Notice Of Proposed Regulatory Action: Fill & Download for Free

The answer will surprise you.Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried on board by passengers have been the subject of much discussion and analysis..According to Boeing:“Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects,erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing). The company also recommends prohibiting the use of devices that intentionally transmit electromagnetic signals, such as cell phones, during all phases of flight. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission already prohibits the use of cell phones during flight. In addition, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21 to make operators responsible for governing the use of portable electronic devices on their airplanes.The FAA set up an expert committee: the Advisory and Rulemaking Committee to analyze the changing scenario of PDEs and their effect on aircraft, and, upon their recommendations, adopted their final report:https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/PED_ARC_FINAL_REPORT.pdfThe current regulations regarding PDEs, effective 2013, are illustrated in this picture:So, NO voice, NO cellular usage on mobile phones. You can, however, use the phone in Airplane Mode.This is because the FCC does not permit cellular activity inside aircraft.The reasoning for the FCC ban is as follows:Mobile phone terrestrial networks are designed to communicate with ground-based cellphones. The use of cellular phones in airplanes is banned because, at the altitudes we fly, too many cells are hit by any one transmission. Signals arriving from airborne cellphones will affect several mobile station receiving towers on earth, throwing the whole system into disarray.The FCC’s ban was adopted in 1991 based on the threat of widespread interference with terrestrial networks from airborne use of cell phones.Many U.S. airlines currently offer Wi-Fi connectivity to passengers’ mobile devices using FAA-approved in-flight connectivity systems. Like Airborne Access Systems, airborne Wi-Fi systems receive signals from passengers’ mobile devices and relay those signals to satellites or dedicated ground towers.With advances in technology and increasing public interest in using mobile communications services on airborne aircraft, the FCC issued its 2013 NPRM proposing to revise what it described as outdated rules. The FCC proposes a regulatory framework that would allow airlines, subject to application of DOT regulations, the ability to allow passengers to use commercial mobile spectrum bands on their mobile wireless devices while in flight.The FCC’s proposal would not require airlines to permit any new airborne mobile services; rather, it would provide a regulatory pathway for airlines to enable such services using an Airborne Access System (AAS).An AAS likely would consist of a base station (typically a picocell) and a network control unit. The system would receive low-powered signals from passengers’ mobile wireless devices and transmit those signals through an onboard antenna either to a satellite or to dedicated terrestrial receivers.In either case, the system would be designed to minimize the potential for interference with terrestrial networks that prompted the FCC’s original ban.Wi-Fi spectrum is capable of transmitting voice calls as well as other types of data, such as video and text messages. The FCC does not prohibit voice calls over Wi-Fi; the FCC’s current ban relates to the use of certain commercial mobile spectrum bands.The issue is complex; the FCC is working toward allowing mobile phone cellular usgae on aircraft using new technologies which do not disturb terrestrial networks; the FAA is proposing to require sellers of air transportation to provide adequate advance notice to passengers if the carrier operating the flight allows passengers to make voice calls using mobile wireless devices:14 CFR Part 260[Docket No. DOT–OST–2014–0002]RIN 2105–AE30Use of Mobile Wireless Devices for Voice Calls on AircraftAGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).“The Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) is proposing to protect airline passengers from being unwillingly exposed to voice calls within the confines of an aircraft. Specifically, the Department proposes to require sellers of air transportation to provide adequate advance notice to passengers if the carrier operating the flight allows passengers to make voice calls using mobile wireless devices. The Department also seeks comment on whether to prohibit airlines from allowing voice calls via passenger mobile wireless devices on domestic and/or international flights.”“The purpose of this action is to propose a method for regulating voice calls on passengers’ mobile wireless devices on flights to, from, and within the United States. Permitting passengers to make voice calls onboard aircraft may create an environment that is unfair and deceptive to those passengers. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently prohibits the use of certain commercial mobile bands onboard aircraft, that ban does not cover Wi-Fi and other means by which it is possible to make voice calls. Moreover, in 2013, the FCC proposed lifting its existing ban, so long as certain conditions are met. As technologies advance, the cost of making voice calls may decrease and the quality of voice call service may increase, leading to a higher prevalence of voice calls and greater risk of passenger harm.For these reasons, the Department proposes to require sellers of air transportation to provide adequate advance notice to passengers if the carrier operating the flight allows passengers to make voice calls using mobile wireless devices. Under this proposed rule, carriers would be free to set their own voice call policies, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, so long as carriers provide adequate advance notice when voice calls will be allowed.”The Department of Transportation (DOT)'s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), as currently drafted, would propose three (co-equal) alternative rules:(1) Prohibiting airlines from permitting passengers to use mobile devices to make voice calls on domestic flights and domestic segments of international flights;(2) prohibiting airlines from permitting passengers to use mobile devices to make voice calls on both domestic flights and international flights; and(3) not banning voice calls, but requiring sellers of air transportation to disclose in advance when a particular flight is one on which voice calls are permitted.The alternative to these three proposals is to take no action; this alternative would require no advance notice and would passengers to make voice calls to the extent that the FCC's rule, technological advances, and airlines' own policies would allow.As you can see, the issue is hardly settled.

Raghuram Govinda Rajan was appointed as RBI Governor in 2013 by UPA govt and not appointed as a post man to forward mails to others when he had all the powersRBI enjoys equal regulatory power over both private and public banks: Govt .. to act as per the acts below :-Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Wikipedia and Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Wikipedia Vide banking regulation act 1949 and RBI acts 1934 with further amendments RBI is the sole regulator of all banks and financial institutions in India .. He takes the interviews for the posts of selection of Chairman ,Directors for the public banks .As the regulator RBI can conduct special forensic audits , dismiss the bank Managements even if required .Why did he forward any such list at all ??? Is the first question ??? He failed to take even a single action on banks either to discover the frauds in PNB,ILFS , kingfisher etc or any action in that direction ???? Did Rajan ensured that the audit reports of the suspect loans were placed in the Audit committee meetings and Board meetings of the respective banks before sending the letter to govt ??? If presented to respective Audit committees did they not ask for a fresh audit by third parties ( other than GA panels ) ???'Deficient' audit: IL&FS board sends show-cause notices to Deloitte arm, BSR Did Rajan arrange to issue notices of removal to the concerned auditors of the banks where scams took place as Company Law section 140 and thier blacklisting as per the law ???? Like done in IL& FS ????And second big question is although being in govt for last 10 years from 1997 to 2016 in different capacities why did he not bring even a single law for sale/ auction of bad loans of banks ?! And in Chicago he gives big lectures that there are several methods for sake of recovery of all bad loans . By being unable to sell the bad loans quickly banking system ,our MSME units , our Corporates all got constrained to grow which chopped off 2% of GDP and thereby employments ??? All bcoz of Rajan' s inaction .. This law was in use across all advanced countries for decades ago which Rajan , Chidambaram,Pitroda , Iyer , Manmohan Singh , Singhvi , all brilliants knew decades ago .But nobody initiaed the law ever in India .. Why ??? He wanted to favour the Corporates .is it ?!?Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Wikipedia This law was brought by Modi govt after his departure .Evergreening of all bad loans for years together : Why did Rajan allow evergreening of all bad loans for decades or so till it is totally sunk . See this link :It was Modi govt stopped all this nonsensical evergreening of all bad loans from 2015 .Does Rajan has answer for even a single question above ??? Why ??? Then was he suited for the post of RBI Governor ??. Who is to be blamed then ??? Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh both alongwith defacto Prime Ministers of UPA Sonia Rahul .Another highly qualified super brillant character now aspiring to be the next Prime Minster or next Finance Minister but absolutely of no use to mother India as can be seen above .Edit 1 dt 15–5–2019 @ PMGowindan Nampoothiri :- There was an opinion that RBI act and Banking Regulation act doesnot accord RBI with requisite powers as a regulator to supervise the PSU banks . RBI enjoys equal regulatory power over both private and public banks: Govt …Govt has clarified RBI has equal powers over private as well as public sector banks as a regulator :Powers of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) :-As per the above RBI has following powers over all the PSU banks :Inspect the books of accounts of all banks.RBI nominee Directors are there on Boards of all banksRBI Director is a member of the committee for large loans above Rs5 crores .If deemed fit RBI can appoint additional Directors on the Boards.Whole time Directors of PSU banks are appointed in consultation with RBI.RBI is the repository of data on all large credits .RBI has fraud registry for amounts over Rs1 lakh .RBI can issue directions to the PSU Banks Managements..RBI has teeth to keep private, public sector banks in check: Government..What more powers are required to regulate PSU banks by RBI ??? Did Raghuram Govinda Rajan and his team used even a single power that was available to them as per the existing ( may be little outdated acts ) RBI act and Banking Acts ??? If changes were required were they suggested ( not in press conferences ) in the form of a proposal file to Finance Minister and Prime Minister ???? What were the RBI nominee Directors doing in the Board meetings of scam ridden PSU banks for years together ??!What were RBI ,RBI nominee Directors doing in the Board meetings till bad loans NPAs crossed Rs10,00,000 crores ???Did RBI (to say the least ) order a special audit by CAG after Rajan suspected frauds & failure by internal auditors , external auditors, Statutory auditors , RBI empanelled auditors all , to find out the truth before it is too late in Kingfisher loans Rs9000 crores , Nirav modi Choksi Rs15,000 crores ,,Videocon Rs45,000 crores ,ILFS Rs90,000 crores , Jet Airlines Rs15,000 crores or whatever , and all other suspect NPAs before it reached Rs10,00,000 crores ?????? Why not done ????Edit 1 dt 19-5–2019 @ PMGowindan Nampoothiri :-Raghuram Rajan - Wikipedia Rajan was a globally well known economist for decades and had contacts with all ruling and opposition' netas of India since long . So to bring an improvement in India he didn't need a formal post nor his physical presence was required at all in view of his stature .His Wikipedia shows he was in India from 2007 to 2016 associated fully with UPA govt then with NDA govt till 2016 in various capacities .If he had desired he cud have suggested transformation of the Indian banking systems , financial systems to global levels decades ago just by either writing officially to Indian govt or by holding a press conference in India suggesting dozens of changes to be effected in the system.But till Dec 2018 or so The Third Pillar by Raghuram Rajan | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books when he published a book with some other eminents in the field which was all “ too little too late “ that too in very vague terms without discussing the implementability of the suggestions.Insolvency and Bankruptcy code is a game changer law which is in practice in all advanced countries for over 3 decades or so.which is very simple law but brings in miracles for banks in the form of quick selling of bad loans ( NPAs ) by quickly auctioning in a open transparent process bringing in the best value for any stressed assets .But Rajan never brought in this law till he left .So Modi govt brought in this law :Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Wikipedia ..This law has helped banks recover nearly Rs2,80,000 croresDefault cases: IBC helps recovery of Rs 3 lakh crore in 2 years out of Rs10,00,000 crores bad loans so far .What prevented either Narasimha Rao' s Congress govt or UPA' s 10 years term govts from bringing this law into force ???Who prevented Rajan from bringing in this law for decades ???? at the least in 2007 when he officially joined UPA govt as adviser ?!?.By the way who was doing the evergreening of all bad loans of banks in different names RBI withdraws CDR, SDR, S4A, JLF schemes to restructure defaulted loans till the whole money in lakhs of crores sank fully ???Who stopped this evergreening of NPAs in 2015..???? it is not the Modi govt in 2015 ??? Why no previous Govts were competent to do this decades ago ???What was Rajan doing for decades ?!!Edit incomplete…

That's not what happened.They can't squeeze a 110 pages into a half page article. I can't fit it in this answer. I'll put the report in the question line, give you the what and a TLDR- Why:Managing risk, Implement existing law, closing loopholes, preventing another crises andCommodities - to shut down a series of schemes e.g., warehousing aluminum, and trucking it around to keep it out of the market.There's a perpetual arms race between banks and regulators.Volcker Rule - Have a Look ... really.Preamble1 - PDF (891 pages) (December 10, 2013)Text of the Final Common Rules1 - PDF (71 pages) (Dec 10, 2013)Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (November 07, 2011)(CDO's Interim final rule –16 pages - Jan 14, 2014)Recommendations (Fed's recomodations)As noted previously, section 620 of Dodd–Frank requires this report to include recommendations regarding (i) whether each activity or investment has or could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the banking entity or the U.S. financial system, (ii) the appropriateness of the conduct of each activity or type of investment by banking entities, and (iii) additional restrictions as may be necessary to address risks to safety and soundness arising from the permissible activities or types of investments of banking entities.The Board is recommending statutory changes that would eliminate special exemptions that permit certain firms to operate free of activities restrictions and/or outside of the prudential framework applicable to other banking entities.103 These changes require congressional action and cannot be accomplished by the Board unilaterally. In particular, the Board recommends that Congress• repeal the authority of FHCs to engage in merchant banking activities;• repeal the grandfather authority for certain FHCs to engage in commodities activities under section 4(o) of the BHC Act;• repeal the exemption that permits corporate owners of industrial loan companies (ILC) to operate outside of the regulatory and supervisory framework applicable to other corporate owners of insured depository institutions; and• repeal the exemption for GUSLHCs from the activities restrictions applicable to all other SLHCs.- - -(Fed is citing FDIC recomodations)RecommendationsAfter a comprehensive review of the activities and investments in which state banks and state savings associations may engage, the FDIC has identified potential for enhancement, reconsideration, and clarification in several areas of the part 362 policy and procedures.Specifically, the FDIC plans to:• review activities related to investments in other financial institutions and other equity investments to evaluate the interaction of existing FDIC regulations and supervisory approvals and conditions under part 362, with other more recent regulatory and statutory rules governing such investments, in order to determine whether changes to part 362 or related procedures with regard to such investments are needed.• determine whether the prudential conditions and standards under which the FDIC will evaluate part 362 filings with respect to mineral rights, commodities, or other non-traditional activities need to be clarified and, if so, consider issuing a statement of policy pursuant to such review.------( Fed is citing OCC )ConclusionThe financial crisis of 2008 showed that certain federal banking entity activities were far more risky than believed. Congress responded by restricting some of these activities and imposing structural reforms that substantially mitigate the risks of other activities. For example, requiring swap margin (whether bilateral or through a central clearinghouse) significantly mitigates the credit risk from swap dealing. Other risks remain, however, which is why the OCC plans to• issue a proposed rule to prohibit federal banking entities from holding asset-backed securitiesthat hold bank-impermissible assets.• address concentrations of mark-to-model assets and liabilities with a rulemaking or guidance.• clarify minimum prudential standards for certain national bank swap dealing activities.• consider providing guidance on clearinghouse memberships.• clarify regulatory limits on physical hedging.• address national banks’ authority to hold and trade copper.• incorporate the Volcker Rule into the OCC’s investment securities regulations. The OCC’s regulatory initiatives therefore build upon the many statutory reforms to enhance federal banking entities’ safety and soundness.[1]Footnotes[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20160908a1.pdf