[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8724-8725]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3304]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2485-059]

First Light Hydro Generating Company; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Types of Application: Non-Project Use and Occupancy of Project
Lands.
    b. Project No.: 2485-059.
    c. Date Filed: January 14, 2011.
    d. Applicant: First Light Hydro Generating Company.
    e. Name of Project: Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: East side of the Connecticut River, Towns of Erving
and Northfield, Franklin County, Massachusetts.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Howard, Plant Manager, Northfield
Mountain Station, 99 Millers Falls Road, Northfield, MA 01360, (413)
659-4489, John.Howard@gdfsueznacom.
    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Mark Ivy,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-2485-059) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: First Light Hydro Generating Company
proposes to add a solar array (encompassing approximately 10 acres of
land) as a non-project use of project lands at the Northfield Pump
Storage Project (P-2485-059). The applicant states that the proposed
2MW utility grade photovoltaic solar array will provide power to
Northfield Mountain Visitor's Center. The solar array would be located
between Millers Falls Road on the east and Central Vermont Railroad
tracks (on the west) across from the entrance to the Northfield
Mountain Visitor's Center.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an

issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3304 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 57165]
[DOCID:fr04no09-62]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12478-003]

Gibson Dam Hydro Company, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

DATES: October 28, 2009.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Project--Existing Dam.
    b. Project No.: P-12478-003.
    c. Date filed: August 28, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Gibson Dam Hydro Company, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Sun River, near the towns of Augusta and
Fairfield, Lewis and Clark and Teton Counties, Montana. The project
would occupy 95.34 acres of Federal land administered by the U. S.
Forest Service and 19.39 acres of Federal land administered by the U.
S. Bureau of Land Management for a total of 114.73 acres of Federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 USC 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steve C. Marmon and Thom A. Fischer,
Whitewater Engineering Corporation, 3633 Alderwood Ave., Bellingham, WA
98225,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: January 26, 2010.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The proposed project would utilize the existing facilities of
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Gibson dam including the reservoir,
existing valve house, and two existing dam outlet pipes; and would
consist of the following new facilities: (1) Two new 72-inch-diameter
penstocks extending 40 feet from the existing outlet pipes to the
powerhouse; (2) a new powerhouse located near the toe of the dam with
four turbine/generating units with total installed capacity of 15
megawatts; (3) a new 25.8-mile, 34.5/69 kV overhead and underground
transmission line from the powerhouse to an interconnection point with
Sun River Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s existing 69 kV transmission line
at Jackson's Corner; (4) a new 34.5/69 kV step-up substation; (5) a new
maintenance building located approximately 1,400 feet downstream of the
powerhouse adjacent to existing Gibson Dam operations facilities; and
(6) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated
to be 40 gigawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at: http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to addess the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in Item H above.
    n. You may also register online at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process
    Commission staff intend to prepare a draft and final Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both
site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    The project as proposed in the license application differs from
Gibson Dam Hydro Company's proposals described in Scoping Document 1
and Scoping Document 2, filed on March 9, 2006, and February 8, 2007,
respectively. Therefore, to support and assist our environmental
review, we are conducting additional paper scoping on the current
proposal to ensure that all pertinent issues and alternatives are
identified and analyzed, and that the EA is thorough and balanced.
Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document (SD) issued
on October 28, 2009.
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on
the Web at: http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26473 Filed 11-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79396-79397]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31925]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76654; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Certificate of Formation, By-Laws and First Amended Limited
Liability Company Agreement

December 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 9, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change with respect to
amendments of its Certificate of Formation (the ``Charter''), By-Laws
(the ``By-Laws'') and First Amended Limited Liability Company Agreement
(the ``LLC Agreement'') to change its name to NASDAQ PHLX LLC. The
proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by the
Exchange, which shall be at least 30 days from the date of this filing.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    As part of an ongoing global rebranding initiative, the Exchange's
parent company and sole member (the ``Parent'') recently changed its
legal name from The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. to Nasdaq, Inc.\3\ For
purposes of consistency, the Parent also has decided to change the
legal names of certain of its subsidiaries to eliminate references to
OMX. The Exchange therefore proposes to amend its Charter, By-Laws and
LLC Agreement to change its legal name from NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC to
NASDAQ PHLX LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75421 (July 10,
2015), 80 FR 42136 (July 16, 2015) (SR-BSECC-2015-001, SR-BX-2015-
030, SR-NASDAQ-2015-058, SR-Phlx-2015-46, SR-SCCP-2015-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to file a Certificate of
Amendment to its Charter with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware to amend Article First of the Charter to reflect the new
name.\4\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the title and
Article I(k) of the By-Laws to reflect the new name. The Exchange also
proposes to amend the first paragraph of the By-Laws to refer to the
Exchange's Second Amended Limited Liability Company Agreement, which it
will enter into in connection with the name change and which will
replace the current LLC Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On the Exchange's Web site (http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com), the Certificate of Formation and
Certificate of Amendment will appear as two separate documents,
which is consistent with how they will appear in the records of the
Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the current LLC Agreement, the Exchange proposes to
amend the title, the first paragraph, the recitals and the signature
page to reflect the Exchange's proposed name change, the Parent's
recent name change and the entry by the Parent into the Second Amended
Limited Liability Company Agreement to effectuate both of the
aforementioned changes. The Exchange also proposes to update section 1
and Schedule A to reflect its proposed name change, sections 13 and 17
to use the defined term ``Stockholder'' for the Parent and Schedules A
and B to reflect the Parent's recent name change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange is proposing amendments to its Charter, By-Laws and LLC
Agreement to effectuate its name change to NASDAQ PHLX LLC and to
reflect the Parent's recent name change to Nasdaq, Inc. The Exchange
believes that the changes will protect investors and the public
interest by eliminating confusion that may exist because of differences
between its corporate name and the current global branding of the
Parent and its affiliated entities, including the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance and not
to the operations of the Exchange, the

Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-105. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-105,
and should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31925 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


3. The compliance of the XBRL-tagged document (also called the
``instance document'') with SEC content and format requirements.
    4. The separate performance of validation checks over footings and
inter-checks (for example, whether inventory is reported more than once
throughout the document determine if amounts reported are consistent)
of the XBRL instance document.
    5. Whether the information in the XBRL instance document is the
same as the information in the official filed financial statements
(applicable under a ``bolt-on'' state).
    We note that there are ways in which companies may, inadvertently
or deliberately, create XBRL reports in a manner that will potentially
mislead investors. Accordingly, one of our members believes that
independent assurance of XBRL documents prepared by management should
be provided, as described in items (1) and (5) above (at a minimum),
provided that such assurance does not result in a significant increase
in costs. This member noted that accounting knowledge and professional
judgment would be required in providing that assurance, but believed
that the assurance process is relatively simple, should not take a
significant amount of time because many steps can be automated, and,
therefore, should not be an expensive or time-consuming activity.
    The concept of obtaining assurance on the correct tags and matching
the XBRL rendered documents to the filed statements is predicated on
the belief that the incremental monetary and human resource costs to
provide the assurance will be very small. Reviewing the tags the first
time will involve significant effort, but subsequent reviews may be
limited to new or changed tags. Moreover, the costs and benefits of
assurance reviews may differ depending on whether companies are using
the ``bolt-on'' rather than the integrated tagging approach. Therefore,
our other members believe that it is appropriate to study the assurance
process during the phase-in period to assess the actual costs and
benefits of assurance that might be provided on the XBRL-tagged
financial statements.
    The type, timing, and extent of assurance, if any, on a company's
XBRL-tagged financial statements and other tagged information required
to be furnished to the SEC should take into account the needs of
investors, and other market participants, along with the costs to
reporting companies. Until a group of reporting companies has been
required to furnish to the SEC XBRL-tagged financial statements and
notes using the new XBRL U.S. GAAP Taxonomy for a period of time that
will allow investors and other market participants to evaluate the
reliability of such XBRL-tagged financial statements and notes, it is
premature to make concrete suggestions regarding assurance.
    Accordingly, our developed proposal does not include any assurance
proposal. During the interim phase-in period discussed above, the SEC
and PCAOB should seek input from companies, investors, and other market
participants as to the type, timing, and extent of desired or needed
assurance, if any. This input should include the experience of such
persons in preparing and using XBRL-tagged financial statements using
the newly-developed XBRL U.S. GAAP Taxonomy, and related costs.
Additionally, after public companies are required to tag their
financial statements using XBRL, whether in accordance with our
proposals or otherwise, the SEC should consider initiating a voluntary
pilot program in which companies obtain assurance on their XBRL-tagged
financial statements (whether using a ``bolt-on'' or integrated
approach) in order to evaluate fully potential costs and benefits
associated with such effort.

III. Improved Corporate Web site Use

Background

    We have been examining the integral role that technology and
corporate Web sites play in informing the markets and investors about
important corporate information and developments, including Web site
disclosure presentations that are under development by software
vendors. A valuable element of many of such Web site presentations is
that they present the most important general information about a
company on the opening page,

with embedded links that enable the reader to drill down to more detail
by clicking on the links. In this way, viewers can follow a path into,
and thereby obtain increasingly greater details about the financial
statements, a company's strategy and products, its management and
corporate governance, and its many other areas in which investors and
others may have an interest.
    Improving the use of corporate Web sites can enable shareholders
and investors to gather information about a company that is at a level
they believe is satisfactory for their purposes, without requiring them
to wade through large amounts of written material that may provide a
level of detail beyond their particular needs.
    Corporate Web sites offer reporting companies a cost-effective,
efficient method to provide information to investors and the market.
Encouraging reporting companies to increase their use of their Web
sites, including developing a tiered approach to deliver such corporate
information on their Web sites, would benefit investors of all types,
retail and institutional. Enhanced corporate Web site usage could
decrease the complexity of information presentation and would enhance
its accessibility. In addition, through coordination by industry
participants, uniform best practices on uses of corporate Web sites
could be developed.
    The SEC has issued a series of interpretive releases and rules
addressing the use of electronic media to deliver or transmit
information under the federal securities laws. The SEC issued its last
comprehensive interpretive release on the use of electronic media,
including corporate Web sites, in 2000. Since 2000, significant
technological advances have increased both the market's demand for more
timely corporate disclosure and the ability of investors to capture,
process, and disseminate this information. Recognizing this, the SEC
has adopted a large number of rules that mandate, permit, or require
disclosure of the use of corporate Web sites to provide important
corporate information and developments.
    We have been informed, however, that there are continuing concerns
about the treatment of Web site disclosures under the federal
securities laws that some have argued may be impeding greater use of
corporate Web sites. These concerns include liability for information
presented in a summary format, the treatment of hyperlinked information
from within or outside a company's Web site, the disclosure of non-GAAP
measures and required reconciliations to GAAP, and the need for
clarification of the public availability of information disclosed on a
reporting company Web site. Consequently, we believe that the SEC
should issue a new comprehensive interpretive release regarding the use
of corporate Web sites for disclosures of corporate information. We
believe that SEC guidance would encourage further creative use of
corporate Web sites by reporting companies to provide information,
including Web site disclosure formats following industry developed best
practice guidelines.

Developed Proposal

    Based on the above, we have developed the following proposal:
    Developed Proposal 4.2: The SEC should issue a new comprehensive
interpretive release regarding the use of corporate Web sites for
disclosures of corporate information, which addresses issues such as
liability for information presented in a summary format, treatment of
hyperlinked information from within or outside a company's Web site,
treatment of non-GAAP disclosures and GAAP reconciliations, and
clarification of the public availability of information disclosed on a
reporting company's Web site.
    Industry participants should coordinate among themselves to develop
uniform best practices on uses of corporate Web sites for delivering
corporate information to investors and the market.

IV. Future Considerations

Use of Executive Summaries in Exchange Act Periodic Reports

    We have been exploring a requirement to include an executive
summary in reporting company annual and quarterly Exchange Act reports
(Forms 10-K and 10-Q). We understand that a summary report prepared on
a stand-alone basis would not necessarily provide investors with
information they need in a desired format. However, an executive
summary included in the forepart of an Exchange Act periodic report may
provide investors with an important roadmap to the company's
disclosures located in the body of such a report. The executive summary
in the Exchange Act periodic report would provide summary information,
in plain English, in a narrative and perhaps tabular format of the most
important information about a reporting company's business, financial
condition, and operations. As with the MD&A, the executive summary
would use a layered approach that would present information in a manner
that emphasizes the most important information about the reporting
company and would include cross-references to the location of the
fuller discussion in the annual report.
    The goal of the executive summary would be to help investors
fundamentally understand a company's businesses and activities through
a relatively short, plain English presentation. An executive summary in
a periodic report may be most useful if it included high-level
summaries across a broad range of key components of the annual or
quarterly report, rather than detailed discussion of a limited number
of variables. The executive summary approach may be an efficient way to
provide all investors, including retail investors, with a concise
overview of a company, its business, and its financial condition. For
the more sophisticated investor, an executive summary may be helpful in
presenting the company's unique story, which the sophisticated investor
could consider as it engages in a more detailed analysis of the
company, its business and financial condition.
    The executive summary in a periodic report should be brief, and it
might fruitfully build on the overview that the SEC has identified
should be in the forepart of the MD&A disclosure. The MD&A overview is
expected to ``include the most important matters on which a company's
executives focus in evaluating the financial condition and operating
performance and provide context.'' \73\ The executive summary should
build on the MD&A overview disclosure and include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ SEC, Commission Guidance Regarding Management's Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,
Securities Act Release No. 33-8350 (December 19, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. A summary of a company's current financial statements.
    2. A digest of the company's GAAP and non-GAAP KPIs.
    3. A summary of key aspects of company performance.
    4. A summary of business outlook.
    5. A brief description of the company's business, sales and
marketing.
    6. Page number references to more detailed information contained in
the document.
    The executive summary would be required to be included in the
forepart of a reporting company's annual or quarterly report filed with
the SEC or, if a reporting company files its annual report on an
integrated basis (the glossy annual report is provided as a wraparound
to the filed annual report), the executive summary instead could be

included in the forepart of the glossy annual report. If the executive
summary was included in the glossy annual report, it would not be
considered filed with the SEC.
    We will continue to evaluate the concept of requiring an executive
summary in a public company's Exchange Act periodic reports such as the
annual report on Form 10-K and the quarterly report on Form 10-Q.

Disclosures of KPIs and Other Metrics To Enhance Business Reporting

    Enhanced business reporting and KPIs are disclosures about the
aspects of a company's business that are the source of its value. The
Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium,\74\ has stated that the value
drivers for a business ``can be measured numerically through KPIs or
may be qualitative factors such as business opportunities, risks,
strategies and plans--all of which permit assessment of the quality,
sustainability and variability of its cash flows and earnings.'' KPIs
include supplemental non-GAAP financial reporting disclosures that
proponents have stated can improve disclosures by public companies.
KPIs are leading indicators of financial results and intangible assets
that are not encompassed on a company's balance sheet. Proponents of
the use of KPIs note that they are important because they inform
judgments about a company's future cash flows--and form the basis for a
company's stock price. Managers and boards of directors of companies
are said to use KPIs to monitor performance of companies and of
management. Market participants and the SEC have identified KPIs as
important supplements to GAAP-defined financial measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium was founded by
the AICPA, Grant Thornton LLP, Microsoft Corporation, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2005 upon the recommendation of the AICPA
Special Committee on Enhanced Business Reporting. The EBRC is an
independent, market-driven non-profit collaboration focused on
improving the quality, integrity and transparency of information
used for decision-making in a cost-effective, time efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The important issues for us to examine are what types of KPIs
should be made available, in what format and at what time, and whether
they are clearly and consistently defined over time. Currently,
companies are disclosing some company-specific KPIs in their periodic
reports filed with the SEC or in other public statements. Other people
in the market are working on developing industry-specific KPIs in order
to improve comparability of companies on an industry basis. We will
explore ways to encourage companies to disclose company and industry-
specific KPIs. In addition, we will examine who should develop the
disclosure standards for defining and measuring KPIs to assure
consistency among companies and through time, and whether XBRL should
be extended by industry sector to include KPIs and information on
intangible assets. Further, we will examine the interplay between the
use of non-GAAP measures and KPIs. We also will examine ways in which
consistent KPIs can be developed through industry coordination.

Improved Quarterly Press Release Disclosures and Timing

    The quarterly press release, being the first corporate
communication about the result of the quarter just ended, is viewed as
an important corporate communication. This communication often receives
more attention than the formal Form 10-Q submission which often occurs
a week or two later.
    We intend to review the earnings press release for its consistency,
understandability and its timeliness. We will consider the consistent
provision of income statement, balance sheet and cash flow tables in
the quarterly release. We also intend to consider the positioning and
prominence of GAAP and non-GAAP figures, GAAP reconciliation, the
consistent placement of topics, and clear communication of any changes
to accounting methods or key assumptions. Ultimately, we view the goal
for an earnings release as a consistent, reliable communication form
that all investors can easily navigate.
    In addition, we will evaluate the advisability of requiring the
issuance of the earnings releases on the same day that the periodic
report (e.g., Form 10-Q) is filed, in contrast to the current practice
in which the earnings release often is issued before the periodic
report is filed. In this regard, we will review a survey of CFA
Institute members on a similar proposal, as well as the comments
received by the SEC when this idea was put forth in prior SEC rule
proposals. We will consider, among other things: (1) The savings in
time spent cross-referencing two separate but fairly identical reports
separated by a very short period of time, and (2) the elimination of
the concern that the two reports may not perfectly match.
    We do not intend to deliberate the potential elimination of the
issuance of quarterly earnings results. The elimination of quarterly
reports would deprive investors of important sources of information
about a company's performance. However, we may discuss public
projections of next quarter's earnings by company officials, since some
believe that this practice is an important underlying source of
reporting complexity and other accounting problems. Moreover, as
mentioned above, we will focus on efforts to encourage corporate
reporting of KPIs and other measures of sustainable business progress
over longer periods.

Continued Need for Improvements in the MD&A and Other Public Company
Financial Disclosures

    Every public company is required to include a MD&A section in its
annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. The three principal
objectives of the MD&A are to:
     Provide a narrative explanation of a company's financial
statements that enables investors to see the company through the eyes
of management
     Enhance the overall financial disclosure and provide the
context within which financial information should be analyzed
     Provide information about the quality of, and potential
variability of, a company's earnings and cash flow so that investors
can ascertain the likelihood that past performance is indicative of
future performance.
    The SEC has made clear that the quality of the MD&A in public
company periodic reports is not as good as it should be. In 2003, the
SEC concluded, based in part on the Fortune 500 report issued by Corp
Fin, that additional guidance was useful in the following areas:
     The overall presentation of the MD&A
     The focus and content of the MD&A (including materiality,
analysis, key performance measures and known material trends and
uncertainties)
     Disclosure regarding liquidity and capital resources
     Disclosure regarding critical accounting estimates.
    The SEC has stated that the MD&A should not be a recitation of
financial statements in narrative form or a series of technical
responses to the MD&A requirements.
    We understand that investors and other market participants believe
that while there has been some improvement in the MD&A disclosures
since publication of the SEC's interpretive release in 2003,
significant improvement is still needed both in terms of additional
disclosures and elimination of what the SEC termed ``unnecessary detail
or duplicative or uninformative disclosure that obscures material
information.''

    Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the SEC is generally required
to review every public company's filings at least every three years. In
that regard, we believe that through the review process, the SEC will
gain important insight into whether there has been improvement in the
MD&A disclosures and the types of ongoing concerns regarding such
disclosures. We will be evaluating whether the SEC should periodically
issue a report on common types of comments issued on the MD&A and other
financial disclosures, similar to the Fortune 500 report, to provide
additional guidance on improving the MD&A in accordance with the SEC's
most recent interpretive guidance.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ We note that the SEC's comment letters on a reporting
company's filings are made publicly available on the SEC Web site
after completion of the SEC's review of such filings. We also note
that third parties prepare reports on the MD&A disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendices

Index of Appendices
A--Separate Statement of Mr. Wallison
B--Examples of Substantive Complexity
C--Committee Members, Official Observers, and Staff

Appendix A

Separate Statement of Mr. Wallison

Introduction

    In its meeting on January 11, 2008, the Committee endorsed the use
of XBRL for financial reports with this statement: ``The Committee
believes that the SEC should eventually require all public companies
(preparing their financial statements using U.S. GAAP) to tag the
financial statements (including footnotes) they are required to file
with the SEC as part of their Exchange Act reports using XBRL. The
Committee believes such a mandate is necessary in order to encourage
the commitment of resources toward the necessary software development
for tagging, viewing and reading of XBRL tagged information * * *
''.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Draft report, p. 81
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yet, despite the value the Committee saw in mandating the use of
XBRL by reporting companies, the Committee adopted an extended phase-in
that will delay the widespread use of XBRL for financial reporting well
into the next decade. I dissented from the Committee's vote--and am
filing this separate statement--because I believe the Committee's
proposed timetable is (i) based on an erroneous assessment of the
potential costs of auditor assurance, (ii) applies restrictions on
reporting that will be harmful to XBRL and to users, and (iii)
unnecessarily delays the date on which XBRL will be available to
investors and analysts.
    In the Committee's timetable, the first phase begins with the 500
largest reporting companies. These companies would be required to
``file'' their regular audited financial statements, as they do today,
and at the same time to ``furnish'' a supplement consisting of the XBRL
tags that were applied to the filed statements (for purposes of this
memorandum, I will refer to this supplemental XBRL material as the
``XBRL financial statements''). In the Committee's recommendation, the
XBRL financial statements would include both the facing financials and
block-tagged footnotes (block-tagging means that one XBRL tag is
applied to the entire footnote, instead of applying individual tags to
each of the individual disclosures within the footnote).
    The first phase would not begin until certain technical
preconditions have been resolved, the most significant of which is the
upgrading of the SEC's website to receive XBRL filings. John White, the
director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, told the
Committee that he did not think the first phase would begin until the
fall of 2008. One year after the first phase begins, domestic large
accelerated filers (perhaps 1500 additional companies) would be
required to ``file'' their regulator audited financial statements, and
``furnish'' a set of XBRL financial statements. Some time after the
second phase has begun, the SEC is to decide ``whether and when to move
from furnishing to the official filing of XBRL financial statements for
the domestic large accelerated filers, as well as the inclusion of all
other reporting companies.''

The Delay

    Assuming that the first phase begins in the fall of this year, it
seems unlikely that the companies involved will be required to begin
with their 10-K reports, which for the most part are due to be filed no
later than March 31, 2009. So in reality, the first phase 500 companies
will be filing reports and furnishing XBRL financial statements for the
quarters ended in 2009 and the 10-K due in March 2010. The second phase
will begin late in 2009 (one year after the beginning of the first
phase) and will include the financial statements that are due (for most
companies) in the first three quarters of 2010 and the 10-K due at the
end of the first quarter of 2011. We are already three years from
today, and only 2000 or so companies will have been required to prepare
XBRL financial statements.
    Only after the second phase has begun in late 2009 or early 2010
will the SEC (in the Committee's recommendation) begin to consider
whether to require any companies to file (rather than furnish) their
XBRL-tagged financial statements. Since the second phase companies will
(in the Committee's recommendation) be permitted to furnish rather than
file their XBRL financial statements, that must mean they won't be
required to file their XBRL financial statements until after their 10-
Ks are filed in March 2011. That means no company, large or small, will
be required to file a 10-K with XBRL financial statements until March
of 2012. That's four years from now, and quite a generous phase-in,
considering we are talking about only 2000 or so of the largest and
most sophisticated companies in the U.S. When the remaining 13,000
reporting companies will be required to file XBRL financial statements
under this ``mandatory'' phase-in is anybody's guess.
    The distinction between furnishing and filing is important. Under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, companies are absolutely liable
for false or misleading material filed with the SEC. However, in the
case of material that is merely furnished to the SEC, liability only
attaches if it can be shown that the material was intentionally false
or misleading. Accordingly, the Committee seems to have adopted the
idea of furnishing rather than filing XBRL financial statements because
of its concern about the possible cost of auditor assurance. It seems
to have reasoned that, if XBRL financial statements were furnished
rather than filed, the reduced liability would permit companies to
dispense with auditor assurance entirely, and thus to avoid these
potential costs. However, as I will discuss below, the concern about
assurance costs is misplaced and ultimately self-defeating. Not only
was there no need to require the furnishing of XBRL financial
statements, but allowing XBRL financial statements to be furnished
rather than filed will severely impair the value of XBRL for investors
and analysts and is an important source of what will be an enormous and
unnecessary delay in the adoption of XBRL in the United States.
Will auditor assurance as to the accuracy of XBRL-tagged financial
statements be costly?
    As noted above, the Committee's phase-in recommendation, and its
distinction between filing and furnishing XBRL financial statements,
were apparently motivated by concern that auditor assurance as to the
accuracy

of the XBRL tagging will be costly. Some committee members, without any
supporting evidence, referred to the process of auditor assurance as
potentially as costly as Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley--erroneous
statements that were picked up in some media reports of the meeting.
However, as I will discuss below, concerns about the cost of assurance
are unfounded and should not have been a factor in the Committee's
deliberations.
    Today, most companies that tag their financial statements use the
so-called bolt-on method. It is the simplest, although not potentially
the least costly, approach to tagging financial statements. In the
bolt-on method, financial statements are prepared and audited in the
usual way. When the audit is completed, the financial statements are
``mapped'' to the XBRL taxonomy. This means simply that the various
items in the company's financial statement are tagged with the
appropriate XBRL tag. The tagging can be done largely automatically,
with existing software that reads the financial statement and applies
the appropriate tag, or manually through a drag and drop method that
also uses available open source (zero cost) software.
    Once the items in the financial statements have been tagged, the
question arises whether the tags have been correctly selected and
applied. It is at this point that the question of assurance becomes
significant. It is also important to note that there is no relationship
between the audit of the financial statements and the assurance process
on the application of the XBRL tags we are discussing here. The audit
of the financial statements has been completed when the bolt-on process
begins. The assurance process for the XBRL tags does not make the audit
in any way more complicated or costly. The only remaining question is
whether the tagging, after the audit, has been done properly. For
purposes of this memorandum, the key question is what it would cost for
the company's auditor, having completed the audit, to determine that
the company properly applied the XBRL tags after the audit's
completion.
    There are only three significant questions that must be answered
for the auditors to assure themselves--and to provide assurance to
others--as to the accuracy of the tagging:
     Did the company choose the correct XBRL taxonomy (there
are several different XBRL taxonomies, because the financial statements
of banks, for example, are different from the financial statements of
operating companies);
     Did the company properly tag each disclosure in its
financial statements? (For example, is the ``revenue'' item in the
financial statements properly mapped to the correct ``revenue'' tag in
XBRL?)
     Did the company add extensions to the tags that were not
appropriate in light of the company's business? (Adding extensions to
the tags already included in the XBRL taxonomy, although permissible,
could make it difficult to compare one company's financial statements
with another's.) \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ In the brief discussion at the Committee meeting on January
11, one member suggested that more financial information was
included in XBRL material associated with a financial statement than
in the financial statement itself. This is not correct. XBRL does
not contain any more financial data than the company chooses to
disclose in its financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To put this in some perspective, one S&P 50 technology company told
Subcommittee 4 that its 10 Q report, including the financial
statements, block-tagged footnotes, and the MD&A, required only 192
tags. So the assurance process, had it been done for that company by
its auditors, would have required that the auditors answer the three
questions above for only 192 tags. In the end, the company performed
its own assurance, which required only 10 hours of work by one lower
level accountant.
    Despite the seeming simplicity of the three principal questions,
and the relatively small number of tags likely to be involved, is it
possible that auditors would have to go through complex steps in order
to provide assurance as to the tagging? The answer is no. There is a
simple way for assurance to be done, and no reason why a company's
auditors would not follow it.
    Today, most companies prepare their financial statements in Excel,
Word, or some other desktop publishing software; those companies that
are furnishing or will furnish XBRL financial statements will use the
bolt-on method to add the XBRL tags. Once the tagging has been
completed, all these desktop publishing applications can be used to
print out a set of financial statements, and when printed out these
statements should be an exact replica of the audited human-readable
statements. The two financial statements can then be compared either
manually, through a visual comparison, or through an automated
comparative analysis. If they match, the XBRL tagging must have been
accurate--otherwise the XBRL financial statements could not produce an
exact replica of the audited human-readable statements. If there are
discrepancies, errors in the tagging will be immediately apparent.
    Any suggestion that this simple process will or could involve costs
remotely like section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley is thus completely
fanciful. A better description of the costs involved in auditor
assurance would be one word: trivial.
Is assurance by auditors necessary?
    Certainly. There are two reasons. First, without a third-party
review, companies will get careless in the rush to complete their XBRL
financial reports and file with the SEC. No matter how simple the
tagging process, mistakes will be made. Mistakes are especially likely
if the tagged financial statements are furnished rather than filed. In
that case, companies will believe that they don't have to be
particularly careful with the mapping to the XBRL taxonomy, since there
will be little likelihood of liability for mere negligence. If, as some
have suggested, the SEC will offer some kind of safe harbor for XBRL-
tagged financials that are furnished rather than filed, this problem
will be compounded; companies will have little incentive to take the
time to get the tagging right, and many incentives to get the tagging
wrong if they are hoping to avoid unfavorable comparisons with their
peers. Under these circumstances, errors in the tagging--and incorrect
information in the XBRL financial statements--will not be an infrequent
occurrence; the result will be to raise questions about the value and
usefulness of XBRL. In this way, a potentially valuable resource for
investors, which could have been introduced without flaws, will be
damaged and diminished. And all this because of an unfounded fear that
auditor assurance will be costly.
    Second, and perhaps even more important, in the absence of any
consistent rules for tagging, imposed either by regulation or reporting
standards and monitored by auditors, many companies may add extensions
to their tags that will make it difficult or impossible to compare
their financial results from period to period or with others in their
industry. The XBRL taxonomy is a set of standardized categories for
typical financial reports. The designers have made efforts to include
all the tags that would be necessary to achieve some degree of
comparability between companies in the same business. However,
companies, on their own, can add extensions to the standard tags in the
XBRL taxonomy. In some cases, these extensions may more accurately
describe a company's specific unique disclosures (e.g., business

segments), but they can also make comparability more difficult.
    In the development of XBRL, it was assumed that the tagging process
would be reviewed by the company's auditors--not only to assure that
the tagging was done properly, but also to impose some period-to-period
consistency on the process by which companies choose their tags or add
extensions to the standard tags in the XBRL taxonomy. The Committee's
proposal to allow XBRL financial statements to be furnished without
assurance will invite a chaotic outcome, in which it will be possible
for companies to add unnecessary or inappropriate extensions to the
XBRL tags. This will impair comparability, one of the principal
purposes of XBRL, and substantially reduce XBRL's value to investors
and analysts.
Is the furnished vs filed distinction sustainable?
    No. The Committee's draft report conceives of the audited human-
readable financial statements and the XBRL financial statements as two
separate documents. This is certainly true as the bolt-on method is
used today. The result is two documents, with the XBRL materials
furnished, while the human readable (audited) financial statements are
filed. However, if companies follow the Committee's suggestion, they
will have to forego the use of a major advance in the formatting of
filed documents that will be available to companies around the world in
only a few months. This new document format is known as Microformat,
and should be available by this coming May. When it is available, it
will be usable through the bolt-on method as well as other more
efficient and less costly approaches. The technical specifications that
will make the Microformat standard possible will be published soon by
XBRL International--the umbrella group for the development and
worldwide promulgation of XBRL--and this will enable software
manufacturers to prepare updated plug-ins, so that existing report-
writer and desktop publishing applications will be able to create
Microformat documents. Using the XBRL Microformat standard, it will be
possible to both print out a human-readable financial statement, and
download an XBRL financial statement into a model, from a single XBRL
Microformat document.
    In this case, of course, there can't be a separate filing of the
XBRL and human-readable financial statements; nor can the human
readable portion be filed while the XBRL portion is furnished; they
will both be included in the same document and rely on the same data.
If that data contains an error, both the human readable portion and the
XBRL disclosures will reflect that error, because both are derived from
the same underlying information. In other words, it will make no sense
to apply different liability standards to the human-readable document
and to the XBRL tagged disclosures, because both the human-readable
audited financial statement and the XBRL financial statement will come
out of the same data source.
    Under these circumstances, one of two things will happen: either
the Committee's distinction between furnishing and filing will be
ignored by companies that decide to use the Microformat document, or--
more likely--the distinction between filing and furnishing that the
Committee (and perhaps the SEC) has offered will induce U.S. companies
to forego the Microformat option and continue to use older and less
efficient technology for their financial reporting. Accordingly, the
Committee's hope that a mandatory timetable for filing financial
statements in XBRL format will bring about the adoption of new
technology will have been thwarted by the Committee's own (unnecessary)
requirements. In addition, the huge efficiency benefits that would come
from the creation of a single Microformat document, which can produce
both a human-readable statement and be downloaded into a model, will be
lost.

Conclusion

    Auditor assurance as to the accuracy of tagging is a simple
process, and cannot under any imaginable circumstances be costly for
companies--large or small--that are required to file XBRL financial
statements. There are many ways that assurance can be accomplished
through efficient automatic means, but one way that even non-technical
people can understand is that the XBRL financial statements can be used
to print out a set of human-readable financial statements, which can
then be compared visually with the audited statements. If they match,
the tagging must have been done correctly. Accordingly, there is no
need to distinguish between furnishing and filing XBRL financial
statements, and no need for more than a limited SEC inquiry to confirm
that the costs are trivial. After that, the SEC can determine how and
at what pace it should require companies to file their financial
statements in XBRL format.
    In my view, therefore, the Committee should eliminate both the
distinction between filing and furnishing XBRL financial statements,
and the entire phase-in plan contained in its draft report of January
11. Instead, it should--for the reasons stated in the January 11
draft--endorse a requirement that all companies file their financial
statements in XBRL Microformat, and leave it to the SEC to determine on
what timetable this should occur.

Appendix B

Examples of Substantive Complexity

1. Industry-Specific Guidance

    1. Below is a list of examples of industry-specific guidance in
GAAP. Note that this list does not reflect all industry-specific
guidance or all industries subject to its own guidance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Industry                             Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcasting Industry........  SFAS No. 63, 139; EITF 87-10; SOP 00-2.
Banking and Thrift Industries  APB Opinion 23; SFAS No. 72, 91, 104,
                                109, 114, 115, 147; Technical Bulletin
                                85-1; FSP 85-24-1; SOPs 90-3, 03-3;
                                EITFs 97-3, 93-1, 92-5, 89-3, 88-25, 88-
                                19, 87-22, 86-21, 85-44, 85-42, 85-41,
                                85-31, 85-24, 85-8, 84-20, 84-9, 84-4, D-
                                Topics D-78, D-57, D-47, D-39, SEC
                                Regulation S-X--Article 9, SEC Industry
                                Guide; AICPA Auditing and Accounting
                                Guide.
Cable Television Industry....  SFAS No. 51.
Computer Software to be Sold,  SFAS No. 2, 86.
 Leased, or Otherwise
 Marketed.
Contractor Accounting:         ARB 43, Chapter 11, ARB 45, SFAS No. 111;
 Construction-Type Contracts    SOP 81-1.
 & Government Contracts.
Development Stage Enterprises  Opinion 18; SFAS No. 7, 95, 154;
                                Interpretation 7; SOP 98-5; AICPA
                                Auditing and Accounting Guides.
Finance Companies............  SFAS No. 91, 111, 115; SOP 01-6; AICPA
                                Auditing and Accounting Guide.

Franchising: Accounting by     SFAS No. 45, 141.
 Franchisors.
Insurance Industry...........  SFAS No. 5, 60, 91, 97, 109, 113, 114,
                                115, 120, 124, 133, 135, 140, 144, 149,
                                156; Interpretation 40; FSP FAS 97-1;
                                AICPA Auditing and Accounting Guides;
                                EITFs 99-4, 93-6, 92-9; D-Topics D-54, D-
                                35. D-34, SEC Regulation S-X--Article 7,
                                SEC Industry guide.
Investment Companies.........  SFAS No. 102; FSP AAG INV-1; SOPs 94-4-1,
                                93-1, 93-4, 95-2, 00-3, 01-1; AICPA
                                Auditing and Accounting Guide; D-Topics
                                D-76 D-74, D-11, SEC Regulation S-X--
                                Article 6.
Mortgage Banking Activities..  SFAS No. 65, 91, 114, 115, 124, 125, 133,
                                134, 140, 149, 156; Technical Bulletin
                                87-3; SOP 97-1, 03-3; EITF 95-5, 90-21,
                                87-34, 85-13, 84-19, D-Topics D-10, D-4,
                                D-2.
Motion Picture Industry......  SFAS No. 139, SOP 00-2.
Oil and Gas Producing          SFAS No. 19, 25, 69, 95, 109, 131, 143,
 Activities.                    144, 145, 153; Interpretation 33, 36,
                                FSP FAS 19-1, 141/142-1, 142-2; AICPA
                                Auditing and Accounting Guide; SEC
                                Industry Guide, SEC Reg S-X Rule 4-10,
                                SAB Topic 12, FRR Section 406; EITFs 04-
                                6, 04-4, 04-3, 04-2, 90-22.
Pension Funds: Accounting and  SFAS No. 35, 75, 102, 110, 135, 149; SOPs
 Reporting by Defined Benefit   92-6, 94-4, 94-6, 95-1, 99-2, 99-3, 01-
 Pension Plans.                 2.
Real Estate: Sales &           SFAS No. 13, 34, 66, 67, 91, 98, 114,
 Accounting for Costs and       140, 144, 152; Interpretation 43; SOPs
 Initial Rental Operations of   75-2, 78-9, 92-1, 97-1, 04-2; AICPA
 Real Estate Projects.          Auditing and Accounting Guide; EITF 06-
                                8, 05-3, 98-8, 97-11, 95-7, 95-6, 94-2,
                                94-1, 91-10, 91-2, 90-20, 89-14, 88-24,
                                88-12, 87-9, 86-7, 86-6, 85-27, 84-17,
                                SEC Regulation S-X--Rule 3-14, SEC SAB
                                Topic 5N, 5W.
Record and Music Industry....  SFAS No. 50.
Regulated Operations.........  SFAS No. 71, 87, 90, 92, 98, 101, 106,
                                109, 135, 142, 144, Interpretation 40;
                                Technical Bulletin 87-2; EITFs 97-4, 92-
                                7; D Topics D-21, D-5; SAB Topic 10.
Title Plant..................  SFAS No. 61, 144.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Industry-specific exceptions in GAAP, such as the scope
exception for registered investment companies and life insurance
entities in FIN 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities and
for U.S. savings and loan associations, other ``qualified'' thrift
lenders, and stock life insurance companies in SFAS No. 109, Accounting
for Income Taxes.
    3. Industry practice such as accounting for certain types of
inventory at fair value.

2. Alternative Accounting Policies

    Examples of alternative accounting policies are as follows:
     SFAS No. 87, Employer's Accounting for Pensions and SFAS
No. 106, Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than
Pensions, which permits alternatives for amortizing delayed recognition
amounts and for measuring return on plan assets.
     SFAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, which permits
alternative presentations of the form and content of the statement.
     SFAS No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt
and Equity Securities (specifically Q&A 35 of the SFAS 115
Implementation Guide), which indicates that companies are not precluded
from classifying securities as trading, even if they have no intention
of selling them in the near-term.
     SFAS No. 130, Reporting Comprehensive Income, permits a
choice in presenting comprehensive income. An entity may present other
comprehensive income below the total for net income in a single
statement, in a separate statement that begins with net income, or in a
statement of changes in equity.
     SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities, which permits, but does not require, the use of
hedge accounting, which, in certain circumstances, may mitigate
earnings volatility from marking derivative instruments to market.
     SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets
and Financial Liabilities, which permits, but does not require, the
measurement of certain financial assets and financial liabilities at
fair value.
     EITF 88-1, Determination of Vested Benefit Obligation for
a Defined Benefit Plan, which permits vested benefit obligations to be
determined as the actuarial present value of the vested benefits to
which the employee is entitled if the employee separates immediately or
the actuarial present value of the vested benefits to which the
employee is currently entitled but based on the employee's expected
date of separation or retirement.
     EITF 06-3, How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted
to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income Statement
(That Is, Gross Versus Net Presentation), which permits that certain
taxes, such as sales, use, and value added taxes, may be presented
either on a gross or net basis.
     EITF Topic D-98, Classification and Measurement of
Redeemable Securities, which permits a choice of methods of accreting
to the redemption value.
     FIN 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, which
permits an entity to classify interest and penalties as either interest
or taxes.
     FSP AUG AIR-1, Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance
Activities, which prohibits the accrue in advance method, but allows
for continued use of one of three other alternatives: direct expense,
built-in overhaul, or deferral methods.
     Oil & gas accounting: The two accounting methods followed
by oil and gas producers are the successful efforts method and the full
cost method. Successful efforts accounting essentially provides for
capitalizing only those costs directly related to proved properties;
the costs associated with exploratory dry holes are expensed as
incurred. Full cost accounting generally provides for capitalizing
(within a cost center) all costs incurred in exploring for, acquiring,
and developing oil and gas reserves-regardless of whether or not the
results of specific costs are successful.
     SAB Topic 5H, Accounting for Sales of Stock by a
Subsidiary, which permits gains/losses on sales of stock by a
subsidiary to be recognized in income or equity.

3. Bright Lines

    Examples of bright lines, rules of thumb, and pass/fail models
include the following:
A. Bright Lines
     Lease Accounting
    Current lease accounting is based on a principle: when a lease
transfers substantially all of the benefits and risks of ownership of
the property, it should be accounted for as an asset and a
corresponding liability by the lessee and the asset is derecognized by
the lessor (capital lease); otherwise, rental expense is recognized as
amounts become payable (operating lease). However, to apply this
principle, SFAS No. 13, Accounting for Leases, provides the following
bright lines for classifying leases as capital or operating. Meeting
any one of these criteria results in capital lease treatment.
    [cir] The lease transfers ownership of the property to the lessee
by the end of the lease term.
    [cir] The lease contains a bargain purchase option.
    [cir] The lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of the
estimated economic life of the leased property.
    [cir] The present value at the beginning of the lease term of the
minimum lease payments, excluding certain items, equals or exceeds 90
percent of the excess of the fair value of the leased property.
     Consolidation
    For those entities that are not subject to the FIN 46R model, ``the
usual condition for a controlling financial interest is ownership of a
majority voting interest, and therefore, as a general rule, ownership
by one company * * * of over 50% of the outstanding voting shares of
another company is a condition pointing toward consolidation.'' \78\
Further, there is a presumption that an investment of 20%-50% requires
equity method accounting. In addition, the equity method is required
for investments in limited partnerships unless the interest ``is so
minor that the limited partner may have virtually no influence over
partnership operating and financial policies'' (SoP 78-9, Accounting
for Investments in Real Estate Ventures). In this case, practice has
used a 3%-5% bright line to apply the ``more than minor'' provision.
This practice has been acknowledged by the SEC staff in EITF Topic No.
D-46, Accounting for Limited Partnership Investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ ARB No. 51, Consolidated Financial Statements, paragraph 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revenue Recognition
    Bright lines may also be found in revenue recognition literature.
One example is SFAS No. 66, Accounting for Sales of Real Estate, which
provides bright lines for determining the buyer's minimum initial
investment requirements for real estate sales.
     Business Combinations
    When an SEC registrant undergoes a change in control, the company
must reflect the new basis of accounting arising from its acquisition
in its stand-alone financial statements (i.e., apply purchase
accounting to its own stand-alone financial statements) if the company
becomes substantially wholly-owned. ``Substantially wholly-owned'' is
defined such that this push down accounting is prohibited if less than
80% of the company is acquired, permitted if 80% to 95% of the company
is acquired, and required if 95% or more of the company is acquired.
    In addition, SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, requires that the
purchase price allocation period in a business combination usually not
exceed one year from the consummation date.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ We note SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, has been
superseded by a new FASB standard, SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007),
Business Combinations, which similarly states in paragraph 51, ``* *
* the measurement period shall not exceed one year from the
acquisition date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pension and Other Post-Retirement Employment Benefit
Accounting
    SFAS No. 87, Employers' Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS No. 106,
Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions,
permit the use of smoothing mechanisms that delay the recognition of
the effects of changes in actuarial assumptions and differences between
actual results and actuarial assumptions. However, these standards
contain a bright line as to when the delayed recognition amounts should
be recognized.
     Hedge Accounting
    SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, requires that derivative instruments be recognized at fair
value, with changes in fair value recognized in income. However, in an
effort to mitigate earnings volatility, SFAS No. 133 permits the use of
hedge accounting when a derivative is highly effective in achieving
offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows attributable to the risk
being hedged. GAAP, however, does not define ``highly effective.''
Instead, practice has defined ``highly effective'' as an offset ratio
of 80% to 125%.
     Classification
    Bright lines are also present in classification requirements. For
example, SFAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, clarifies the definition
of ``cash equivalents'' by stating that ``generally, only investments
with original maturities of three months or less qualify under that
definition'' (paragraph 8). Despite use of the word ``generally,'' this
bright line is often interpreted stringently.
    In addition, SEC Regulation S-X includes bright lines for separate
presentation of amounts that would otherwise be included in lines such
as revenue, other current assets and liabilities, and other assets and
liabilities.
     Disclosure
    Bright lines also exist with respect to the determination of
related parties for the purposes of disclosing related party
transactions and the identification of segments for the purposes of
determining which operating segments require separate presentation.
    Further, SEC Regulation S-X includes a number of bright lines
regarding requirements to present stand-alone acquiree financial
statements, stand-alone equity method investee financial statements,
and pro forma financial information, among others. These bright-lines
are based on the results of certain significance tests, or
calculations, defined in Regulation S-X. These significance tests
compare the acquiree or investee to the registrant in the areas of
assets, investments, and income.
B. Rules of Thumb
     Consolidation Accounting
    The fall of Enron in late 2001 refocused attention on the effect of
bright lines as they relate to consolidation accounting. Enron, and
others, took advantage of bright lines related to the consolidation of
special purpose entities (SPEs) to avoid reporting assets and
liabilities, to defer reporting losses, and/or report gains. At the
time, the consolidation of SPEs hinged on an analogy to guidance that
required lessees to consolidate SPE lessors that lacked a substantive
investment at risk from an unrelated party. ``Substantive'' was defined
as 3%, at a minimum, with the caveat that a greater investment may be
necessary in certain facts and circumstances. Despite this caveat,
which would suggest the need for judgment, the presence of the 3%
bright line gave rise to numerous structured transactions to achieve a
specific accounting purpose.
    In December 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46R, Consolidation of
Variable Interest Entities, which superseded the

3% rule. FIN 46R requires consolidation in certain circumstances by the
party that holds the majority of the risks and rewards of an entity,
rather than equity ownership and voting rights. This model has led some
to assert that FIN 46R is a principles-based standard. However, even
FIN 46R contains a rule of thumb--a presumption that if equity
investment at risk is less than 10% of the entity's total assets, the
entity is a variable interest entity subject to the FIN 46R model, with
similar caveats that require additional analysis, judgment and
consideration.
     Contingencies
    SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, provides an example of
rules of thumb in interpretations of GAAP. SFAS No. 5 establishes
recognition and disclosure requirements based on the likelihood--
remote, possible, probable--that a liability has been incurred.
Although GAAP does not define these terms, audit firms have developed
rules of thumb for these terms.
C. Pass/Fail Tests
     SFAS No. 48, Revenue Recognition When Right of Return
Exists, requires that where a right of return exists, revenue be
recognized at the time of sale only if certain criteria, such as the
amount of future returns can be reasonably estimated. Otherwise,
revenue recognition is deferred until the right expires or the criteria
are subsequently met.
     SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities--if critical terms do not match or if documentation
does not comply with the rules, then companies are not eligible to
apply hedge accounting.
     SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of
Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities contains
requirements, all of which must be satisfied, to achieve sale
accounting for a transfer of financial assets. Otherwise, the transfer
is treated as a secured borrowing with a pledge of collateral.
     EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial
Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company's Own
Stock, identifies a number of criteria that must be met in order for an
instrument to be classified as an equity instrument. Failure to meet
any of these criteria results in classification as a liability, which
is marked to market through income. The criteria do not provide for
probability assessments or judgments based on the preponderance of
evidence.
     SoP 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, related
interpretations, and audit firm guidance contain the following pass/
fail tests:
    [cir] If vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) does not exist
for all of the undelivered elements of a software sales arrangement,
the recognition of all revenue from the arrangement must be deferred
until sufficient evidence exists, or until all elements have been
delivered, unless certain exceptions are met.
    [cir] Extended payment terms usually result in a deferral of
revenue. Specifically, when extended payment terms are present, a
presumption exists that the vendor's fee is not fixed or determinable,
due to the possibility that the vendor may provide a refund or
concession to a customer. While there are factors to overcome this
presumption, interpretive guidance sets the hurdle to overcome this
presumption extremely high, generally resulting in the deferral of
revenue until payment is due.

Appendix C

Committee Members, Official Observers, and Staff

Members

Robert C. Pozen, Chairman, MFS Investment Management. (Ex Officio
Member of All Subcommittees)
Dennis R. Beresford, Ernst & Young Executive Professor of
Accounting, University of Georgia. (Standards-Setting Process
Subcommittee)
Susan S. Bies, Former Member, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve
System. (Chairperson, Substantive Complexity Subcommittee)
J. Michael Cook, Former Chairman and CEO, Deloitte & Touche LLP.
(Chairperson, Audit Process and Compliance Subcommittee)
Jeffrey J. Diermeier, CFA, President and CEO, CFA Institute.
(Chairperson, Delivering Financial Information Subcommittee)
Scott C. Evans, Executive Vice President, Asset Management, TIAA-
CREF. (Standards-Setting Process Subcommittee)
Linda L. Griggs, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. (Audit
Process and Compliance Subcommittee)
Joseph A. Grundfest, William A. Franke Professor of Law and
Business, Stanford Law School. (Substantive Complexity Subcommittee)
Gregory J. Jonas, Managing Director, Moody's Investors Service.
(Audit Process and Compliance Subcommittee)
Christopher Liddell, Chief Financial Officer, Microsoft Corp.
(Delivering Financial Information Subcommittee)
William H. Mann, III, Senior Analyst, The Motley Fool. (Delivering
Financial Information Subcommittee)
G. Edward McClammy, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer, Varian, Inc. (Substantive Complexity Subcommittee)
Edward E. Nusbaum, CEO and Executive Partner, Grant Thornton LLP.
(Audit Process and Compliance Subcommittee)
James H. Quigley, Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.
(Standards-Setting Process Subcommittee)
David H. Sidwell, Former Chief Financial Officer, Morgan Stanley.
(Chairperson, Standards-Setting Process Subcommittee)
Peter J. Wallison, Arthur F. Burns Chair in Financial Market
Studies, American Enterprise Institute. (Delivering Financial
Information Subcommittee)
Thomas Weatherford, Former Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, Business Objects S.A. (Substantive Complexity
Subcommittee)

Official Observers

Robert Herz, Chairman, Financial Accounting Standards Board.

    Assisted by: Thomas Linsmeier (Substantive Complexity
Subcommittee). Leslie Seidman (Standards-Setting Subcommittee).
Larry Smith (Audit Process and Compliance Subcommittee). Donald
Young (Delivering Financial Information Subcommittee).

Charles Holm, Associate Director and Chief Accountant, Banking
Supervision and Regulation, Federal Reserve Board.
Phil Laskawy, Chairman of the Trustees, International Accounting
Standards Committee Foundation.
Mark Olson, Chairman, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

    Assisted by: Charles Niemeier (Substantive Complexity
Subcommittee). Dan Goelzer (Audit Process and Compliance
Subcommittee).

Kristen E. Jaconi, Senior Policy Advisor to the Under Secretary for
Domestic Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Committee Staff

Conrad Hewitt, Chief Accountant, Office of the Chief Accountant,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
James Kroeker, (Designated Federal Officer), Deputy Chief
Accountant, Office of the Chief Accountant, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
John W. White, Director, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Wayne Carnall, Chief Accountant, Division of Corporation Finance,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
James Daly, Associate Director, Division of Corporation Finance,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Russell Golden (Senior Advisor to the Committee Chairman), Director
of Technical Application and Implementation Activities, Financial
Accounting Standards Board.
Holly Barker, Project Manager, Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Adam Brown, Professional Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief
Accountant, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Bert Fox, Professional Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief
Accountant, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Todd E. Hardiman, Associate Chief Accountant, Division of
Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Stephanie Hunsaker, Associate Chief Accountant, Division of
Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Shelly Luisi, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, Office of the Chief
Accountant, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Christopher Roberge, Project Manager, Financial Accounting Standards
Board.
Nili Shah, Assistant Chief Accountant, Office of the Chief
Accountant, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Amy Starr, Senior Special Counsel to the Director, Division of
Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sharon Virag, Director of Technical Policy Implementation, Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board.
Brett Williams, Professional Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief
Accountant, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

[FR Doc. E8-3544 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34145]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15371]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4373-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4373-DR), dated June 25, 2018,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued June 25, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 25, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from wildfires during the period of April 11-
20, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Oklahoma.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Traci L. Brasher, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Custer, Dewey, Harmon, Roger Mills, and Woodward Counties for
Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Oklahoma are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-15371 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39560]
[DOCID:fr09jy10-72]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1918-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1918-DR), dated June 24,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 24, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 24, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of West Virginia resulting from severe storms, flooding, mudslides,
and landslides beginning on June 12, 2010, and continuing, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of West Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas, and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldsen, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and Wyoming Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    Logan, McDowell, Mingo, and Wyoming Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties within the State of West Virginia are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-16710 Filed 7-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P