks asserts that it is "on track to offer service to nearly 47,000 locations across Arizona, California, and Nevada that lack access to high-speed broadband services."/7
The GeoLinks Request involves 51 active LMDS licenses held by GeoLinks - nine A block licenses and 42 B block licenses. Under GeoLinks' proposal, 32 of those licenses would be modified, and the other 19 licenses would be relinquished to the Commission./8 Of the 32 modification requests, 30 involve changes in the licenses' geographic areas by changing the BTA in which each license authorizes operations. The remaining two modification requests seek changes to both the BTA and frequency assignment within the LMDS band (from the B-Block to the A-Block)./9 GeoLinks asserts that its proposed modifications would result in the company surrendering more licenses, more markets, and more MHz-pops than it would receive, but consolidating A and B license blocks and gaining contiguous spectrum that would allegedly result in more efficient and economic deployment targeted to rural and underserved areas in its core service areas./10
Exhibit 1 of the GeoLinks Request provides details on the BTA (and where applicable, spectrum block) for the requested modification of each GeoLinks license. Exhibit 2 provides the list of licenses that GeoLinks intends to relinquish if the Commission grants the full set of modifications as requested. The exhibits detail GeoLinks' estimates of the MHz-pops for each license swap as well as the overall MHz-pops the Commission would gain as a result of the proposed modifications and relinquishment./11
The Bureau seeks comment on the GeoLinks Request. Interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated on the first page of this document.
Procedural Matters
To develop a complete record on the issues presented by the Requests, the proceeding will be treated, for ex parte purposes, as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules,/12 subject to the requirements under section 1.1206(b)./13 GeoLinks filed its Request electronically in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). We have opened a new docket, WT Docket No. 24-150, to facilitate consideration of the Request and have moved GeoLinks' Request into this docket. Parties should file all comments and reply comments in WT Docket No. 24-150.
Filing Requirements. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document./14 Parties may file comments, identified by WT Docket No. 24-150, by any of the following methods:
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.
* Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
* Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
* U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Express, and Priority Mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20554.
* Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19./15
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Ex Parte Rules. As stated above, the proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permitbut-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./16 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Erin Fitzgerald Dobozy at Erin.Fitzgerald@fcc.gov.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-468A1.pdf
NRC Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards Issues Letter Report On The Safety Aspects Of The Subsequent License Renewal Application Review Of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards issued the following letter report:
* * *
To: The Honorable Christopher T. Hanson Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF THE SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REVIEW OF MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1
Dear Chair Hanson:
During the 715th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), April 30 through May 2, 2024, we completed our review of the subsequent license renewal (SLR) application
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards issued the following letter report:
* * *
To: The Honorable Christopher T. Hanson Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF THE SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REVIEW OF MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1
Dear Chair Hanson:
During the 715th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), April 30 through May 2, 2024, we completed our review of the subsequent license renewal (SLR) applicationfor the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 (MNGP), and the associated safety evaluation report prepared by staff. Our review considered actions by the Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM) to extend the license for MNGP by a subsequent period of 20 years beyond the currently approved 60 years of licensed operation. During this review, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the staff and NSPM. We also had the benefit of the referenced documents. This report fulfills the requirement of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 54.25 that the ACRS review and report on all license renewal applications.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The established programs and the commitments made by NSPM to manage age-related degradation provide confidence that MNGP can be operated in accordance with its current licensing basis for the subsequent period of extended operation (SPEO) without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
2. The NSPM application for the SLR of the operating license for MNGP should be approved.
* * *
BACKGROUND
The MNGP, a single unit generating station in Monticello, Minnesota, is a boiling water reactor with licensed output of 2004 megawatts thermal (MWt). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the initial operating license on September 8, 1970. In this application, NSPM requests renewal of the operating license for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration of their current license in 2030. The license would be extended to September 8, 2050.
* * *
DISCUSSION
NSPM submitted an SLR application for MNGP in January 2023. NSPM applied lessons learned from previous applications, requests for additional information, and internal aging management program (AMP) experience in preparation of their application. An experienced, multidisciplinary team of corporate, site, and consultant personnel was assembled to develop the SLR application. NSPM followed the guidance in Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR), and the Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (SRP-SLR), resulting in a thorough SLR application.
NSPM has been making improvements in the MNGP facility informed by equipment performance monitoring. Over a series of outages in 2009, 2011 and 2013 the following equipment improvements were implemented: condensate and feedwater system pumps, motors, heat exchangers and the condensate demineralizers were replaced; the motors for the recirculation system motor-generator sets were upgraded; the main, reserve, and auxiliary transformers were replaced; and the steam dryer was replaced. NSPM has been monitoring the integrity and replacing fluid system piping throughout the period of extended operation. In 2011, the 345 kV switchyard underwent a major upgrade. Lastly, the cooling towers were replaced in 2023. These improvements to MNGP provide evidence of a strong commitment by NSPM to maintain the safe and reliable operation of the station.
There are a few technical issues that NSPM has addressed for SLR. NSPM has committed to upgrade the cathodic protection of buried pipe and tanks to ensure that degradation of these components is minimized. For piping in the seismic gap between the reactor and turbine buildings, monitoring strategies and pipe replacement plans have been established to make sure that performance remains acceptable through the SPEO. Additionally, the effects of neutron and gamma radiation exposure on concrete in the biological shield wall, steel in the biological shield wall liner and steel in the reactor vessel supports have been evaluated and determined to be acceptable.
NSPM will implement 45 AMPs for SLR, comprised of 37 existing programs and eight new programs. Of the new programs, all are consistent with the GALL-SLR report. Of the 37 existing programs, seven are consistent with the GALL-SLR report, 30 have enhancements and/or allowed exceptions, and none are plant specific. The staff found the programs, including those with enhancements and exceptions, to be acceptable.
NSPM has demonstrated the effectiveness of their programs to maintain material condition, sustain system and equipment performance, and identify and implement improvements to ensure facility safety and reliability. Commitments within the SLR application and in NSPM's responses to the staff audits and inspections provide confidence that these programs will be implemented effectively throughout the SPEO. The detailed elements of the AMPs and related commitments are documented in the proposed Updated Final Safety Analysis Report supplement and will be managed through NSPM's commitment tracking program.
Staff reviewed NSPM's application for SLR in accordance with the GALL-SLR and the SRP-SLR guidance documents. Conformance with this guidance provides the bases for a staff conclusion that an applicant for a subsequent license renewal of 20 additional years beyond its current approved license for 60 years will afford no undue risk to the public throughout the SPEO.
In the safety evaluation report, staff documented their review of the SLR application, additional information submitted by NSPM, and information obtained through staff audits, inspections, and responses to requests for additional information. The staff conducted three regulatory audits in 2023 and 2024 on the technical details of the SLR application. These audits included plant specific operating experience; irradiation of select structures and components; and buried piping. A Phase IV inspection was completed in June 2020. These activities evaluated the completeness of the structures, systems, and components identified within the scope of the MNGP SLR program, the suitability and adequacy of the aging management review, and the acceptability of the plant-specific time-limited aging analyses. There were no safety-significant findings identified during the corresponding inspections and audits. The new programs incorporated in this application augment the current facility monitoring and maintenance processes in place at MNGP. It is reasonable to conclude that the intended safety functions of the systems placed under the AMP programs will be maintained consistent with the MNGP current licensing basis for the SPEO, as required by 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3). The staff's extensive and detailed review of the SLR application, documented in the safety evaluation report, identified no open or confirmatory items. We concur with the staff's safety evaluation regarding these issues.
* * *
SUMMARY
We conclude that the NSPM application for the MNGP subsequent license renewal meets the requirements described in 10 CFR 54.29(a)(1) and (a)(2). The established programs and the commitments made by NSPM to manage age-related degradation provide confidence that MNGP can be operated in accordance with its current licensing basis for the SPEO without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The NSPM application for the SLR of the operating license for MNGP should be approved.
We are not requesting a formal response to this letter report.
Sincerely,
Walter L. Kirchner
Chair
* * *
REFERENCES
1. Northern States Power Company, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Subsequent License Renewal Application Sections 1 - 4 and Appendices A - D," January 2023 (ML23009A354).
2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Safety Evaluation Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1," March 2024 (ML24077A001).
3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 - Report for the Aging Management Audit Regarding the Subsequent License Renewal Application Review (EPID No. L-2022-SLR-0000)," August 31, 2023 (ML23214A241).
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Limited Aging Management Audit Report Regarding the Subsequent License Renewal Application Review (EPID No. L-2022-SLR-0000)," February 27, 2024 (ML24054A158).
5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Second Limited Aging Management Audit Report Regarding the Subsequent License Renewal Application Review (EPID No. L-2022-SLR-0000)," February 26, 2024 (ML24047A092).
6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2192, "Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," July 2017 (ML17188A158).
7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - License Renewal Phase IV Report 050000263/2020014," June 30, 2020 (ML20182A685).
8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1801, Revision 2, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report," December 2010 (ML103490041).
9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2191, Volume 1, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report," July 2017 (ML17187A031). 10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2191, Volume 2, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report," July 2017 (ML17187A204).
11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.188, Revision 1, "Standard Format and Content for Application to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," September 2005 (ML051920430).
12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2192, "Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," July 2017 (ML17188A158).
13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2221, "Technical Bases for Changes in the Subsequent License Renewal Guidance Documents NUREG-2191 and NUREG-2192," December 2017 (ML17362A126).
14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2222, "Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft Subsequent License Renewal Guidance Documents NUREG-2191 and NUREG- 2192," December 2017 (ML17362A143).
15. Nuclear Energy Institute, "Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 for Subsequent License Renewal" (NEI 17-01)," March 2017 (ML17339A599).
16. Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI 14-12, "Aging Management Program Effectiveness," December 31, 2014 (ML15090A665).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2412/ML24128A258.pdf
Merit Systems Protection Board: Court Decisions
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report for May 17, 2024:
* * *
PRECEDENTIAL:
Petitioner: Anthony W. Perry
Respondent: Gina Raimondo, United States Secretary of Commerce
Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Number: 22-5319 (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D1B58B6490F419AC85258B1D00510168/$file/22-5319-2054260.pdf)
MSPB Docket Numbers: DC-0752-12-0486-B-1, DC-0752-12-0487-B-1 Issuance Date: May 14, 2024
JURISDICTION
INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
MIXED CASE APPEALS
The petitioner entered
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following case report for May 17, 2024:
* * *
PRECEDENTIAL:
Petitioner: Anthony W. Perry
Respondent: Gina Raimondo, United States Secretary of Commerce
Tribunal: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Number: 22-5319 (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D1B58B6490F419AC85258B1D00510168/$file/22-5319-2054260.pdf)
MSPB Docket Numbers: DC-0752-12-0486-B-1, DC-0752-12-0487-B-1 Issuance Date: May 14, 2024
JURISDICTION
INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
MIXED CASE APPEALS
The petitioner enteredinto a settlement agreement before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wherein he agreed to serve a 30-day suspension in lieu of a removal action, voluntarily resign or retire following the suspension, and waive his Board appeal rights with respect to the two actions. He subsequently filed a mixed case appeal with the Board alleging that the actions were involuntary and raising discrimination claims. The Board dismissed his suspension and involuntary retirement appeals for lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, found no authority to consider his affirmative defenses. The petitioner sought review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which transferred the petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the proper review forum when the Board dismisses a mixed case on jurisdictional grounds is district court. Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). Thus, the court reversed and remanded to the D.C. Circuit, which transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the agency and affirmed the Board's decision dismissing the petitioner's claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner appealed to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the district court erred by failing to consider his discrimination claims de novo and by affirming the Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Holding: The Board properly dismissed the petitioner's mixed case for lack of jurisdiction. However, the district court erred by not allowing the petitioner to litigate the merits of his discrimination claims as required by statute.
1. Federal employees are protected from unlawful employment actions by two different - but overlapping - statutory regimes: (1) various federal anti-discrimination laws; and (2) the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), which establishes a framework for evaluation personnel actions taken against Federal employees. A Federal employee alleging both unlawful discrimination and a serious adverse employment action may proceed by bringing a standard claim under Title VII by exhausting administrative remedies and then filing a case in the district court. Or, instead, the employee may bring the case before the Board as a "mixed case"--either by first filing an EEO complaint with the agency and appealing an unfavorable outcome to the Board or, alternatively, by appealing the adverse action directly to the Board. If the employee chooses to proceed in a mixed case before the Board, as was the case here, the employee may seek review by the district court.
2. The district court was required to consider the petitioner's discrimination claims de novo even if the Board did not address those claims. The provision of the CSRA that addresses judicial review of Board decisions states that "in the case of discrimination . . . the employee or applicant shall have the right to have the facts subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c). The Supreme Court has held that the "reviewing court" identified in the statute is the federal district court and, thus, mixed cases shall be "reviewed" in district court, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c), regardless of whether the Board decided it on the merits, on procedural grounds, or on jurisdictional grounds. Perry, 582 U.S. at 429; Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 56 (2012). The district court was thus required to provide a "trial de novo" on the petitioner's claims of discrimination. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c).
a. The court noted that this framework raises the question of whether an employee is required to pursue an EEO complaint before the agency--thereby exhausting his administrative remedies--before litigating the discrimination part of his mixed case in the district court. Because it was undisputed that the petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies--albeit after he filed his Board appeal, the court reserved the issue for another day.
3. The Board's underlying jurisdictional determination concerning the petitioner's involuntary retirement claim was not arbitrary or capricious. The petitioner contended that his retirement was involuntary because the agency lacked reasonable grounds for threatening to terminate his employment based on unauthorized absences from work. Specifically, he argued that he had an unofficial accommodation for osteoarthritis that allowed him to be absent as necessary. However, the appellant did not attribute all his absences to the alleged accommodation, and the undisputedly unexcused absences provided reasonable grounds for his termination. Thus, he did not make nonfrivolous allegations that his retirement was involuntary.
4. The petitioner's argument that the court should apply the Douglas factors to determine that his termination would not have been justified was unavailing because a Douglas analysis would not render arbitrary or capricious the Board's conclusion that the agency had reasonable grounds for his termination. See Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-06 (1981) (identifying 12 non-exhaustive factors relevant to evaluating the lawfulness of an agency's employment action).
* * *
NONPRECEDENTIAL:
Mulligan v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2023-2405 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2405.OPINION.5-16-2024_2318759.pdf) (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2024) (MSPB Docket No. SF-0752-16-0093-I-2) (per curiam). The court affirmed the Board's decision, which dismissed the petitioner's petition for review as untimely filed after he failed to respond to the Board's notice to show cause for his one-day delay. The court noted that the Board previously considered the arguments raised by the petitioner on appeal when it granted the appellant an extension of time to file his petition for review. The court stated that perhaps it would not have exercised its discretion in the same manner as the Board but nevertheless concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion.
Etzel v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 2022-2050, 2022-2051 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2050.OPINION.5-16-2024_2318777.pdf) (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2024) (MSPB Docket Nos. DC-1221-19-0827-W-2, DC3443-21-0391-I-1). The court affirmed the Board's decisions, which found the following: (1) the petitioner failed to make a protected disclosure under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) contributing to an adverse personnel action; and (2) the petitioner failed to raise a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction with respect to her pay reduction. Concerning the WPA, the court agreed with the Board that two out of three of the petitioner's alleged disclosures reraised on appeal were not protected because one disclosure was overly broad and generalized, and the other disclosure pre-dated the events that allegedly formed the basis of her reasonable belief in the unlawfulness of the matter disclosed. The court also affirmed the Board's credibilitybased finding that the third disclosure, while protected, did not contribute to an adverse personnel action because the petitioner did not prove that she suffered a lack of substantive work assignments, i.e. the alleged personnel action. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the administrative judge's denial of the petitioner's motion to compel discovery as untimely. Concerning the pay reduction appeal, the court found no error in the Board's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction because pay reductions for Senior Executive Service members are not reviewable by the Board.
Bumgardner v. Department of the Navy, No. 2023-1713 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1713.OPINION.5-13-2024_2316638.pdf) (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2024) (MSPB Docket No. DC-3330-22-0043-I-1) (per curiam). The court affirmed the Board's decision denying the petitioner's request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). The court found no error in the Board's conclusion that, as a matter of law, the agency could not have violated veteranpreference rights when it selected a different candidate for the position because both the petitioner and the selectee were entitled to the same exact statutory benefits under the VEOA and agency policy. The court found no persuasive support for the petitioner's argument that he and the selectee were not entitled to the exact same veteran-preference benefits because the selectee was an internal candidate. The court also determined that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioner a full hearing and deciding the appeal as a matter of law based on the written record.
Swick v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2023-2085 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2085.OPINION.5-10-2024_2315963.pdf) (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2024) (MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-17-0008-W-1) (per curiam). The petitioner appealed her resignation as involuntary and alleged whistleblower reprisal. The court affirmed the Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based on the written record. Concerning the involuntary resignation claim, the court found that the petitioner's allegations did not demonstrate that she had no choice but to resign or that the agency's threat of disciplinary action was untrue or misleading. Concerning the whistleblower reprisal claim, the court found no error in the Board's determination that the petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Office of Special Counsel.
Broaden v. Department of Transportation, No. 2023-2316 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2316.OPINION.5-10-2024_2316025.pdf) (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2024) (MSPB Docket No. DE-4324-23-0098-I-1) (per curiam). The petitioner applied for numerous vacancies for Air Traffic Control Specialist, Support Specialist positions with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but was not selected based on the FAA's requirement of civilian FAA experience. He previously appealed several of these nonselections with the Board, arguing that the FAA's requirement was inherently violative of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The Board, finding that the credible testimony of an agency employee demonstrated sound reasons for not treating military air traffic controller experience as equal to civilian FAA experience, denied the petitioner's request for corrective action, and the court affirmed. The petitioner filed another USERRA appeal with the Board, raising the same challenges related to nonselections that preceded the court's final adjudication as well subsequent nonselections to Support Specialist positions. The Board invoked res judicata and applied collateral estoppel, respectively. Finding no error, the court affirmed the Board's decision.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/case_reports/Case_Report_May_17_2024.pdf
FEC Files Suit in U.S. District Court to Enforce Terms of Conciliation Agreement
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release on May 17, 2024:
The Federal Election Commission filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against defendants Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 9 (the Union) and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 9 Political Action Committee (the PAC) for their failure to comply with the terms of the parties' conciliation agreement with the Commission resulting from Matter Under Review (MUR) 7028, which was closed in 2018.
MUR 7028 was initiated by a sworn complaint filed with the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release on May 17, 2024:
The Federal Election Commission filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against defendants Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 9 (the Union) and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 9 Political Action Committee (the PAC) for their failure to comply with the terms of the parties' conciliation agreement with the Commission resulting from Matter Under Review (MUR) 7028, which was closed in 2018.
MUR 7028 was initiated by a sworn complaint filed with theCommission in 2016 that alleged that the Union and the PAC violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), when the Union failed to obtain the appropriate voluntary authorizations to make payroll deductions from union members in the form of contributions to the PAC. The complaint alleged further that the PAC improperly accepted contributions from union members that were not obtained voluntarily or documented correctly.
To resolve the matter, the Union and the PAC entered into a Conciliation Agreement with the Commission providing for the Union and PAC to pay a joint civil penalty and to refund contributions withheld from the pay of the complainant between 2012 and 2017, as well as other remedial actions.
The Commission seeks a declaration from the court that defendants have violated one or more of the requirements set forth in the conciliation agreement that they entered into with the Commission, and other appropriate relief.
The Act grants the Commission the authority to file suit in U.S. District Court if it believes that any provision of such conciliation agreement has been violated.
The case is FEC v. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 9, et al. (Case No.24-1450) (https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/fec-v-plumbers-pipefitters-local-union-9-et-al/).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-files-suit-in-us-district-court-to-enforce-terms-of-conciliation-agreement/
FEC Declares Pence Eligible to Receive 2024 Matching Funds, Approves Initial Date of Ineligibility
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release on May 17, 2024:
At its open meeting yesterday, the Federal Election Commission declared Mike Pence and his principal campaign committee, Mike Pence for President (MPFP), eligible to receive public matching funds for Pence's 2024 presidential campaign for the Republican Party nomination. Additionally, since Pence suspended his campaign for the nomination in October 2023, the Commission also initially determined that Pence's Date of Ineligibility for the purpose of using public funds to seek the Republican presidential
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news release on May 17, 2024:
At its open meeting yesterday, the Federal Election Commission declared Mike Pence and his principal campaign committee, Mike Pence for President (MPFP), eligible to receive public matching funds for Pence's 2024 presidential campaign for the Republican Party nomination. Additionally, since Pence suspended his campaign for the nomination in October 2023, the Commission also initially determined that Pence's Date of Ineligibility for the purpose of using public funds to seek the Republican presidentialnomination is the date of the suspension.
To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states. Although an individual may contribute up to $3,300 to a primary candidate in the current election cycle, only a maximum of $250 per individual applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state.
Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records, and permitting an extensive campaign audit. Participation in the presidential public funding program is entirely voluntary and presidential candidates may opt not to participate.
With the Commission's determination of Pence's eligibility, he becomes the first 2024 presidential candidate to be declared eligible for public funding and the first since the 2016 election cycle, when two candidates qualified for and received matching funds. No candidates were approved for matching funds during the 2020 election.
Based on documents filed by MPFP in late 2023, contributions were verified for threshold purposes from Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
All of the materials included with this submission may be viewed here. Based on Pence's initial threshold submission, the Commission voted to request that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Pence's campaign.
The Commission also made an initial determination that Pence's Date of Ineligibility (DOI) for his campaign was October 28, 2023, when Pence publicly announced that he was suspending his campaign for President. Commission regulations provide that even if presidential primary candidates no longer campaign actively in primary elections, they may continue to request public funds to pay off campaign debts until the first Monday of March of the year following an election.
The Commission will officially notify Pence and MPFP of the Commission's initial determination of the DOI by letter containing the legal and factual reasons for the initial determination and providing an opportunity for Pence and MPFP to respond to the initial DOI determination. The Commission will consider any timely submitted response from Pence and MPFP in the course of making a final determination.
The presidential public funding program is financed through the $3 check-off that appears on individual income tax returns. The program has two elements: matching payments to participating candidates during the primary campaign and grants available to nominees to pay for the general election campaign.
Additional information about the presidential public funding program is available here (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/understanding-public-funding-presidential-elections/). Income tax check-off data showing monthly deposits into the program's fund is available here (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Pres_Public_Funding.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-declares-pence-eligible-to-receive-2024-matching-funds-approves-initial-date-of-ineligibility/
FDIC Announces Settlement With Arkansas Bank, 9 Ex-Employees for Violations of Consumer Protection Laws
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release on May 17, 2024:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today announces a settlement with Bank of England, England, Arkansas, for violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Section 5), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The bank has stipulated to the issuance of an Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty (CMP) in the amount of $1.5 million. In addition, nine former employees of the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release on May 17, 2024:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today announces a settlement with Bank of England, England, Arkansas, for violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Section 5), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The bank has stipulated to the issuance of an Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty (CMP) in the amount of $1.5 million. In addition, nine former employees of theBank of England have stipulated to individual enforcement actions. Based on the FDIC's findings, the bank made $1.9 million in remediation to over 900 harmed consumers.
"Veterans and their families who were deceived into refinancing their VA loans were overcharged and did not receive the loan products promised, resulting in significant consumer harm," said FDIC Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection Director Mark Pearce. "Today's announcement demonstrates FDIC's commitment to ensuring consumers are treated fairly, and that those responsible, including the bank and individuals employed by the bank, are held accountable for their illegal actions."
Section 5 prohibits banks from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The FDIC determined that the bank, through one of its loan production offices (LPOs), violated Section 5 by misrepresenting to consumers that they would be able to skip multiple loan payments when refinancing a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgage loan. The FDIC also determined that loan officers' or LPO's misrepresented to consumers their relationship with the VA.
Section 8(a) of RESPA prohibits giving or accepting a thing of value in exchange for the referral of settlement service business. RESPA was enacted to enable consumers to better understand the home purchase and settlement process and, where possible, to reduce settlement costs. The FDIC determined the bank entered into certain co-marketing arrangements and marketing service agreements in which the bank and real estate brokers agreed to market their services together using online platforms. Further, the bank also entered into desk rental agreements whereby the bank rented space from realtors, and entered into agreements with online/digital platforms for lead generation. These arrangements and agreements resulted in the payment of fees by the bank to real estate brokers and online/digital platforms for their referrals of mortgage loan business, in violation of REPSA. Lastly, the FDIC determined the bank brokered certain reverse mortgage loans where broker fees made to the bank constituted things of value provided in return for loan referrals in violation of RESPA Section 8.
The FDIC also determined that the bank failed to provide consumers with firm offers of credit and required disclosures as required by the FCRA, and the bank failed to report accurate data on its 2021 loan application register in violation of HMDA.
In addition to the settlement with the bank, the FDIC also announces settlements with nine former employees of one of the bank's LPOs for violations of Section 5 associated with deceptive and unfair practices involving VA refinance loans by: (1) luring consumers to apply for mortgage loans with low, unavailable loan prices that would not be honored and then subsequently increasing the price before closing the loan; (2) misrepresenting that consumers could skip two months of their mortgage payments; and (3) misrepresenting the LPO's affiliation with the VA. These nine settlements include, but are not limited to, the following:
* Ryan Qarana, Assistant Branch Manager: Stipulated to a Prohibition Order and Order to Pay CMP in the amount of $100,000 for violations of Section 5 and engaging or participating in unsafe or unsound practices.
* Jasmine Jonna, Sales Manager: Stipulated to a Prohibition Order and Order to Pay CMP in the amount of $12,000 for violations of Section 5 and engaging in unsafe or unsound practices.
* Zack Jabro, Branch Manager: Stipulated to an Order to Pay CMP in the amount of $110,000 for engaging in unsafe and unsound practices.
In addition to the CMP, the FDIC issued a Consent Order that requires the bank to take affirmative steps to ensure a Compliance Management System that effectively identifies, addresses, monitors, and controls consumer protection.
* * *
Attachments
* FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders (https://orders.fdic.gov/s/searchform)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/fdic-announces-settlement-arkansas-bank-and-nine-former-employees-violations
FCC INTERNATIONAL BUREAU ISSUE PUBLIC NOTICE ON INFORMAL WORKING GROUP 1, INFORMAL WORKING GROUP 2, INFORMAL WORKING GROUP 3, AND INFORMAL WORKING GROUP 4 OF THE WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULE THEIR MEETINGS
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission International Affairs issued the following public notice (Docket No. 24-30):
This notice advises interested persons that Informal Working Group 1 (IWG-1), Informal Working Group 2 (IWG-2,) Informal Working Group 3 (IWG-3) and Informal Working Group 4 (IWG-4) of the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-23 Advisory Committee) have scheduled meetings as set forth below. The meetings are open to the public.
The Commission's WRC-23 website (http://www.fcc.gov/wrc-27) contains the latest information on all scheduled meetings,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Communications Commission International Affairs issued the following public notice (Docket No. 24-30):
This notice advises interested persons that Informal Working Group 1 (IWG-1), Informal Working Group 2 (IWG-2,) Informal Working Group 3 (IWG-3) and Informal Working Group 4 (IWG-4) of the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-23 Advisory Committee) have scheduled meetings as set forth below. The meetings are open to the public.
The Commission's WRC-23 website (http://www.fcc.gov/wrc-27) contains the latest information on all scheduled meetings,meeting agendas, and WRC-23 Advisory Committee matters.
For further information on the attached meeting schedule, contact Gregory Baker, the Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Committee, gregory.baker@fcc.gov or WRC-27@fcc.gov (telephone: (202) 919-0758).
WRC-27 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS OF INFORMAL WORKING GROUPS 1, 2, 3 AND 4
* * *
Informal Working Group 1: Maritime, Aeronautical and Radar Services
Chair-- Kim Kolb, kim.1.kolb@boeing.com (703) 220-2438
Vice Chair--Nicholas Shrout, njs@asri.aero (443) 951-0335
FCC Representatives: Louis Bell, louis.bell@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-1641; Allen Yang, allen.yang@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0738; Dante Ibarra, dante.ibarra@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0610
IWG-1--Meetings:
Dates: Monday, June 17, 2024, Wednesday, July 17, 2024, Wednesday, July 24, 2024, Wednesday, July 31, 2024
Time: 11:00 AM ET
https://fcc-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1610847619?pwd=NXozd0djb1lxQ2dWVytlOG1PckF3Zz09
Meeting ID: 161 084 7619
Passcode: 064531
* +1 669 254 5252 US
* +1 669 216 1590 US
* * *
Informal Working Group 2: Mobile and Fixed Services
Chair-- Daudeline Meme, daudeline.meme@verizon.com, (202) 253-8362
Vice Chair-- Reza Arefi, rezaa@apple.com, (202) 235-7298
FCC Representatives: Louis Bell, louis.bell@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-1641; Dante Ibarra, dante.ibarra@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0610
IWG-2--Meetings:
Dates: Monday, June 17, 2024, Wednesday, July 17, 2024, Wednesday, July 24, 2024, Wednesday, July 31, 2024
Time: 2:00 PM ET
https://fcc- gov.zoomgov.com/j/1617093171?pwd=ZTVER1NIRDZKVlNMSGhQNnRKU1BFdz09 Meeting ID: 161 709 3171
Passcode: 193943
* +1 669 254 5252 US
* +1 669 216 1590 US
* * *
Informal Working Group 3: Fixed-Satellite Service and Regulatory Matters
Chair - Alex Epshteyn, epshteyn@amazon.com, (703) 963-6136
Vice Chair - Ryan Henry, ryan.henry@ses.com, (202) 878-9360
FCC Representatives: Clay DeCell, clay.decell@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0803; Kathyrn Medley, kathyrn.medley@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-1211; Eric Grodsky, eric.grodsky@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0563; Dante Ibarra, dante.ibarra@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0610
IWG-3 - Meetings:
Dates: Thursday, June 13, 2024 , Thursday, June 20, 2024, Wednesday, July 3, 2024, Friday, July 19, 2024, Thursday, July 25, 2024, Thursday, August 1, 2024 Time: 2:00 PM ET
https://fcc-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1607899181?pwd=REdqM0MrUUllUmlsMGRkOFhPTlcvUT09 Meeting ID: 160 789 9181
Passcode: 442135
* +1 669 254 5252 US
* +1 669 216 1590 US
* * *
Informal Working Group 4: Mobile Satellite and Space Science Services
Chair - Damon Ladson dladson@hwglaw.com, (202) 730-1315
Vice Chair - George John, george.john@hoganlovells.com, (202) 673-6989
FCC Representatives: Dante Ibarra, dante.ibarra@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0610; Clay DeCell, clay.decell@fcc.gov, telephone: (202) 418-0803 IWG-4 - Meetings:
Dates: Thursday, June 13, 2024 , Thursday, June 20, 2024, Wednesday, July 3, 2024, Friday, July 19, 2024, Thursday, July 25, 2024, Thursday, August 1, 2024
Time: 11:00 AM ET
https://fcc-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1607899181?pwd=REdqM0MrUUllUmlsMGRkOFhPTlcvUT09 Meeting ID: 160 789 9181
Passcode: 442135
* +1 669 254 5252 US
* +1 669 216 1590 US
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-473A1.pdf
