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
SEC Issues Order Involving Thomas Christophe Prentice
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-18894) involving Thomas Christophe Prentice:
ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFS
Thomas Christophe Prentice filed an application for review of a FINRA decision denying his request to use FINRA's arbitration forum for a claim to expunge a prior adverse arbitration award from his Central Registration Depository record. Prentice sought arbitration for two claims--one to expunge a prior adverse arbitration award and one to expunge a prior customer complaint. FINRA allowed the claim to expunge the prior customer complaint
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-18894) involving Thomas Christophe Prentice:
ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFS
Thomas Christophe Prentice filed an application for review of a FINRA decision denying his request to use FINRA's arbitration forum for a claim to expunge a prior adverse arbitration award from his Central Registration Depository record. Prentice sought arbitration for two claims--one to expunge a prior adverse arbitration award and one to expunge a prior customer complaint. FINRA allowed the claim to expunge the prior customer complaintto proceed to arbitration, but determined that the claim to expunge the prior adverse arbitration award was ineligible for expungement in FINRA's arbitration forum. According to the award in the record with respect to the claim to expunge the prior customer complaint, during the arbitration of that claim, Prentice asked the arbitrator to expunge the prior adverse arbitration award as requested in his other claim, despite FINRA's "decision to deny the forum as to" that request. The arbitrator "denied" Prentice's motion as lacking "compelling justification."
At this time, the Commission would benefit from briefing on the following issues:
* Did Prentice ask the arbitrator to consider and rule on his claim to expunge theprior adverse arbitration award despite FINRA's determination that the claim wasineligible for arbitration?1
* In denying the claim as lacking "compelling justification" did the arbitrator denyexpungement relief as to that claim on the merits, or instead decline to considerthe claim?
* How does the arbitrator's decision bear on whether Prentice accessed the arbitration service, or was prohibited or limited in his access to that service? What is the relevance of the Commission's decision in John Boone Kincaid?/2
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Prentice may file a brief, not to exceed 14,000 words, addressing the issues set forth above by February 14, 2020. FINRA may file a response brief, not to exceed 14,000 words, by March 6, 2020. Prentice may file a reply brief, not to exceed 7,000 words, by March 13, 2020. No briefs in addition to those specified above may be filed without leave of the Commission./3
For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority.
Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary
* * *
1/ We direct the parties' attention to Rules 154 and 452 of the Rules of Practice governing motions for leave to adduce additional evidence. 17 C.F.R. Sec. 201.154, .452.
2/ See John Boone Kincaid III, Exchange Act Release No. 87384, 2019 WL 5445514 (Oct. 22, 2019) (concluding that FINRA action giving effect to arbitrator's award was not a "denial of access" to arbitration, and thus there was no jurisdiction under Section 19(d), where the applicant received a ruling from the arbitrator denying the requested relief and sought to challenge the ruling as an erroneous application of FINRA's rules).
3/ Attention is called to Rules of Practice 150-153, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 201.150-153, with respect to form and service.
SEC Issues Order Involving Jay Zola Scoratow
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-19671) involving Jay Zola Scoratow:
ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Jay Zola Scoratow ("Respondent").
II. In
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-19671) involving Jay Zola Scoratow:
ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Jay Zola Scoratow ("Respondent").
II. Inanticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the "Offer") which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings and the findings contained in paragraph III.B. below, which is admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions ("Order"), as set forth below.
III. On the basis of this Order and Respondent's Offer, the Commission finds that:
A. Respondent, age 63, and a resident of La Jolla, California, was associated with and provided substantial assistance to individuals and entites that engaged in the business of effecting transactions in, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase and sale of, securities. During the period relevant to this action, Respondent's associates were neither registered with the Commission as either a broker or a dealer nor associated with a broker or dealer registered with the Commission.
B. On January 22, 2020, a judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"); Sections 10(b) and 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act; and Exchange Act Rule 10b 5, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Messier et al., Civil Action Number 20-cv-105-BAS (AGS), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
C. The Commission's complaint alleged that, in connection with the offer and sale of securities, Respondent, among other things and acting through his various business entities, engaged in a fraudulent scheme. Respondent also, acting through his various business entities and using the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, knowingly provided substantial assistance to others who effected transactions in, or induced or attempted to induce the purchase and sale of, securities while neither he nor those he assisted were registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer or associated with an entity registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer.
IV. In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent's Offer.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Respondent be, and hereby is, barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and
Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, Respondent be, and hereby is, barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.
Any reapplication for association by Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the satisfaction of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement ordered against Respondent, whether or not the Commission has fully or partially waived payment of such disgorgement; (b) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (c) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (d) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary
SEC Charges Husband and Wife With Nearly $1 Billion Ponzi Scheme
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 24:
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a California-based couple with orchestrating a nearly billion-dollar Ponzi scheme involving alternative energy tax credits.
According to the SEC's complaint, Jeffrey and Paulette Carpoff raised approximately $910 million from 17 investors between 2011 and 2018 by offering securities in the form of investment contracts through their two solar generator companies, DC Solar Solutions Inc. and DC Solar Distribution Inc. The Carpoffs allegedly promised
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 24:
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a California-based couple with orchestrating a nearly billion-dollar Ponzi scheme involving alternative energy tax credits.
According to the SEC's complaint, Jeffrey and Paulette Carpoff raised approximately $910 million from 17 investors between 2011 and 2018 by offering securities in the form of investment contracts through their two solar generator companies, DC Solar Solutions Inc. and DC Solar Distribution Inc. The Carpoffs allegedly promisedinvestors tax credits, lease payments, and profits from the operation of mobile solar generators. In reality, the complaint alleges, most of the generators were never manufactured, and the vast majority of the purported lease revenue paid to investors in fact came from new investor funds. As part of the scheme, the Carpoffs arranged for investors to receive false documents, including financial statements, lease arrangements, and generator certifications. Throughout the scheme, the Carpoffs allegedly siphoned off investor funds and used at least $140 million of investor money to fund their lavish lifestyle, which included 150 luxury and sports cars, dozens of properties, and a share in a private jet service.
"While the Carpoffs' pitch to investors seemed new and innovative, their alleged fraud was old and simple," said Daniel Michael, Chief of the Enforcement Division's Complex Financial Instruments Unit. "This case is a reminder that fraudsters often try to lure investors by associating themselves with trendy technologies."
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Sacramento, charges the Carpoffs with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. The defendants have consented to permanent injunctions, with monetary relief to be determined by the court at a later date. The SEC previously charged three other defendants in this matter.
In a parallel criminal case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California today announced criminal charges against Jeffrey and Paulette Carpoff.
The SEC's continuing investigation is being conducted by Sarra Cho and Christopher Nee and supervised by Andrew Sporkin, all of the SEC's Complex Financial Instruments Unit, with the assistance of Kam Lee. The litigation is being led by Dean Conway and supervised by Thomas Bednar. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service.
NRC Announces Opportunity to Request Hearing on Indian Point License Transfer Application
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for review an application from Entergy Nuclear Operations to transfer the licenses for Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3 and also for the associated independent spent fuel storage installation, to Holtec Decommissioning International.
Entergy submitted the application on Nov. 21, 2019, and HDI submitted a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report for the site, near Buchanan, N.Y., in December 2019. The NRC will consider that report as a supplement to the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for review an application from Entergy Nuclear Operations to transfer the licenses for Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3 and also for the associated independent spent fuel storage installation, to Holtec Decommissioning International.
Entergy submitted the application on Nov. 21, 2019, and HDI submitted a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report for the site, near Buchanan, N.Y., in December 2019. The NRC will consider that report as a supplement to thetransfer application.
The NRC has published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-00824) to request an adjudicatory hearing regarding the application. Hearing requests may be filed by February 12, by anyone whose interests may be affected by the proposed transfer. More information on the hearing process (https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing-pro.html) is available on the NRC website.
The application (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1932/ML19326B953.pdf), excluding proprietary details, is available in ADAMS, the NRC electronic document database. The transfer, if approved, would occur following the permanent shutdown and defueling of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. Indian Point Unit 1 permanently shut down in 1974. Accepting the application for review, or "docketing" the application, does not indicate whether the Commission will approve or reject the request.
NLRB Issues Decision on Groceryworks.com Operating
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following decision (Case No. 19-RC-254203) by Region 19 Director Ronald K. Hooks:
GROCERYWORKS.COM OPERATING COMPANY LLC, Employer
and
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 58 AND GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 162, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Joint Petitioners
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The Employer provides grocery delivery service in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. Joint Petitioners seek to represent a unit of about 56 ecommerce drivers employed to deliver groceries from 6 stores in King City,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following decision (Case No. 19-RC-254203) by Region 19 Director Ronald K. Hooks:
GROCERYWORKS.COM OPERATING COMPANY LLC, Employer
and
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 58 AND GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 162, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Joint Petitioners
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The Employer provides grocery delivery service in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. Joint Petitioners seek to represent a unit of about 56 ecommerce drivers employed to deliver groceries from 6 stores in King City,West Linn, and Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington.
The parties have reached a stipulation on most substantive manners. There are two contested matters. First, the Employer believes that the petitioned-for employees share a community of interest with three e-commerce driver/trainers, whereas the Joint Petitioners argue that these three employees should be excluded as supervisors. Because the three employees constitute a small percentage of the petitioned-for unit and their inclusion or exclusion would not significantly affect the size or character of the unit, I have deferred the question of the eligibility of these employees to post-election proceedings. Second, the parties could not agree as to the logistics of holding the petitioned-for election, which is a non-litigable issue. As explained in greater detail in the following sections, I will direct a mail-ballot election.
THE EMPLOYER'S OPERATION
The Employer provides Internet-based grocery delivery from Safeway stores. The delivery area extends from Longview, Washington, south to King City, Oregon, a distance of 61 miles, and from Washougal, Washington, west to Hillsboro, Oregon, a distance of 41 miles./1
Drivers work 4-hour shifts, from 7 to 11 AM, 11:30 AM to 4 PM, and 4:30 to 8:30 PM, although sometimes work past the end of their shifts as necessary given customer orders, customer locations, and traffic. Drivers consistently work particular shifts and days.
For each shift, each driver is assigned to a store, from which the driver picks up groceries at the beginning of and throughout the shift. Although each driver has a "home" store to which the driver is normally assigned, drivers frequently are assigned to deliver from other stores. There are no fixed routes, as deliveries are made according to customer orders. As of the hearing date, January 15, 2020, the Employer had not yet issued schedules for the days it proposed holding the election, January 26 and 27.
CONCLUSION
Election arrangements, including the voting method, are not matters within the scope of a pre-election hearing. Pursuant to its longstanding practice, the Board has left such determinations to the discretion of the Regional Director. Austal USA, LLC, 357 NLRB 329, 330 (2011); Halliburton Services, 265 NLRB 1154, 1154 (1982); see also NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part Two), Representation Proceedings Sections 11228, 11301.4. I recognize that it is also the Board's longstanding policy that representation elections should, generally, be conducted manually, but there are instances where circumstances tend to make it difficult for eligible employees to vote in a manual election or where a manual election, though possible, is impractical and the use of a mail ballot enhances the opportunity for all employees to vote. Id. at 11301.2. This includes situations where eligible voters are "scattered" because of their job duties over a wide geographic area, or where eligible voters are "scattered" in the sense that their work schedules vary significantly, so that they are not present at a common location at common times. Id.
Manual elections are in general preferable, in part because when held in an employee's workplace they facilitate the opportunity for all employees to vote. However, conducting a manual election at only a subset of locations has the opposite effect for many employees, placing a significant burden on those not employed at those locations, requiring them to travel to an entirely separate location. Here, it is not in dispute that a manual election cannot be held at all 6 sites involved. While the Employer has suggested running the election over multiple days, I find the potential of requiring an employee to report to a location where they do not work inconsistent with enhancing an employee's ability to vote. Nor is it clear that schedules for the election days would be issued prior to posting of the notice of election. This means it is unknown what store each employee would be delivering from on the election days and therefore unknown at what location each would vote.
Furthermore, here, although the Employer is willing to allow employees to travel on work time to get to a polling place to vote, the Employer cannot assure in advance that employees will be able to do so, given the on-demand and traveling nature of their work. In order to attempt to ensure all drivers could vote, the Employer proposed closing delivery orders during certain windows of time, a disruption of its business. A manual election typically involves a minimal disruption in an employer's business, but this is not the case here. Therefore, in reviewing the options, I have determined it is not feasible to conduct manual voting without a significant risk of disenfranchisement. I also take administrative notice of the fact that all political elections in the states of Washington and Oregon are conducted entirely by mail; therefore, the employees will be familiar with voting by mail. Under these circumstances, I find it is appropriate to conduct a mail-ballot election.
Based upon the entire record in this matter, I conclude and find as follows:
1. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein./2
3. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.
4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time eCommerce Drivers employed by the Employer at or from its facilities located at 15570 Southwest Pacific Highway, King City, Oregon 97224; 22000 Salamo Road, West Linn, Oregon 97068; 1100 Northeast Broadway Street, Portland, Oregon 97232; 2800 Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, Oregon 97214; 13485 Northwest Cornell Road, Portland, Oregon 97229; and 13023 Northeast Highway 99, Suite 1, Vancouver, WA 98686.
Excluded: All confidential employees, office clerical employees, and guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
In view of the fact that the Employer has not contested that the unit sought by Joint Petitioners is appropriate for collective bargaining, I conclude that the Employer's Statement of Position establishes that the Employer is disputing the exclusion of driver/trainers from the unit and therefore the eligibility of these individuals to vote. Because the Employer's Statement of Position raises eligibility issues affecting at most 5 percent of the unit, I conclude that the Employer's contentions do not significantly change the size or character of the unit and thus are not relevant to a question concerning representation. Therefore, I instructed the hearing officer to not allow the parties to present evidence, as I concluded that it was unnecessary to resolve the eligibility issues before the election is conducted.
Therefore, consistent with Section 102.64 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, I direct an election in this matter, and I further order that driver/trainers may vote in the election, but their ballots shall be challenged, because their eligibility has not been resolved. The eligibility or inclusion of these individuals will be resolved, if necessary, following the election.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The National Labor Relations Board will conduct a secret ballot election among the employees in the unit found appropriate above. Employees will vote whether or not they wish to be jointly represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Teamsters Local Union No. 58 and General Teamsters Local Union No. 162.
A. Election Details
The ballots will be mailed to employees employed in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. At 4:30 PM on Tuesday, February 4, 2020, ballots will be mailed to voters from the National Labor Relations Board, Subregion 36, Green-Wyatt Federal Building, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 605, Portland, Oregon. Voters must sign the outside of the envelope in which the ballot is returned. Any ballot received in an envelope that is not signed will be automatically void.
Those employees who believe that they are eligible to vote and did not receive a ballot in the mail by Tuesday, February 11, 2020, should communicate immediately with the National Labor Relations Board by either calling the Subregion 36 Office at 503-326-3085 or our national toll-free line at 1-844-762-NLRB (1-844-762-6572).
All ballots will be commingled and counted at the Subregion 36 Office at the Green-Wyatt Federal Building, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, at 3 PM./3
In order to be valid and counted, the returned ballots must be received in the Subregion 36 Office prior to the counting of the ballots.
B. Voting Eligibility
Eligible to vote are those in the unit who were employed during the payroll period ending January 11, 2020, including employees who did not work during that period because they were ill, on vacation, or temporarily laid off.
Employees engaged in an economic strike, who have retained their status as strikers and who have not been permanently replaced, are also eligible to vote. In addition, in an economic strike that commenced less than 12 months before the election date, employees engaged in such strike who have retained their status as strikers but who have been permanently replaced, as well as their replacements, are eligible to vote. Unit employees in the military services of the United States may vote by mail as described above.
Also eligible to vote using the Board's challenged ballot procedure are those individuals employed in the classifications whose eligibility remains unresolved as specified above and in the Notice of Election.
Ineligible to vote are (1) employees who have quit or been discharged for cause since the designated payroll period; (2) striking employees who have been discharged for cause since the strike began and who have not been rehired or reinstated before the election date; and (3) employees who are engaged in an economic strike that began more than 12 months before the election date and who have been permanently replaced.
C. Voter List
As required by Section 102.67(l) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer must provide the Regional Director and parties named in this decision a list of the full names, work locations, shifts, job classifications, and contact information (including home addresses, available personal email addresses, and available home and personal cell telephone numbers) of all eligible voters.
To be timely filed and served, the list must be received by the regional director and the parties by January 28, 2020. The list must be accompanied by a certificate of service showing service on all parties. The region will no longer serve the voter list.
Unless the Employer certifies that it does not possess the capacity to produce the list in the required form, the list must be provided in a table in a Microsoft Word file (.doc or docx) or a file that is compatible with Microsoft Word (.doc or docx). The first column of the list must begin with each employee's last name and the list must be alphabetized (overall or by department) by last name. Because the list will be used during the election, the font size of the list must be the equivalent of Times New Roman 10 or larger. That font does not need to be used but the font must be that size or larger. A sample, optional form for the list is provided on the NLRB website at http://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/conduct-elections/representation-case-ruleseffective-april-14-2015.
When feasible, the list shall be filed electronically with the Region and served electronically on the other parties named in this decision. The list may be electronically filed with the Region by using the E-filing system on the Agency's website at http://www.nlrb.gov. Once the website is accessed, click on E-File Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions.
Failure to comply with the above requirements will be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper and timely objections are filed. However, the Employer may not object to the failure to file or serve the list within the specified time or in the proper format if it is responsible for the failure.
No party shall use the voter list for purposes other than the representation proceeding, Board proceedings arising from it, and related matters.
D. Posting of Notices of Election
Pursuant to Section 102.67(k) of the Board's Rules, the Employer must post copies of the Notice of Election accompanying this Decision in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees in the unit found appropriate are customarily posted. The Notice must be posted so all pages of the Notice are simultaneously visible. In addition, if the Employer customarily communicates electronically with some or all of the employees in the unit found appropriate, the Employer must also distribute the Notice of Election electronically to those employees. The Employer must post copies of the Notice at least 3 full working days prior to 12:01 a.m. of the day of the election and copies must remain posted until the end of the election. For purposes of posting, working day means an entire 24-hour period excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. However, a party shall be estopped from objecting to the nonposting of notices if it is responsible for the nonposting, and likewise shall be estopped from objecting to the nondistribution of notices if it is responsible for the nondistribution. Failure to follow the posting requirements set forth above will be grounds for setting aside the election if proper and timely objections are filed.
RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, a request for review may be filed with the Board at any time following the issuance of this Decision until 14 days after a final disposition of the proceeding by the Regional Director. Accordingly, a party is not precluded from filing a request for review of this decision after the election on the grounds that it did not file a request for review of this Decision prior to the election. The request for review must conform to the requirements of Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
A request for review may be E-Filed through the Agency's website but may not be filed by facsimile. To E-File the request for review, go to http://www.nlrb.gov, select E-File Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions. If not E-Filed, the request for review should be addressed to the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570-0001. A party filing a request for review must serve a copy of the request on the other parties and file a copy with the Regional Director. A certificate of service must be filed with the Board together with the request for review.
Neither the filing of a request for review nor the Board's granting a request for review will stay the election in this matter unless specifically ordered by the Board.
Dated: January 24, 2020
Ronald K. Hooks, Regional Director
National Labor Relations Board, Region 19
915 2nd Ave., Ste. 2948
Seattle, WA 98174-1006
* * *
1/ Distances derived from Google, of which I take administrative notice.
2/ The Employer, a Delaware corporation with offices and places of business in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, is engaged in the business of grocery delivery services. Within the past twelve months, a representative period, the Employer received gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Oregon.
3/ At hearing, the Union waived its right to have the voter list 10 days prior to the election.
FCC Wireless Bureau Issues Public Notice on 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (WT Docket No. 20-21) on the Hawaiian Homeland Department's request for waiver to file as an eligible entity in the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window:
Comment Date: February 10, 2020
Reply Comment Date: February 20, 2020
By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a request for waiver filed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) to consider the DHHL an eligible entity for the purpose of applying for wireless spectrum licenses in the upcoming 2.5 GHz Rural
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (WT Docket No. 20-21) on the Hawaiian Homeland Department's request for waiver to file as an eligible entity in the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window:
Comment Date: February 10, 2020
Reply Comment Date: February 20, 2020
By this Public Notice, we seek comment on a request for waiver filed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) to consider the DHHL an eligible entity for the purpose of applying for wireless spectrum licenses in the upcoming 2.5 GHz RuralTribal Priority Window.
The 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window (Window) was established by the Commission in a July 2019 Report & Order; the Window provides an opportunity for federally-recognized Native American Tribes, and certain other eligible entities, to obtain licenses for unassigned spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band over their eligible Tribal lands, subject to certain limitations. The rules adopted in the Report & Order define eligible Tribal lands as, among other things, "any federally recognized Indian Tribe's reservation, pueblo or colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) and Indian Allotments, see Sec. 54.400(e) of this chapter, as well as Hawaiian Home Lands--areas held in trust for native Hawaiians by the State of Hawaii, pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, July 9, 1921, 42 Stat 108, et seq., as amended. . ." The same rules define eligible entities as "federally recognized American Indian Tribe[s] or Alaska Native Village[s]; or an entity that is owned and controlled by a federally-recognized Tribe or a consortium of federally-recognized Tribes." The Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains a list of federally-recognized Tribal entities; the most recent version of this list was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2019, and contains no Tribal entities located in Hawaii.
The DHHL argues that the Commission's definition of eligible entities excludes native Hawaiians, and therefore leaves native Hawaiians with no path to obtaining the wireless spectrum licenses offered in the Rural Tribal Priority Window. The DHHL notes the Commission's explicit inclusion of Hawaiian Home Lands in the definition of eligible areas, and it argues that the omission of native Hawaiians from the list of eligible entities therefore produces a result that is contrary to the Commission's stated purpose of "provid[ing] Tribal Nations with an opportunity to obtain unassigned [2.5 GHz] spectrum to address the communications needs of their communities." The DHHL further argues that it is the appropriate entity to represent native Hawaiians in obtaining and managing this spectrum, because of its designation by the State of Hawaii as the entity responsible for managing Hawaiian Home Lands, including trust resources, and because of its capabilities and operational history with regard to "managing and licensing utilities for expansion and service to rural Homestead communities." DHHL provides a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism and itself in which all three agencies agree DHHL is the appropriate applicant.
We note that a grant of this waiver request would not automatically award the DHHL any wireless spectrum license, nor would it guarantee the result of any application for any licenses that the DHHL may file in the future. A grant of the waiver would merely specify that the DHHL qualifies as an eligible entity under the Commission's rules for the purposes of the Rural Tribal Priority Window. Any application filed by the DHHL pursuant to this waiver would be required to meet all relevant criteria under the Commission's rules.
We seek comment on this waiver request.
Procedural Matters
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments in response to the waiver request on or before the dates listed on the first page of this Public Notice. All pleadings must reference the docket number appearing on the first page of this Public Notice. Parties may file comments using (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
* Electronic Filers: File comments electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.
* In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Send filings by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. Address filings to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
* Deliver hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554 between 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Use rubber bands or fasteners to hold deliveries together. Dispose of all envelopes before entering the building.
* Send commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
* Send U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail to 445 12th St., SW, Washington DC 20554.
The request, and comments and reply comments filed in response to this Public Notice are available for viewing via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number appearing on the first page of this Public Notice. The documents also will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554. Reference Information Center business hours are available at https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-reference-information-center.
Alternate formats of this Public Notice (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY), or send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov.
This proceeding has been designated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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.
For further information, contact Catherine Schroeder of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-1956, Catherine.Schroeder@fcc.gov.
Action by the Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
* * *
1/ See Request for Waiver of the 2.5 GHz Report & Order Tribal Priority Window Entity Eligibility Rules (dated Jan. 14, 2020) (Waiver Request).
2/ Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5447, 5463-69, paras. 47-65 (2019) (Report & Order).
3/ See 47 CFR Sec. 27.1204(b)(2).
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 27.1204(b)(1).
5/ See Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 84 FR 1200 (2019).
6/ See Waiver Request at 2.
7/ See Waiver Request at 5-6, quoting Report & Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5463, para. 47.
8/ See Waiver Request at 7.
9/ See Waiver Request at 3.
10/ See Waiver Request at Exhibit 1.
11/ Specifically, the requirements of 47 CFR Sec. 27.1204(b)(1) would be waived with respect to the DHHL. All other provisions of Sec. 27.1204 would remain in effect.
12/ See 47 CFR Sec. 27.1204.
13/ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).
14/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.1200(a), 1.1206.
CFTC to Hold an Open Commission Meeting on January 30
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Heath P. Tarbert announced the CFTC will hold an open meeting on Thursday, January 30, 2020 at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. A morning session will convene from 9:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (EST) to consider the following:
* Proposed Rule: Position Limits for Derivatives
The meeting will resume for an afternoon session from 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (EST) to consider the following:
* Proposed Rule: Amendments to Codify No-Action Relief in Swap Execution
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Heath P. Tarbert announced the CFTC will hold an open meeting on Thursday, January 30, 2020 at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. A morning session will convene from 9:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (EST) to consider the following:
* Proposed Rule: Position Limits for Derivatives
The meeting will resume for an afternoon session from 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (EST) to consider the following:
* Proposed Rule: Amendments to Codify No-Action Relief in Swap ExecutionFacility and Real-Time Reporting Requirements
The meeting is open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also watch a live webcast or listen to the meeting via conference call using a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. People requiring special accommodations to attend the meeting because of a disability should contact the Office of Public Affairs at (202) 418-5080.
What: CFTC Open Meeting
Location: CFTC Headquarters Lobby-Level Hearing Room
1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20581
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2020
Time: Morning session
9:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (EST)
Afternoon session
1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (EST)
Viewing/Listening Instructions: Watch the live webcast at http://www.cftc.gov. To listen to the live audio feed, call the toll or toll-free numbers listed below. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation. Conference call information below:
Domestic Toll-Free: 866-844-9416
International Toll Numbers: International Numbers
Conference Passcode: 8985313
Members of the press interested in covering the meeting in person should RSVP to press@cftc.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, January 29. Late RSVPs and walk-ins cannot be guaranteed workspace.
