FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Testifies Before Congressional Subcommittee on Improving Sports Safety
The Federal Trade Commission testified before Congress on actions it has taken to help ensure that concussion protection claims made for football helmets and other sports equipment are truthful and supported by reliable scientific evidence.
Testifying on behalf of the Commission before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, Richard Cleland, Assistant Director for Advertising Practices in FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, outlined the agency’s enforcement efforts. The testimony notes that as awareness of the danger of concussions has grown, manufacturers have started making concussion-protection claims for an increasing array of sports-related products.
“Given the dangers that concussions pose for young athletes engaged in sports, it is essential that advertising for products claiming to reduce the risk of this injury be truthful and substantiated,” the testimony states.
The testimony points out that in August 2012 the Commission announced a settlement with the marketers of the Brain-Pad mouth guard. The Commission alleged that Brain-Pad, Inc. and its president lacked a reasonable basis for their claims that Brain-Pad mouth guards reduced the risk of concussions, especially those caused by lower jaw impacts, and that they had falsely claimed that scientific studies proved that those mouth guards did so. The order in that case prohibits these and other deceptive claims.
In November 2012, after the order in the Brain-Pad case became final, the Commission staff sent out warning letters to 18 other manufacturers of sports equipment, advising them of the Brain-Pad settlement and warning them that they might be making deceptive concussion protection claims for their products, according to the testimony.
The Commission staff also investigated concussion risk reduction claims made by three major manufacturers of football helmets: Riddell Sports Group, Inc., Schutt Sports Inc., and Xenith, LLC. The staff closed the investigations without taking formal action. All three companies discontinued potentially deceptive claims in their advertising, or had agreed to do so, the testimony stated.
The Commission will continue monitoring the market to ensure that advertisers do not mislead consumers about their products’ concussion-protection capabilities, or the science behind them. The Commission’s approach will be balanced, to avoid inadvertently chilling research or impeding development of new technologies and products that truly do provide concussion protection, the testimony concluded.
The Commission vote approving the testimony and its inclusion in the formal record was 4-0.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
URBAN ROOF COLOR AND REDUCING HEAT
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Is white--or green--the new black in cities?
How effective are white roofs, green roofs, and other urban heat-reducing technologies?
Punxsutawney Phil's Groundhog Day prediction may have called for six more weeks of winter, but the first day of spring is now around the corner.
After a long season of snow and ice across the U.S. and around the world, warmer weather will likely be greeted with open arms.
In a hotter world, however, the bloom may quickly be off the rose.
Cities: The new deserts?
When we think about the most sizzling locations on the planet, we often picture black-sand deserts. Indeed, research shows that the highest temperatures on Earth are in such dry, treeless and dark-colored places.
The description could fit cities just as well.
With hotter summers perhaps as big a threat as colder winters to the lives of humans and other species, scientists are studying ways of mitigating climate change in urban areas.
They're throwing icy water--metaphorically if not literally--on what's called urban heat islands: Cities with a patchwork of black surfaces. The researchers are starting where the sun first burns: rooftops.
The realities of a changing climate
"Life in a warming world will require human ingenuity to adapt to the new realities," says Matei Georgescu, a sustainability scientist at Arizona State University's School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning.
"Greenhouse gas-induced warming and the expansion of the megalopolis are significant drivers of our warming planet," says Georgescu. "We need to find adaptation technologies that will help us acclimate."
How well some of these adaptation technologies, including so-called "cool roofs"--white roofs, green (or garden-planted) roofs and hybrids--work, and how they perform in various locations "has been a big unknown," says Georgescu.
Through a National Science Foundation (NSF) Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC) grant, he and colleagues are looking at the effectiveness of common adaptation technologies to reduce warming caused by urban expansion.
The WSC program is part of NSF's Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability initiative.
"This research underscores that what we build has effects well beyond where we build it," says Tom Torgersen, a program director in NSF's Directorate for Geosciences and lead for the WSC program. "New solutions are clearly needed in a world of warming temperatures and larger cities."
Conversion from natural to urbanized lands "has consequences for regional climate and for the many inhabitants living within what we call 'the built environment,'" Georgescu says.
All cities not alike
Urban expansion in the United States, considered as a stand-alone factor apart from greenhouse gas-induced climate change, can raise temperatures by almost six degrees Fahrenheit.
Results of Georgescu's research, published in a recent paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), show that while urban adaptation technologies like cool roofs can counteract that increase, their effects change with the season--and depend on where they're located.
Georgescu, along with Philip Morefield, Britta Bierwagen and Christopher Weaver of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, studied how these technologies fare in different places across the United States.
"We looked at each adaptation strategy and its effects through the seasons," says Georgescu, "and quantified its consequences for rainfall, climate and energy demand.
"We found that geography matters."
"Cool roofs" in California: The West Coast story
What works in California's Central Valley, such as cool roofs, doesn't necessarily work in other places in the country, like Florida.
"The effects of cool roofs extend beyond surface temperatures to rainfall and energy demand," says Georgescu. "There are trade-offs that are often unaccounted for."
In the search for ways to reflect incoming solar radiation and decrease energy demand during summer months, painting roofs white has been touted as an easy answer.
In fact, these cool roofs are effective in certain areas, says Georgescu. "But in more northern locations, this strategy in winter further cools the environment," he says. "That leads to a need for additional heat to keep buildings warm."
White roofs, therefore, aren't always a panacea.
Is the story any different for green roofs?
"There's an important seasonal contrast between white roofs, which are highly reflective," says Georgescu, "and green roofs."
While green roofs don't cool the environment as much during the summer, they also don't nullify energy savings gained during warm months by creating new demands during colder months.
"Cool roofs" in Florida: The East Coast tale
In Florida, says Georgescu, there's yet another effect. "Our simulations indicate that white roofs in Florida result in a significant reduction in precipitation," he says.
"They lead to a decrease in rainfall by a considerable amount each day--almost 50 percent. That has implications for water availability, stream flow and ecosystems."
In Florida, white roofs, the team found, may not be the best way of overcoming the urban heat island effect. "Floridians may want to choose another technology," says Georgescu.
No one-size-fits-all
The scientists suggest that planning and design choices--and where they will be implemented--should be considered in efforts to mitigate climate change and cities' growth.
Counteracting "urban climate change," Georgescu says, "depends on specific geographic factors that need to be considered.
"There are no one-size-fits-all solutions."
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF (
Investigators
Alex Mahalov
Netra Chhetri
Matei Georgescu
Michael Hanemann
Related Institutions/Organizations
Arizona State University
Is white--or green--the new black in cities?
How effective are white roofs, green roofs, and other urban heat-reducing technologies?
Punxsutawney Phil's Groundhog Day prediction may have called for six more weeks of winter, but the first day of spring is now around the corner.
After a long season of snow and ice across the U.S. and around the world, warmer weather will likely be greeted with open arms.
In a hotter world, however, the bloom may quickly be off the rose.
Cities: The new deserts?
When we think about the most sizzling locations on the planet, we often picture black-sand deserts. Indeed, research shows that the highest temperatures on Earth are in such dry, treeless and dark-colored places.
The description could fit cities just as well.
With hotter summers perhaps as big a threat as colder winters to the lives of humans and other species, scientists are studying ways of mitigating climate change in urban areas.
They're throwing icy water--metaphorically if not literally--on what's called urban heat islands: Cities with a patchwork of black surfaces. The researchers are starting where the sun first burns: rooftops.
The realities of a changing climate
"Life in a warming world will require human ingenuity to adapt to the new realities," says Matei Georgescu, a sustainability scientist at Arizona State University's School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning.
"Greenhouse gas-induced warming and the expansion of the megalopolis are significant drivers of our warming planet," says Georgescu. "We need to find adaptation technologies that will help us acclimate."
How well some of these adaptation technologies, including so-called "cool roofs"--white roofs, green (or garden-planted) roofs and hybrids--work, and how they perform in various locations "has been a big unknown," says Georgescu.
Through a National Science Foundation (NSF) Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC) grant, he and colleagues are looking at the effectiveness of common adaptation technologies to reduce warming caused by urban expansion.
The WSC program is part of NSF's Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability initiative.
"This research underscores that what we build has effects well beyond where we build it," says Tom Torgersen, a program director in NSF's Directorate for Geosciences and lead for the WSC program. "New solutions are clearly needed in a world of warming temperatures and larger cities."
Conversion from natural to urbanized lands "has consequences for regional climate and for the many inhabitants living within what we call 'the built environment,'" Georgescu says.
All cities not alike
Urban expansion in the United States, considered as a stand-alone factor apart from greenhouse gas-induced climate change, can raise temperatures by almost six degrees Fahrenheit.
Results of Georgescu's research, published in a recent paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), show that while urban adaptation technologies like cool roofs can counteract that increase, their effects change with the season--and depend on where they're located.
Georgescu, along with Philip Morefield, Britta Bierwagen and Christopher Weaver of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, studied how these technologies fare in different places across the United States.
"We looked at each adaptation strategy and its effects through the seasons," says Georgescu, "and quantified its consequences for rainfall, climate and energy demand.
"We found that geography matters."
"Cool roofs" in California: The West Coast story
What works in California's Central Valley, such as cool roofs, doesn't necessarily work in other places in the country, like Florida.
"The effects of cool roofs extend beyond surface temperatures to rainfall and energy demand," says Georgescu. "There are trade-offs that are often unaccounted for."
In the search for ways to reflect incoming solar radiation and decrease energy demand during summer months, painting roofs white has been touted as an easy answer.
In fact, these cool roofs are effective in certain areas, says Georgescu. "But in more northern locations, this strategy in winter further cools the environment," he says. "That leads to a need for additional heat to keep buildings warm."
White roofs, therefore, aren't always a panacea.
Is the story any different for green roofs?
"There's an important seasonal contrast between white roofs, which are highly reflective," says Georgescu, "and green roofs."
While green roofs don't cool the environment as much during the summer, they also don't nullify energy savings gained during warm months by creating new demands during colder months.
"Cool roofs" in Florida: The East Coast tale
In Florida, says Georgescu, there's yet another effect. "Our simulations indicate that white roofs in Florida result in a significant reduction in precipitation," he says.
"They lead to a decrease in rainfall by a considerable amount each day--almost 50 percent. That has implications for water availability, stream flow and ecosystems."
In Florida, white roofs, the team found, may not be the best way of overcoming the urban heat island effect. "Floridians may want to choose another technology," says Georgescu.
No one-size-fits-all
The scientists suggest that planning and design choices--and where they will be implemented--should be considered in efforts to mitigate climate change and cities' growth.
Counteracting "urban climate change," Georgescu says, "depends on specific geographic factors that need to be considered.
"There are no one-size-fits-all solutions."
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF (
Investigators
Alex Mahalov
Netra Chhetri
Matei Georgescu
Michael Hanemann
Related Institutions/Organizations
Arizona State University
Monday, March 17, 2014
SEAL TEAM TAKES CONTROL OF HIJACKED TANKER
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Forces Board ‘Morning Glory’ Tanker Ship
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 17, 2014 – American forces yesterday boarded and took control of a commercial tanker ship that was seized earlier this month by three armed Libyans, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a Defense Department news release issued today.
"No one was hurt tonight when U.S. forces, at the request of both the Libyan and Cypriot governments, boarded and took control of the commercial tanker ‘Morning Glory,’ a stateless vessel seized earlier this month by three armed Libyans,” Kirby said in the release.
The boarding operation, approved by President Barack Obama and conducted just after 10 p.m. EDT on March 16 in international waters southeast of Cyprus, was executed by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs attached to Special Operations Command Europe, Kirby added.
"The SEAL team embarked and operated from the guided missile destroyer USS Roosevelt,” Kirby said in the release. The USS Roosevelt provided helicopter support and served as a command and control and support platform for the other members of the force assigned to conduct the mission, he said.
"The ‘Morning Glory’ is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government National Oil Company,” Kirby said in the release. “The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of As-Sidra.”
The “Morning Glory” will be underway soon to a port in Libya with a team of sailors from the USS Stout embarked, Kirby said. The sailors will be supervising the transit, he added.
The USS Roosevelt is homeported in Mayport, Fla. and is deployed as part of the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group, Kirby said, adding that the USS Stout is homeported in Norfolk, Va.
U.S. Forces Board ‘Morning Glory’ Tanker Ship
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 17, 2014 – American forces yesterday boarded and took control of a commercial tanker ship that was seized earlier this month by three armed Libyans, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a Defense Department news release issued today.
"No one was hurt tonight when U.S. forces, at the request of both the Libyan and Cypriot governments, boarded and took control of the commercial tanker ‘Morning Glory,’ a stateless vessel seized earlier this month by three armed Libyans,” Kirby said in the release.
The boarding operation, approved by President Barack Obama and conducted just after 10 p.m. EDT on March 16 in international waters southeast of Cyprus, was executed by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs attached to Special Operations Command Europe, Kirby added.
"The SEAL team embarked and operated from the guided missile destroyer USS Roosevelt,” Kirby said in the release. The USS Roosevelt provided helicopter support and served as a command and control and support platform for the other members of the force assigned to conduct the mission, he said.
"The ‘Morning Glory’ is carrying a cargo of oil owned by the Libyan government National Oil Company,” Kirby said in the release. “The ship and its cargo were illicitly obtained from the Libyan port of As-Sidra.”
The “Morning Glory” will be underway soon to a port in Libya with a team of sailors from the USS Stout embarked, Kirby said. The sailors will be supervising the transit, he added.
The USS Roosevelt is homeported in Mayport, Fla. and is deployed as part of the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group, Kirby said, adding that the USS Stout is homeported in Norfolk, Va.
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ON UKRAINE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Ukraine
Via Conference Call
9:39 A.M. EDT
MS. HAYDEN: Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us on yet another snow day here in Washington. Hopefully, by now you’ve seen that we have put out a new executive order this morning on Ukraine, and we have a number of senior administration officials here to talk to you about that and other measures we’re taking. This call is on background with no embargo. Again, these are senior administration officials. And with that, I’ll turn it over to senior administration official number one.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. I’ll just give a brief overview here and then hand it over to my colleague who can speak in greater depth about the sanctions that we’re announcing today.
First of all, President Obama has been very clear since the Russian intervention in Crimea that we, together with our European allies, would be imposing costs on Russia for its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity even as we have made clear our openness to a diplomatic pathway to de-escalation.
The Russians to date have continued their intervention, continued their violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And notably, yesterday, of course, we had the so-called referendum on the future of Crimea, which took place without the participation and involvement of the government in Kyiv –- a referendum that was in violation of Ukraine’s constitution, that took place in an environment of coercion, with Russia having violated international law through its intervention in Crimea. So today we are taking additional steps to impose costs on Russia for these actions.
Specifically, we are continuing to impose costs for what Russia has been doing in Crimea over the last two weeks by designating individuals for their involvement in the intervention in Crimea. But secondly, and importantly, the President has signed a new executive order that expands a scope of our sanctions to include authorization of sanctions on Russian officials, on entities operating in the arms sector in Russia, and on any individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the Russian government. And my colleague can speak to that.
We’re doing this all in very close coordination with our European allies. The Europeans are meeting today to review their measures. We have been in very regular contact with our European friends over the course of the last two weeks, and we believe that our unity is critical in sending a message to Russia that it will be isolated politically and economically if it continues down this path.
Vice President Biden is leaving tonight for Europe, where he will meet with NATO allies. In Poland, he’ll meet with not just the Polish but also the Estonians. And then, when he travels to Lithuania, he will meet with both the leaders of Lithuania and Latvia, with the message of strong reassurance and support for the security of our NATO allies.
With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. And good morning, everybody. I’d like to briefly discuss the sanctions thus taken today, and I’m happy to go into further detail in the question/answer period.
The executive order signed by the President and issued today expands on the Executive Order 13660, which the President signed about 10 days ago, on March 6th. In some ways, the new executive order that goes into effect today creates three new authorities. It creates the ability to target officials of the Russian government; to target any individuals or entities that operate in the arms or related materials sector in the Russian Federation; an individual or entity that is owned or controlled by, that acts on behalf of or that provides material support to any senior Russian government official. Essentially, this would allow the designation of what are commonly known as Russian government cronies.
In addition, today, the executive order lists seven Russian government officials for sanctions because of their status as Russian government officials, which, as I noted, this is the first of the three new authorities in this executive order. These individuals have also demonstrated support for the illegitimate actions that have recently taken place in Ukraine and have contributed to the crisis there. Any assets these individuals have within U.S. jurisdiction are frozen, and U.S. persons are prohibited from doing business with them. And we will urge our counterparts in financial institutions and businesses around the world to shun these individuals.
These individuals are Vladislav Surkov, the presidential aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin; Sergey Glazyev, also a presidential advisor to President Putin; Leonid Slutsky, a state Duma deputy; Andrei Klishas, a member of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and Chairman of the Federation Council Committee of Constitutional Law, Judicial, and Legal Affairs, and the Development of Civil Society; Valentina Matviyenko, head of the Federation Council; Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation; and Yelena Mizulina, a state Duma deputy.
So in addition to acting under the new executive order, Treasury today has imposed sanctioned on four other individuals under Executive Order 13660, the executive order that was issued on March 6th, for their actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and in undermining the legitimate government of Ukraine.
These individuals are two Crimea-based separatist leaders: Sergey Aksyonov, who claims to be the Prime Minister of Crimea; and Vladimir Konstantinov, who has been acting as the Speaker of the Crimean parliament. In addition, we’re imposing sanctions on Viktor Medvedchuk, who’s the leader of Ukrainian Choice; and former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.
The United States seeks to hold accountable individuals who use their resources or influence to support or act on behalf of senior Russian government officials. As I noted, these are the individuals known as the cronies to the Russian government.
I want to be clear that while we will not rule out taking additional steps in the future, our current focus is to identify these cronies of the Russian government and target their personal assets and wealth, rather than the business entities and industries that they may manage or oversee.
In closing, I’d note that President Obama has been crystal-clear that the United States will impose costs on those who undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation. These actions are another step in following through on that commitment. In addition, the actions taken today, including the adoption of new sanctions authorities to target Russian officials, the Russian arms industry, and the personal wealth of cronies, should serve as notice to Russia that unless it abides by its international obligations, returns its military forces to their original bases, and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the United States is prepared to take additional proportional and responsive steps to impose further political and economic costs.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Folks, just a couple of things to bear down a little bit more on why we chose the people that we chose for sanctioning today. On the first conduct-based EO, I think Victor Yanukovych is self-explanatory. Aksyonov and Kontstantinov are the two main leaders of the Crimean entity and the two major figures in Crimea responsible for pushing forward with the referendum. Medvedchuk is the leading Ukrainian connection between the Kremlin and Crimea, and the most vocal and active ideologist on the Ukrainian side for this separatist action.
On the Russian side, we can go through this in more detail if you’d like, but each of the Russian officials sanctioned today played a leading role as an ideologist, a strategist, or an architect of the referendum strategy, and is also a leading proponent of formal annexation of Crimea by Russia and has played an active public role both in Russia and in Crimea in supporting and activating the steps that have already been taken.
Just a few fun facts about the ongoing situation in Crimea and about the vote yesterday. There is broad speculation and some concrete evidence that ballots that arrived in Crimea for the referendum had been pre-marked in many cities. There are massive anomalies in the vote even as its recorded, including the fact that if you believe the figures that have been published, based on the census in Sevastopol City, 123 percent of the Sevastopol population would have had to have voted “yes” for the referendum.
Today, the Crimean Rada took further steps to join Russia. Konstantinov declared himself the head of the interim government with Aksyonov as first minister of the council. They also passed a decree authorizing an international treaty to join with the Russian Federation, and key Crimean leaders headed for Moscow today to begin negotiating their status. We understand that the EU has taken action today to sanction 21 people -- their list will not be public until tomorrow. They overlap our list in some places, but there will be slight differences in some places when they become public tomorrow.
We understand that President Putin will speak to the Russian Federal Assembly -- that’s a joint session of the Duma and the Federation Council -- tomorrow. It is being broadly speculated in Moscow and in Russia that he will use that opportunity to recommend formal annexation of Crimea to Russia.
Meanwhile, as official number one made clear, even as we exact costs on Russia for what it has already done and made clear to them that there will be further costs if there are further steps, whether they be political steps like annexation or more military steps including incursions into the East or South, or further efforts to seize entities outside of Crimea as we saw yesterday in Kherson Oblast with the gas plant, we are also continuing to keep the door open for deescalation, and continuing to have a dialogue with Russian senior officials about what that might look like were they willing to make serious efforts to address any legitimate concerns, politically and diplomatically, and were they willing to pull back forces and return security and stability, sovereignty and unity to Ukraine.
And then, finally, we are moving forward with our political and economic support for the transitional Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people, including continued negotiations on the IMF package, continued support through the OSCE for broad political monitoring missions across the country to provide independent witness to (inaudible) provocation into cities, to assist with demobilization of irregulars and police retraining, and to investigate some of the violent incidents of the past, and finally, to support the election -- the presidential election that is schedule for May 26th. We expect one of the largest OSCE-ODIHR monitoring missions in recent history for those elections.
Let me pause there.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. And just to sum up, with these actions I think we’re demonstrating again that we have the ability to escalate our pressure in response to Russian actions. Some of these actions were in response to the initial intervention in Crimea that, the designations made under the first executive order. The new executive order gives us broader authority to respond to this so-called referendum that took place over the weekend. And going forward, we have the ability to ramp up our pressure, or, if the Russians make a separate set of choices, to deescalate based on how events unfold.
And with that, we’ll move to questions.
Q Thank you so much. A question I guess to the Treasury official on the call. There were a lot of reports over the weekend that Russia’s Central Bank and many of the oligarchs were moving their money around to evade sanctions. Can you tell us whether you think that you have any effective control with these sanctions -- certainly not in American banks -- and what coordination do you expect globally with other banking institutions as to how effective these sanctions actually will be? What kind of deterrent is this? Thank you so much.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We expect that these sanctions will be effective, and they’ll be effective I think in a number of different levels. In the first instance, as I noted, the individuals who are designated today both under the new executive order and under the preexisting executive order, all of their assets are frozen. No U.S. person can do business with them. That will have impact on some or all of these individuals. If they want to transact in dollars, for instance, they will be unable to do so, unable to send any money through the United States.
More broadly, as we've seen in other circumstances, the people who we designate tend to find great difficulty in accessing financial services elsewhere in the world, particularly in Europe, particularly in the Gulf. So to the extent any of these individuals have assets outside of Russia, in Europe or in the Gulf, or in Asia, for that matter, I think they’re going to run into difficulties. And as my colleague noted, there’s also some overlap between the list of individuals that we're designating today and what the EU will be announcing tomorrow and we're working very hard to coordinate with our partners in the EU to have our actions as synchronized and consistent as possible.
More broadly, the actions that we're taking today have an impact in making very clear that we are imposing real costs on the Russians, on the Russian economy for the actions that have occurred and setting off very clear deterrents for actions that may be contemplated.
I’d just note that since February 20th, the Russian stock market -- since February 20th through today, the Russian stock market has declined 14.7 percent. The ruble has depreciated almost 3 percent against the dollar. These moves are far in excess of other indices of other economies -- comparable economies. So what is happening here and the response to the actions that we've taken and to what we can do in the future under these new authorities I think is pretty clear and is imposing real costs.
Q Thanks for doing the call. So am I right that you all have sanctioned 11 -- (inaudible.)
MS. HAYDEN: Peter, we lost you. Can you start again?
Actually, I think we can answer what we think Peter’s question was.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Peter’s question was whether we're sanctioning 11 people altogether. That's correct. We're sanctioning seven under the new executive order, the seven Russian government officials that I ran through earlier and that my colleague elaborated on, and then four individuals under the preexisting executive order, all for actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
And we have the ability going forward, of course, as we build evidentiary cases on the first EO and as we calibrate our approach to Russian actions, to further populate both of these EOs with designations. And we, of course, also have the so-called crony capacity under the second EO as well.
Q Hi, a couple of quick ones. First of all, why wasn’t Putin named in this as far as he’s instrumental in this policy? And do we expect that there will be more in place if Russia goes forward to recognize and actually annex Crimea? And just an historic perspective -- is this the first time we've seen sanctions on the Russian government or individuals in the Russian government since the Cold War?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll take those and then my colleagues may want to add to that. With respect to President Putin, as we said in the past, it is a highly unusual and rather extraordinary case for the United States to sanction a head of state of another country. So we do not begin these types of sanctions efforts with a head of state. However, if you look at the list of the seven government officials, these are clearly people who are very close to President Putin, who provide him, as my State colleague ran through, with a lot of the advice and support and implementation of the policies that we've seen in Crimea. So there’s no question that this hits close to home in that regard.
Secondly, the ability to sanction the cronies who provide support to the Russian government really gets at individuals who have dedicated significant resources in supporting President Putin and the policies of the Russian government in the past. So, again, I think it's a very clear message that we will hold those responsible accountable for the actions of the Russian government.
In terms of your second question, yes, if the Russians continue to move forward with policies that escalate the situation we would continue to be able to designate individuals and pursue the sanctions that we announced today as well as to contemplate additional actions. So we will be calibrating very much our response in terms of sanctions to the actions that Russia takes in the coming days.
I'll leave it to my colleague to get to the historical perspective.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Historically, there was at least one sanction on a Russian entity with respect to Iran issues. But these are by far the most comprehensive sanctions applied to Russia since the end of the Cold War -- far and away so.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And I’d note by comparison, for instance, that there were comparable sanctions after the Georgia intervention.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's quite true.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can I add a couple things here -- just to say that if you look at the list of Russians who are being sanctioned here, as I said, they are the key ideologists and implementers and architects of this policy, but they are also key players, politically, in Russia in terms of advocating tightening down of human rights and individual liberties within Russia itself. A large number of the seven are very personally close to the Kremlin and to President Putin and worked directly to implement the more draconian policies inside Russia and beyond.
Let me just add a couple more fun facts that I've just gotten on the ballot yesterday: 96.8 percent of those who cast ballots in Crimea supported succession. The turnout was 83.1. The election commission didn’t receive a single complaint, and 99 percent of Crimean Tatars declined to vote.
And also I would call your attention to a comment just on the wires from Russian Deputy Economic Minister Belyakov that, “The Russian economy shows clear signs of crisis” this morning. Deputy Economic Minister Belyakov.
Q Thank you. A couple quick questions. Is there any concerns that Russia now may retaliate with either reciprocal sanctions or that the response could bleed into its level of cooperation on other issues such as the Iran nuclear talks, Syria chemical weapons, Afghan withdrawal and the like? And on top of that, did the President, during his call with President Putin yesterday, tell him specifically the sanctions that were coming? Did he give him any warning of this?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll take a crack at some of that. First of all, I think on the President’s call to President Putin, he broadly indicated the types of -- the fact that we were going to be moving to impose additional costs -- I wouldn’t get any more specific than that -- again, at the same time, making clear that there’s a pathway to de-escalation. As you’ve heard him say, we could allow international monitors into Ukraine, including Crimea, to assure that the rights of ethnic Russians are being protected.
Given that Ukraine has an election plan for the spring, given that the Ukrainian government has indicated publicly their willingness to look at constitutional reform, including the status of Crimea, that there is, again, a pathway that could be taken to deescalate this crisis, but only if the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is respected.
With respect to other issues, look, clearly we’re willing to indicate that this is going to have costs in our bilateral relationship. We’ve already cancelled trade and commercial discussions, the bilateral military exercises, G8 preparatory meetings. But if you look at the scope of those other issues, on the Syria chemical weapons issue, Russia is deeply invested in that project and, in fact, we’ve seen a picking up of the pace in terms of the removal of the CW from Syria.
Similarly, on Iran, Russia would only be further isolating itself were it to cease cooperation through the P5-plus-1, and Russia has its own interests in avoiding an escalation of events in the Persian Gulf or nuclear proliferation. I’d note, too, for the Iranians, their profound interest is to gain access to European markets and the global economy through sanctions relief, so they have an interest, too, in seeing that the entire P5-plus-1 is invested in a comprehensive resolution that deals with sanctions relief.
So while we expect this to impact our bilateral relationship, in some of those other areas Russia has its own interests for their participation, and we’re going to continue to pursue those objectives.
In terms of retaliation, look, we’ve seen this in the past, for instance on the Magnitsky sanction. We’re confident that we can impose costs on Russia and that it’s necessary to do so, and that, frankly, Russia stands a lot more to lose from political and economic isolation than the United States. And in fact, that’s borne out not just by the economic indicators that my colleague referenced in terms of a plummeting stock market and depreciating currency, but also the fact that the world is with us.
I’d note, just over the weekend, that at the U.N. Security Council, 13 countries voted to declare this referendum illegal. China, a traditional supporter of Russia on the Council, abstained, which is a very unusual action for them to take. So in terms of who’s isolated here, the United States is leading a united international community in condemnation of this action while Russia finds itself alone in insisting upon of the legitimacy of their intervention in Ukraine.
Q Yes, thank you so much for this call. There are already a lot of reactions on Twitter, for instance, from people about what you announced, and people are asking these questions: Do you think it’s going to be enough, and do you have a deadline in mind if it does not work?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So the actions that we’ve taken today are responses to what has transpired thus far. As we’ve said, the executive order that was issued on March 6th and the new executive order issued today is flexible and allows us to impose additional sanctions across a range of different authorities, whether it’s Russian government officials, the Russian arms industry and the cronies who are close to the scene of Russian government officials, as well as those who are continuing to threaten the sovereignty of Ukraine.
So as events develop, we can and will respond through these sanctions tools that the President has ordered.
Q I think you may have just clarified that, so forgive me if I’m asking substantially the same thing. But for now, there are 11 people only sanctioned, and the executive order just broadens the pool of people you can sanction in the future? So when the order says it also blocks the property and interests of those determined below, they are not sanctioned immediately, that’s a possibility in the future, is that correct?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There are seven individuals in the new executive order who have been sanctioned and four under the preexisting executive order who are being sanctioned today. These two executive orders create the authority, the tool for us to take action against others whose conduct fits within any of the criteria listed in the executive order or who are senior Russian government officials.
We’re going to continue to investigate the situation, develop the evidence of those who are involved in the activities that are described in these executive orders. And we have the -- now have the ability to expand the lists of those persons and entities that are involved in the conduct that the executive orders describe and involved in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine --
Q And the EU has sanctioned -- sorry, pardon me -- the EU has sanctioned 21 individual apparently, just now. Is there a reason why the U.S. has 11 and that they’re not more coordinated in numbers?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have been discussing the issue of sanctions in this case with the European Union quite closely. They have 28 governments who coordinate and come to a final decision. Our lists overlap; they’re not identical. We will be looking -- as my colleague said, we will be looking at the possibility of additional sanctions as we develop new information and should Russian activities increase in intensity and should they not avail themselves of the off-ramp that is available to them.
We could have chosen additional people. We chose the people we chose now. The European Union, looking at the same set of circumstances, made slightly different choices in some areas, but the lists have overlap both in terms of names and in terms of categories of people, though they are, as I said, not identical.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can I just one final point on that, which is that in other circumstances where we have overlapping sanctions authorities with the European Union, our list of persons and entities designated are not typically perfectly identical, but nonetheless, the combined efforts of the U.S. and the European Union in applying sanctions and driving in the same direction has a real multiplying impact. And so I think it’s not -- no one should get too hung up on perfect parity between the lists. The fact that both the United States and the European Union are acting together today to make very clear that what has transpired in Ukraine is illegitimate is a critical point.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would also note that until the EU publishes its list, it’s hard for us to explain the differences in the approaches that we took. There is a considerable amount of overlap, but we have some categories that they don’t have and they have some categories that we don’t have. But there is this opportunity to bring convergence to the list, and as the first speaker made clear, there is impact in Europe on the individuals that we have sanctioned and there’s impact in the United States on the individuals that they have sanctioned.
But just to add to this, that we have made absolutely clear to the Russian Federation at all levels that if there are further steps to formally annex Crimea, to apply more military pressure or to incur further into Ukraine, or if diplomacy is not successful in deescalating this, that we have the authority in the EO that’s published today to do considerably more -- just to underscore again this to, A, that allows the sanctioning of further officials in the Russians; to, B, that allows us to work against the arms and materials sector of the Russian Federation.
Q I wonder if you could comment on this proposal that Russia has been circulating about diplomatic negotiations that would turn Ukraine into a federated republic, as a way of giving autonomy not only to Crimea but to other sections of Ukraine? Is this something that the Ukrainian government or you and your allies would consider even talking about?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll start and then my colleague may want to comment, too. I think the fundamental point here is that the government in Kyiv has to be a part of these discussions. And thus far, the Russian government has not engaged constructively with the government in Kyiv. As we’ve made very clear, the days are long past when world powers meet and make decisions about the future of democratic countries over the heads of the leaders of those countries.
At the same time, the Ukrainian government has made clear that they are open to discussions about constitutional reform, that there is an election coming this spring which provides the basis for the Ukrainian people making these decisions and that as a part of that process of reform, they’re willing to contemplate questions associated with autonomy, for instance, for a region like Crimea.
So there is a space here for a diplomatic discussion on these issues, and that is a key point that we’ve made in our engagement to Russia, that given the fact that you have a government in Kyiv that is willing to address issues associated with constitutional reform, that that should provide the basis for deescalation. However, that should not take place in the context of Russia intervening militarily and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. So they should pull back to their bases and allow for an environment where you can have a constructive, diplomatic process.
And so that will continue to be our position. And, again, the key principle is that the government of Kyiv has to be at the table here in making any decisions about the future of Ukraine.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just to say, if you were looking at the March 11th proposal on a support group for Ukraine that the Russian Federation made public yesterday, I would just underscore that the vast majority of the items on that list that the Russians put forward are already underway in Ukraine under the auspices of the transitional government or the Ukrainian parliament.
For example, there is a long section in the Russian document about constitutional reform. On March 4th, the Ukrainian parliament, the Rada, adopted a resolution establishing a temporary special commission to amend the constitution of Ukraine by April 15th. And there is a commission now formed which includes every single party in the Ukrainian system and representatives from across the region who are now working on a set of amendments to the constitution to address everything from minority rights to developed power to the region, to enhanced autonomy for Crimea.
So there is a way proceed with legitimate devolution of power to the region, legitimate autonomy for Crimea, protection of ethnic minorities and languages through a Ukrainian process that has broad national support in Ukraine. The problem with the Russian documents is that if you look at the end, it sets all of its demands in the context of a post-Crimea referendum Ukraine. So the concern here is that this is not a proposal targeted at addressing legitimate concerns inside of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, but it’s a proposal for Russia to interject itself into Ukraine’s business after having already annexed Crimea.
MS. HAYDEN: Thanks, everyone. A reminder that the call was on background with your speakers as senior administration officials.
Thanks for joining us, and everyone have a great day.
END
10:20 A.M. EDT
10:20 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT ABBAS MAKE REMARKS REGARDING A PALESTINIAN STATE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Remarks by President Obama and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
Oval Office
11:12 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I want to welcome President Abbas to the Oval Office. It was a year ago this week that I had the opportunity to visit the Palestinian Territories and very much appreciated the hospitality that President Abbas showed when I was there. I had a wonderful time meeting with a wide range of civil society and officials and business leaders in the Palestinian Territories, including young people who were inspiring and I think had great hope for the future.
Today, we’re going to spend the bulk of our time talking about something that we’ve been working on for a very long time and obviously President Abbas has been working on a long time, and that is how do we achieve a comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
And I have to commend President Abbas. He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors.
This is obviously an elusive goal, and there’s a reason why it’s taken decades for us to even get to the point where we are now. But we remain convinced that there is an opportunity. And I think everybody understands the outlines of what a peace deal would look like, involving a territorial compromise on both sides based on ‘67 lines with mutually agreed upon swaps, that would ensure that Israel was secure but would also ensure that the Palestinians have a sovereign state in which they can achieve the aspirations that they’ve held for so long.
Secretary Kerry is here today and has been working diligently with all sides. And as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he was here just a couple of weeks ago, I believe that now is the time for not just the leaders of both sides but also the peoples of both sides to embrace this opportunity for peace. But we’re going to have a lot of details that we’re going to have to discuss. It’s very hard; it’s very challenging. We’re going to have to take some tough political decisions and risks if we’re able to move it forward. And my hope is, is that we can continue to see progress in the coming days and weeks.
I also want to point out that the Palestinian Authority has continued to try to build strong institutions in preparation for a day in which the Palestinians have their own state, and I will continue to emphasize the importance of rule of law, transparency, and effective reform so that not only do the Palestinians ultimately have a state on paper, but, more importantly, they have one that actually delivers on behalf of their people.
The United States obviously has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian Authority. We’re the largest humanitarian donor and continue to help to try to foster economic development and opportunity and prosperity for people, particularly young people like those that I met.
So, Mr. President, welcome. I look forward to a productive discussion, and continue to hope that you and Prime Minister Netanyahu, but, more importantly, the people of the Palestinian Territories and Israel are ready to move forward in a new spirit of cooperation and compromise.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT ABBAS: (As interpreted.) Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you for allowing us this opportunity, which we consider to be historic, for us to come here to the White House so that the efforts that you and Mr. Kerry expend -- these are great efforts -- would be successful so that we can also reach a lasting peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
And I would like to also seize this opportunity to thank you, Mr. President, for the economic and political support that the U.S. is extending to the Palestinian state so that it can stand on its own feet.
I would also like to affirm what you have said, that we are working for a solution that is based on international legitimacy and also the borders -- the 1967 borders so that the Palestinians can have their own independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital and so that we can find a fair and lasting solution to the refugee problem.
We don’t have any time to waste. Time is not on our side, especially given the very difficult situation that the Middle East is experiencing and the entire region is facing. We hope that we would be able to seize this opportunity to achieve a lasting peace.
Since 1988 and into 1993, we have been extending our hands to our Israeli neighbors so that we can reach a fair and lasting peace to this problem. Since 1988, we have recognized international legitimacy resolutions and this was a very courageous step on the part of the Palestinian leadership. And in 1993, we recognized the state of Israel.
Mr. President, we have an agreement with Israel, that was brokered by Mr. Kerry concerning the release of the fourth batch of prisoners and we are hopeful that the fourth batch will be released by the 29th of March because this will give a very solid impression about the seriousness of these efforts to achieve peace.
Mr. President, I’m aware that you have several international concerns in various places around the world and we know that you are dedicating your time and effort for peace, and so are the teams that are working on this. We count on these efforts and we will build on them because we consider this to be a historic opportunity to achieve peace.
Thank you very much.
END
11:23 A.M. EDT
11:23 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCES SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO RUSSIA'S ACTIONS IN UKRAINE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the President on Ukraine
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
10:45 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. In recent months, as the citizens of Ukraine have made their voices heard, we have been guided by a fundamental principle -- the future of Ukraine must be decided by the people of Ukraine. That means Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected, and international law must be upheld.
And so, Russia’s decision to send troops into Crimea has rightly drawn global condemnation. From the start, the United States has mobilized the international community in support of Ukraine to isolate Russia for its actions and to reassure our allies and partners. We saw this international unity again over the weekend, when Russia stood alone in the U.N. Security Council defending its actions in Crimea. And as I told President Putin yesterday, the referendum in Crimea was a clear violation of Ukrainian constitutions and international law, and it will not be recognized by the international community.
Today, I’m announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the cost on Russia and on those responsible for what is happening in Ukraine. First, as authorized by the executive order I signed two weeks ago, we are imposing sanctions on specific individuals responsible for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity and government of Ukraine. We’re making it clear that there are consequences for their actions.
Second, I have signed a new executive order that expands the scope of our sanctions. As an initial step, I’m authorizing sanctions on Russian officials -- entities operating in the arms sector in Russia and individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the Russian government. And if Russia continues to interfere in Ukraine, we stand ready to impose further sanctions.
Third, we’re continuing our close consultations with our European partners, who today in Brussels moved ahead with their own sanctions against Russia. Tonight, Vice President Biden departs for Europe, where he will meet with the leaders of our NATO allies -- Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. And I’ll be traveling to Europe next week. Our message will be clear. As NATO allies, we have a solemn commitment to our collective defense, and we will uphold this commitment.
Fourth, we’ll continue to make clear to Russia that further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world. The international community will continue to stand together to oppose any violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and continued Russian military intervention in Ukraine will only deepen Russia’s diplomatic isolation and exact a greater toll on the Russian economy.
Going forward, we can calibrate our response based on whether Russia chooses to escalate or to de-escalate the situation. Now, I believe there’s still a path to resolve this situation diplomatically in a way that addresses the interest of both Russia and Ukraine. That includes Russia pulling its forces in Crimea back to their bases, supporting the deployment of additional international monitors in Ukraine, and engaging in dialogue with the Ukrainian government, which has indicated its openness to pursuing constitutional reform as they move forward towards elections this spring.
But throughout this process, we’re going to stand firm in our unwavering support for Ukraine. As I told Prime Minister Yatsenyuk last week, the United States stands with the people of Ukraine and their right to determine their own destiny. We’re going to keep working with Congress and our international partners to offer Ukraine the economic support that it needs to weather this crisis and to improve the daily lives of the Ukrainian people.
And as we go forward, we’ll continue to look at the range of ways we can help our Ukrainian friends achieve their universal rights and the security, prosperity and dignity that they deserve. Thanks very much. And Jay, I think, will be available for questions. Thank you.
END
10:49 A.M. EDT
10:49 A.M. EDT
RUBINSTEIN SUCCEEDS FORD AS U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SYRIA
Announcement of U.S. Special Envoy for Syria
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 17, 2014
Daniel Rubinstein will be an outstanding successor to Ambassador Robert Ford as the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria.
This position is as important as it is challenging. Like Robert, Daniel is a Senior Foreign Service officer who speaks fluent Arabic and is widely respected in the region. It's more than fair to say that he is among our government’s foremost experts on the Middle East and has served with distinction in some of our most challenging and high profile regional Missions, including Damascus. Wherever he's served -- from Jerusalem to Amman, from Baghdad to Tel Aviv, from Tunis, to the Sinai, and most recently back in Washington in the INR Bureau where I was reacquainted with him -- Daniel has excelled.
There's no denying the tough challenge that Syria represents for any diplomat. We're entering the fourth year of a bloody and brutal conflict that's wrecked havoc on the country, its people, and the region. Special Envoy Rubinstein’s leadership and counsel will be vital as we redouble our efforts to support the moderate opposition, shore up our partners, counter the rise of extremism that threatens us all, and address the devastating humanitarian crisis and its impact on the neighboring states. Special Envoy Rubinstein will travel to the region later this month to begin consultations with Syrians and others seeking an end to the slaughter and a different kind of future.
This position is as important as it is challenging. Like Robert, Daniel is a Senior Foreign Service officer who speaks fluent Arabic and is widely respected in the region. It's more than fair to say that he is among our government’s foremost experts on the Middle East and has served with distinction in some of our most challenging and high profile regional Missions, including Damascus. Wherever he's served -- from Jerusalem to Amman, from Baghdad to Tel Aviv, from Tunis, to the Sinai, and most recently back in Washington in the INR Bureau where I was reacquainted with him -- Daniel has excelled.
There's no denying the tough challenge that Syria represents for any diplomat. We're entering the fourth year of a bloody and brutal conflict that's wrecked havoc on the country, its people, and the region. Special Envoy Rubinstein’s leadership and counsel will be vital as we redouble our efforts to support the moderate opposition, shore up our partners, counter the rise of extremism that threatens us all, and address the devastating humanitarian crisis and its impact on the neighboring states. Special Envoy Rubinstein will travel to the region later this month to begin consultations with Syrians and others seeking an end to the slaughter and a different kind of future.
THE BLUE ANGELS PERFORM THE ECHELON PARADE
140312-N-WJ386-095 EL CENTRO, Calif. (March 12, 2014) U.S. Navy flight demonstration squadron, the Blue Angels, perform the Echelon Parade during a practice demonstration. The Blue Angels are scheduled to kick off their 2014 air show season at Naval Air Facility El Centro March 15. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Andrea Perez/Released)
OHIO HOSPITAL SETTLES FALSE CLAIMS ACT ALLEGATIONS FOR $8.5 MILLION
FROM: U.S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Memorial Hospital in Ohio Pays Government $8.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Memorial Hospital (Memorial), an Ohio nonprofit corporation that operates an acute care hospital in Fremont, Ohio, has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Statute by engaging in improper financial relationships with referring physicians, the Justice Department announced today.
“Improper financial relationships between health care providers and their referral sources can undermine physicians' judgment about patients' true health care needs and drive up health care costs for everyone,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. "The Justice Department is firmly committed to recovering the taxpayer dollars lost due to these arrangements and making sure that all health care providers follow the rules.”
The Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Statute restrict the financial relationships that hospitals may have with doctors who refer patients to them. The settlement announced today involved allegations that financial relationships that Memorial had with two physicians – a joint venture between Memorial and a pain management physician and an arrangement under which an ophthalmologist purchased intraocular lenses and then resold them to Memorial at inflated prices - violated statutory requirements. These issues were disclosed to the government by Memorial.
"Physician referrals should be made exclusively based on what's best for the patient, not on financial relationships," said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Steven M. Dettelbach. "We hope that this settlement will once again help drive that message home."
The improper referrals at issue in this matter included Medicaid patients. Medicaid is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The State of Ohio, which paid for some of the Medicaid claims at issue, will receive $600,383 of the settlement amount.
“The price of such arrangements can be very costly to the nation’s health care system, taxpayers and provider organizations,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. “So, we are pleased that Memorial stepped forward to disclose these improper financial relationships and is working to avoid future occurrences.”
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of $19 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $13.4 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
This case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Memorial Hospital in Ohio Pays Government $8.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Memorial Hospital (Memorial), an Ohio nonprofit corporation that operates an acute care hospital in Fremont, Ohio, has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Statute by engaging in improper financial relationships with referring physicians, the Justice Department announced today.
“Improper financial relationships between health care providers and their referral sources can undermine physicians' judgment about patients' true health care needs and drive up health care costs for everyone,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. "The Justice Department is firmly committed to recovering the taxpayer dollars lost due to these arrangements and making sure that all health care providers follow the rules.”
The Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Statute restrict the financial relationships that hospitals may have with doctors who refer patients to them. The settlement announced today involved allegations that financial relationships that Memorial had with two physicians – a joint venture between Memorial and a pain management physician and an arrangement under which an ophthalmologist purchased intraocular lenses and then resold them to Memorial at inflated prices - violated statutory requirements. These issues were disclosed to the government by Memorial.
"Physician referrals should be made exclusively based on what's best for the patient, not on financial relationships," said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Steven M. Dettelbach. "We hope that this settlement will once again help drive that message home."
The improper referrals at issue in this matter included Medicaid patients. Medicaid is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The State of Ohio, which paid for some of the Medicaid claims at issue, will receive $600,383 of the settlement amount.
“The price of such arrangements can be very costly to the nation’s health care system, taxpayers and provider organizations,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. “So, we are pleased that Memorial stepped forward to disclose these improper financial relationships and is working to avoid future occurrences.”
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of $19 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $13.4 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
This case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
CLINIC OWNER TO SERVE 108 MONTHS FOR ROLE IN VARIOUS HEALTH SCHEMES
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, March 14, 2014
Medical Clinic Owner Sentenced for Role in Multiple Health Care Fraud Schemes Totaling Over $20 Million
The owner and operator of a Miami medical clinic, Merfi Corp., was sentenced today to serve 108 months in prison for her participation in multiple health care fraud schemes.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office and Acting Special Agent in Charge Brian P. Martens of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) Office of Investigations Miami Office made the announcement.
Isabel Medina, 49, of Miami, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro of the Southern District of Florida. In addition to her prison term, Medina was also sentenced to serve three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $8,437,393 in restitution.
On Jan. 7, 2014, Medina pleaded guilty before Judge Ungaro to conspiracy to commit health care fraud.
According to court documents, Medina was an owner and operator of Merfi Corp., a Miami medical clinic that employed physicians, physician assistants and other medical professionals who were authorized by law to dispense prescriptions for home health care services. Through Merfi Corp., Medina and her co-conspirators provided fraudulent home health and therapy prescriptions to the owners and operators of Flores Home Health Care Inc. and other home health care agencies, as well as to patient recruiters, in return for kickbacks and bribes.
Flores Home Health and these other home health care agencies purported to provide home health and therapy services to Medicare beneficiaries, but were in fact operated for the purpose of billing Medicare for, among other things, expensive physical therapy and home health care services that were not medically necessary and/or were not provided.
Medina has acknowledged that her involvement in fraudulent schemes at multiple home health care companies resulted in losses to the Medicare program exceeding $20 million.
The case is being investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney A. Brendan Stewart of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,700 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5.5 billion. In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Medical Clinic Owner Sentenced for Role in Multiple Health Care Fraud Schemes Totaling Over $20 Million
The owner and operator of a Miami medical clinic, Merfi Corp., was sentenced today to serve 108 months in prison for her participation in multiple health care fraud schemes.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office and Acting Special Agent in Charge Brian P. Martens of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) Office of Investigations Miami Office made the announcement.
Isabel Medina, 49, of Miami, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro of the Southern District of Florida. In addition to her prison term, Medina was also sentenced to serve three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $8,437,393 in restitution.
On Jan. 7, 2014, Medina pleaded guilty before Judge Ungaro to conspiracy to commit health care fraud.
According to court documents, Medina was an owner and operator of Merfi Corp., a Miami medical clinic that employed physicians, physician assistants and other medical professionals who were authorized by law to dispense prescriptions for home health care services. Through Merfi Corp., Medina and her co-conspirators provided fraudulent home health and therapy prescriptions to the owners and operators of Flores Home Health Care Inc. and other home health care agencies, as well as to patient recruiters, in return for kickbacks and bribes.
Flores Home Health and these other home health care agencies purported to provide home health and therapy services to Medicare beneficiaries, but were in fact operated for the purpose of billing Medicare for, among other things, expensive physical therapy and home health care services that were not medically necessary and/or were not provided.
Medina has acknowledged that her involvement in fraudulent schemes at multiple home health care companies resulted in losses to the Medicare program exceeding $20 million.
The case is being investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney A. Brendan Stewart of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.
Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged more than 1,700 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $5.5 billion. In addition, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.
ST. PATRICK'S DAY STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
On the Occasion of St. Patrick's Day in Ireland
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 13, 2014
The American people join Irish people all over the world in celebrating St. Patrick’s Day on March 17.
Today, we look back with pride on Irish contributions to America’s history and cultural heritage. But we also look forward as Irish immigrants continue to renew America and remind us of our common roots. President Obama said it best: “There’s always been a little green behind the red, white, and blue.” I couldn’t agree more. As a former Senator from Massachusetts, home to one of the largest Irish-American populations in our country, I hold a special appreciation of what Ireland means to America.
There are many Irish immigrants who have helped write America’s story with their incredible success. Today, we honor them and the next generation of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic who are supporting this vital relationship.
Our partnership is broader and deeper than ever before. We’re working together to promote civil society, science and technology, education, and entrepreneurship. We’re also forging new academic and professional partnerships and pursuing opportunities through delegations, such as the one led by Special Representative Drew O’Brien to Limerick and Belfast in January.
Our investments in peace and prosperity will continue to strengthen the bonds between Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the United States, and promote economic growth in both our countries.
We often remark that everyone is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day. In the words of Ireland’s great poets, to the island’s outsized place in world history, to the powerful example it sets for the world, there is a heritage for us all to celebrate.
On this joyous holiday, we offer the people of Ireland our warmest wishes and look forward to strengthening the Irish–American relationship for years to come.
On the Occasion of St. Patrick's Day in Ireland
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 13, 2014
The American people join Irish people all over the world in celebrating St. Patrick’s Day on March 17.
Today, we look back with pride on Irish contributions to America’s history and cultural heritage. But we also look forward as Irish immigrants continue to renew America and remind us of our common roots. President Obama said it best: “There’s always been a little green behind the red, white, and blue.” I couldn’t agree more. As a former Senator from Massachusetts, home to one of the largest Irish-American populations in our country, I hold a special appreciation of what Ireland means to America.
There are many Irish immigrants who have helped write America’s story with their incredible success. Today, we honor them and the next generation of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic who are supporting this vital relationship.
Our partnership is broader and deeper than ever before. We’re working together to promote civil society, science and technology, education, and entrepreneurship. We’re also forging new academic and professional partnerships and pursuing opportunities through delegations, such as the one led by Special Representative Drew O’Brien to Limerick and Belfast in January.
Our investments in peace and prosperity will continue to strengthen the bonds between Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the United States, and promote economic growth in both our countries.
We often remark that everyone is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day. In the words of Ireland’s great poets, to the island’s outsized place in world history, to the powerful example it sets for the world, there is a heritage for us all to celebrate.
On this joyous holiday, we offer the people of Ireland our warmest wishes and look forward to strengthening the Irish–American relationship for years to come.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
COURT HALTS DEBT COLLECTOR'S ALLEGED DECEPTIVE AND ABUSIVE PRACTICES
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Debt Collector’s Allegedly Deceptive and Abusive Practices, Freezes Assets
Defendants Behind Buffalo, New York-based Operation Misrepresented They Were with the Government and Threatened Consumers with Arrest and Other Legal Action
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court halted a debt collection operation that the agency charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act by misrepresenting that they were with the government, falsely accusing consumers of committing check fraud, and then threatening consumers with arrest.
The court order stops the illegal conduct, freezes the operation’s assets, and appoints a temporary receiver to take over the defendants’ business, pending a hearing scheduled for March 17.
“These debt collectors took deception to new lows,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They bullied consumers, falsely accused them of crimes, and pretended to be government officials. Stopping their illegal activity is a real victory for consumers.”
Part of the FTC’s continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the lawsuit charged two individuals – Mark Briandi and William Moses – and 13 interrelated companies in connection with the case. Another company – that was not actively involved, but profited from the scheme – was charged as a relief defendant. The defendants allegedly bought debts and collected debts owed to other companies, and much of the debts the defendants collected on had originated from payday loans.
Operating the scheme since at least May of 2010, the defendants portrayed themselves as representatives of the government by using company names that suggested a government affiliation or national presence, such as Federal Recoveries, LLC, Federal Check Processing, Inc, Federal Processing Services, Inc., Nationwide Check Processing, and State Check Processing, Inc.. The defendants threatened consumers with dire consequences – such as lawsuits, arrest and imprisonment or seizure of assets – unless consumers paid the debt immediately.
The defendants repeated these deceptive claims to consumers’ family members, friends, coworkers, and employers, and revealed the consumers’ debts to these third parties as well, the complaint stated. According to consumers interviewed by the FTC, the defendants routinely refused to provide information about the debt, as required by federal law, or to investigate the debt’s legitimacy – even after some consumers explained that they did not owe the debt, the debt had been paid in full, or the defendants did not have the authority to collect on the debt. The defendants allegedly collected millions of dollars from consumers using these unlawful tactics.
In addition to Briandi and Moses, the complaint names as defendants Federal Check Processing, Federal Recoveries, Federal Processing, Federal Processing Services, United Check Processing, Central Check Processing, Central Processing Services, American Check Processing, State Check Processing, Check Processing, Nationwide Check Processing, US Check Processing, and Flowing Streams. The complaint names Empowered Racing LLC as a relief defendant.
The FTC would like to thank the Buffalo Regional Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Consumer Protection Section of the Colorado Department of Law for their assistance with the investigation.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The FTC filed the complaint and the request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. On February 24, 2014, the court granted the FTC's request for a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze, the appointment of a receiver, immediate access to the business premises and limited discovery.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
At FTC’s Request, Court Halts Debt Collector’s Allegedly Deceptive and Abusive Practices, Freezes Assets
Defendants Behind Buffalo, New York-based Operation Misrepresented They Were with the Government and Threatened Consumers with Arrest and Other Legal Action
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court halted a debt collection operation that the agency charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act by misrepresenting that they were with the government, falsely accusing consumers of committing check fraud, and then threatening consumers with arrest.
The court order stops the illegal conduct, freezes the operation’s assets, and appoints a temporary receiver to take over the defendants’ business, pending a hearing scheduled for March 17.
“These debt collectors took deception to new lows,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They bullied consumers, falsely accused them of crimes, and pretended to be government officials. Stopping their illegal activity is a real victory for consumers.”
Part of the FTC’s continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the lawsuit charged two individuals – Mark Briandi and William Moses – and 13 interrelated companies in connection with the case. Another company – that was not actively involved, but profited from the scheme – was charged as a relief defendant. The defendants allegedly bought debts and collected debts owed to other companies, and much of the debts the defendants collected on had originated from payday loans.
Operating the scheme since at least May of 2010, the defendants portrayed themselves as representatives of the government by using company names that suggested a government affiliation or national presence, such as Federal Recoveries, LLC, Federal Check Processing, Inc, Federal Processing Services, Inc., Nationwide Check Processing, and State Check Processing, Inc.. The defendants threatened consumers with dire consequences – such as lawsuits, arrest and imprisonment or seizure of assets – unless consumers paid the debt immediately.
The defendants repeated these deceptive claims to consumers’ family members, friends, coworkers, and employers, and revealed the consumers’ debts to these third parties as well, the complaint stated. According to consumers interviewed by the FTC, the defendants routinely refused to provide information about the debt, as required by federal law, or to investigate the debt’s legitimacy – even after some consumers explained that they did not owe the debt, the debt had been paid in full, or the defendants did not have the authority to collect on the debt. The defendants allegedly collected millions of dollars from consumers using these unlawful tactics.
In addition to Briandi and Moses, the complaint names as defendants Federal Check Processing, Federal Recoveries, Federal Processing, Federal Processing Services, United Check Processing, Central Check Processing, Central Processing Services, American Check Processing, State Check Processing, Check Processing, Nationwide Check Processing, US Check Processing, and Flowing Streams. The complaint names Empowered Racing LLC as a relief defendant.
The FTC would like to thank the Buffalo Regional Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Consumer Protection Section of the Colorado Department of Law for their assistance with the investigation.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The FTC filed the complaint and the request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. On February 24, 2014, the court granted the FTC's request for a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze, the appointment of a receiver, immediate access to the business premises and limited discovery.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ISSUES STATEMENT ON UKRAINE
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by the Press Secretary on Ukraine
The United States has steadfastly supported the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine since it declared its independence in 1991, and we reject the “referendum” that took place today in the Crimean region of Ukraine. This referendum is contrary to Ukraine’s constitution, and the international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law.
No decisions should be made about the future of Ukraine without the Ukrainian government. Moreover, this vote was not necessary. The Ukrainian government has made clear its willingness to discuss increased autonomy for Crimea, and the presidential elections planned for May 25 provide a legitimate opportunity for all Ukrainians to make their voices heard on the future of their country.
In addition, Ukraine, the United States, the EU, the OSCE, the UN, and others have called for Russia to allow international monitors into the Crimean peninsula to ensure that the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are being upheld. Russia has spurned those calls as well as outreach from the Ukrainian government and instead has escalated its military intervention into Crimea and initiated threatening military exercises on Ukraine’s eastern border.
Russia’s actions are dangerous and destabilizing. The UN Security Council recognized this in a vote yesterday that only Russia opposed. As the United States and our allies have made clear, military intervention and violation of international law will bring increasing costs for Russia – not only due to measures imposed by the United States and our allies but also as a direct result of Russia’s own destabilizing actions.
In this century, we are long past the days when the international community will stand quietly by while one country forcibly seizes the territory of another. We call on all members of the international community to continue to condemn such actions, to take concrete steps to impose costs, and to stand together in support of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
FTC CHANGES TEXTILE LABELLING RULES REGARDING FIBER CONTENT, COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The Federal Trade Commission has issued final amendments to its Textile Labeling Rules, addressing fiber content and country-of-origin disclosures.
The Rules implement the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, which requires that certain textiles sold in the United States carry labels disclosing the generic names and percentages by weight of the fibers in the product, the manufacturer or marketer name, and the country where the product was processed or manufactured.
In May 2013, the FTC proposed changes to the Rules and sought public comment. Based on comments received, the agency proposed amendments to the Rules and sought public comments. After weighing the comments it received, the Commission approved the changes announced today, including amendments that would:
incorporate the updated International Organization for Standardization standard establishing generic fiber names for manufactured fibers; allow certain hang-tags disclosing fiber names and trademarks, and performance information, without the need to disclose the product’s full fiber content; clarify that an imported product’s country of origin is the country where it was processed or manufactured, as determined under laws and regulations enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection; better address electronic commerce with revised definitions of “invoice” and “invoice or other paper,” replace the requirement that guarantors sign continuing guarantees under penalty of perjury with a requirement that they acknowledge that providing a false guaranty is unlawful, and certify that they will actively monitor and ensure compliance with the applicable law; and clarify the provision identifying textile fiber product categories and products that are exempt from the Act’s requirements.
Based on the comments received, the Commission decided not to adopt its proposal to make continuing guaranties effective for one year unless revoked earlier. Thus, continuing guaranties filed with the Commission will remain effective until revoked.
The Commission vote to publish the Federal Register Notice amending the Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act was 4-0. It will be published in the Federal Register soon. The amended Rules will become effective 30 days after the Federal Register Notice is posted.
The Federal Trade Commission has issued final amendments to its Textile Labeling Rules, addressing fiber content and country-of-origin disclosures.
The Rules implement the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, which requires that certain textiles sold in the United States carry labels disclosing the generic names and percentages by weight of the fibers in the product, the manufacturer or marketer name, and the country where the product was processed or manufactured.
In May 2013, the FTC proposed changes to the Rules and sought public comment. Based on comments received, the agency proposed amendments to the Rules and sought public comments. After weighing the comments it received, the Commission approved the changes announced today, including amendments that would:
incorporate the updated International Organization for Standardization standard establishing generic fiber names for manufactured fibers; allow certain hang-tags disclosing fiber names and trademarks, and performance information, without the need to disclose the product’s full fiber content; clarify that an imported product’s country of origin is the country where it was processed or manufactured, as determined under laws and regulations enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection; better address electronic commerce with revised definitions of “invoice” and “invoice or other paper,” replace the requirement that guarantors sign continuing guarantees under penalty of perjury with a requirement that they acknowledge that providing a false guaranty is unlawful, and certify that they will actively monitor and ensure compliance with the applicable law; and clarify the provision identifying textile fiber product categories and products that are exempt from the Act’s requirements.
Based on the comments received, the Commission decided not to adopt its proposal to make continuing guaranties effective for one year unless revoked earlier. Thus, continuing guaranties filed with the Commission will remain effective until revoked.
The Commission vote to publish the Federal Register Notice amending the Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act was 4-0. It will be published in the Federal Register soon. The amended Rules will become effective 30 days after the Federal Register Notice is posted.
DOL PROPOSES RULE TO HAVE PENSION PLAN PROVIDERS FURNISH GUIDE TO FEE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
US Labor Department proposes that service providers give employers a guide for 401(k) fee disclosures
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor requested public comments on a proposed rule that would require pension plan service providers to furnish employers and other plan fiduciaries with a guide to assist them in navigating fee disclosure documents.
"The department’s recent fee disclosure rules were a good first step in bringing transparency to the 401(k) industry and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. However, some employers, particularly small businesses, may be having a hard time locating the required fee disclosures when they are embedded in lengthy or complex documents," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. "Much like a roadmap, a guide can help employers locate fee information, which will help them better understand what they are being charged by financial services providers."
In 2012, the department published a final rule requiring that companies that provide certain services to employer-sponsored 401(k) plans by furnishing detailed information about their services and the compensation they will receive, including payments from third parties. The rule allows such companies to use existing contracts and other documents to provide this information to plan fiduciaries. The department has found that the fee information is often contained in lengthy contract documents, or spread out among multiple documents.
The proposal announced today would amend the 2012 rule to require that covered service providers furnish a guide if disclosures are made using multiple or lengthy documents. The guide must specifically identify the document, page or other specific locator, such as section, that enables the employer to quickly and easily find fee information.
The notice of proposed rulemaking is open for public comment. The notice also references an announcement by the department to conduct focus group sessions with fiduciaries to pension plans with fewer than 100 participants. The purpose of the focus group testing approach is to explore current practices and effects of the 2012 fee disclosure rule. The focus groups may provide additional information about the need for today’s proposal and what disclosure formats may be most useful to plan fiduciaries.
US Labor Department proposes that service providers give employers a guide for 401(k) fee disclosures
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor requested public comments on a proposed rule that would require pension plan service providers to furnish employers and other plan fiduciaries with a guide to assist them in navigating fee disclosure documents.
"The department’s recent fee disclosure rules were a good first step in bringing transparency to the 401(k) industry and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. However, some employers, particularly small businesses, may be having a hard time locating the required fee disclosures when they are embedded in lengthy or complex documents," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. "Much like a roadmap, a guide can help employers locate fee information, which will help them better understand what they are being charged by financial services providers."
In 2012, the department published a final rule requiring that companies that provide certain services to employer-sponsored 401(k) plans by furnishing detailed information about their services and the compensation they will receive, including payments from third parties. The rule allows such companies to use existing contracts and other documents to provide this information to plan fiduciaries. The department has found that the fee information is often contained in lengthy contract documents, or spread out among multiple documents.
The proposal announced today would amend the 2012 rule to require that covered service providers furnish a guide if disclosures are made using multiple or lengthy documents. The guide must specifically identify the document, page or other specific locator, such as section, that enables the employer to quickly and easily find fee information.
The notice of proposed rulemaking is open for public comment. The notice also references an announcement by the department to conduct focus group sessions with fiduciaries to pension plans with fewer than 100 participants. The purpose of the focus group testing approach is to explore current practices and effects of the 2012 fee disclosure rule. The focus groups may provide additional information about the need for today’s proposal and what disclosure formats may be most useful to plan fiduciaries.
SCIENTISTS RESEARCHING A WAY TO BETTER USE SUPERCONDUCTING MATERIALS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Researcher studies unsolved problem of interacting objects
Insights could enable more widespread use of superconducting materials
One of science's biggest puzzles is figuring out how interacting objects behave collectively. Take water, for example. "It's a molecule, but it's also a liquid with specific properties," says Daniel Sheehy, an assistant professor of physics at Louisiana State University. "How does the liquid come from the microscopic action of these water molecules?"
Sheehy doesn't study water, but he likes to use it to describe what he does study, which is many-particle quantum mechanics, that is, how atoms organize themselves at very low temperatures when they become trapped in beams of laser light, and whether they reach a superfluid state, a phenomenon that occurs only when it is extremely cold.
In a superconductor, the electrons form a superfluid which "is like a liquid, but better," Sheehy says. "It never slows down and the electrical resistance is zero, meaning none of the energy is lost."
The down side, however, is that this requires very cold temperatures to achieve, on the order of 10 kelvins (minus 263 C, minus 442 F), for conventional superconductors, which is why they generally only are used in special applications, such as in MRI machines, where they are kept cold with liquid helium.
"This is why they are not used in power lines," he says. "You would need refrigerators, which isn't very practical."
Sheehy's goal is to gain further insights that could enable more widespread uses for superconducting materials. "Might it be possible to make material that is a superconductor at ambient temperatures?" he asks. "No one knows. It is a very difficult goal, a very big goal. But we would like to use superconductors in places where they are not used now."
He is performing theoretical calculations regarding clouds of extremely cold atoms--imagine very dilute particles of gases trapped in a laser field--to see how they behave and whether they show superconducting properties. "All I want to know is if I put a million atoms in a small region and watch them interact, what can they do?" he says.
He is examining the activities of different alkali gases--those in the first column of the Periodic Table--because "they have only one outermost electron, making them easier to control," he says. "First, let's understand the simplest system we can think of so we can develop the theory. Let's fundamentally understand nature and this unsolved problem of interacting objects."
He does not conduct actual physical experiments, but is a theorist "who uses a computer, as well as paper and pencil calculations," to determine the properties of these clouds of atoms. "I am interested in the superfluid states of these atoms, which is where the particles don't have any viscosity; they flow without resistance," he says.
Sheehy is conducting his research under a National Science Foundation (NSF) Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) award, which he received in 2012. The award supports junior faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education, and the integration of education and research within the context of the mission of their organization. NSF is funding his work with $428,200 over five years.
The grant's educational component includes developing more interactive materials in large-size physics classes so that they go beyond the "lecture" format, "with more hands-on activities that get them thinking," he says. "We will be trying to use Internet applications with certain computer programs that demonstrate the principles of quantum mechanics. This, hopefully, will get them to better learn physics, and get them excited about a future in science."
He also plans an outreach project to the public, and to high school and middle school students, including an in-school demonstration program aimed at inspiring the interest of minority students in science, and in pursuing science careers.
"The field of cold atoms is growing rapidly, fueled by numerous recent experimental breakthroughs, making it an ideal area for students to work in," he says. "We're working on fundamental problems that are conceptually simple but yet still intellectually stimulating and experimentally relevant."
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Investigators
Daniel Sheehy
Related Institutions/Organizations
Louisiana State University & Agricultural and Mechanical College
Researcher studies unsolved problem of interacting objects
Insights could enable more widespread use of superconducting materials
One of science's biggest puzzles is figuring out how interacting objects behave collectively. Take water, for example. "It's a molecule, but it's also a liquid with specific properties," says Daniel Sheehy, an assistant professor of physics at Louisiana State University. "How does the liquid come from the microscopic action of these water molecules?"
Sheehy doesn't study water, but he likes to use it to describe what he does study, which is many-particle quantum mechanics, that is, how atoms organize themselves at very low temperatures when they become trapped in beams of laser light, and whether they reach a superfluid state, a phenomenon that occurs only when it is extremely cold.
In a superconductor, the electrons form a superfluid which "is like a liquid, but better," Sheehy says. "It never slows down and the electrical resistance is zero, meaning none of the energy is lost."
The down side, however, is that this requires very cold temperatures to achieve, on the order of 10 kelvins (minus 263 C, minus 442 F), for conventional superconductors, which is why they generally only are used in special applications, such as in MRI machines, where they are kept cold with liquid helium.
"This is why they are not used in power lines," he says. "You would need refrigerators, which isn't very practical."
Sheehy's goal is to gain further insights that could enable more widespread uses for superconducting materials. "Might it be possible to make material that is a superconductor at ambient temperatures?" he asks. "No one knows. It is a very difficult goal, a very big goal. But we would like to use superconductors in places where they are not used now."
He is performing theoretical calculations regarding clouds of extremely cold atoms--imagine very dilute particles of gases trapped in a laser field--to see how they behave and whether they show superconducting properties. "All I want to know is if I put a million atoms in a small region and watch them interact, what can they do?" he says.
He is examining the activities of different alkali gases--those in the first column of the Periodic Table--because "they have only one outermost electron, making them easier to control," he says. "First, let's understand the simplest system we can think of so we can develop the theory. Let's fundamentally understand nature and this unsolved problem of interacting objects."
He does not conduct actual physical experiments, but is a theorist "who uses a computer, as well as paper and pencil calculations," to determine the properties of these clouds of atoms. "I am interested in the superfluid states of these atoms, which is where the particles don't have any viscosity; they flow without resistance," he says.
Sheehy is conducting his research under a National Science Foundation (NSF) Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) award, which he received in 2012. The award supports junior faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education, and the integration of education and research within the context of the mission of their organization. NSF is funding his work with $428,200 over five years.
The grant's educational component includes developing more interactive materials in large-size physics classes so that they go beyond the "lecture" format, "with more hands-on activities that get them thinking," he says. "We will be trying to use Internet applications with certain computer programs that demonstrate the principles of quantum mechanics. This, hopefully, will get them to better learn physics, and get them excited about a future in science."
He also plans an outreach project to the public, and to high school and middle school students, including an in-school demonstration program aimed at inspiring the interest of minority students in science, and in pursuing science careers.
"The field of cold atoms is growing rapidly, fueled by numerous recent experimental breakthroughs, making it an ideal area for students to work in," he says. "We're working on fundamental problems that are conceptually simple but yet still intellectually stimulating and experimentally relevant."
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Investigators
Daniel Sheehy
Related Institutions/Organizations
Louisiana State University & Agricultural and Mechanical College
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)