FILE NAME:   company.wpt   (9/23/2008) (xml)

Fipronil rice grain, Sept 2008

ATTENTION:

All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

All text in blue font (instructions for preparing the document), should be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff.  Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: [John Hebert at<PHONE_NUMBER>]

TEMPLATE:

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from [BASF Corporation ], [P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park , NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d)

 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [mixture comprising fipronil (5-amino-1[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(1R,S)-trifluorome thyl)sulfinyl]-1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile)  and its metabolites 5-amino-1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(trifluoromethyl) sulfonyl]-1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile and 5-amino-1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(trifluoromethyl)t hio]-H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile  and its photodegradate 5-amino-1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(1R,S)-(trifluorom ethyl)]-1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [rice, grain] at [0.04] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however,

EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

. [The metabolism of fipronil is adequately understood. Adequate

. [Validated analytical methods are available for detecting and measuring levels of fipronil and its metabolites in  rice.  The Method utilizes Capillary Gas Chromatography equipped with a Ni electron capture detector.  Alternatively, a Liquid Chromatograph with Mass/Mass Detector (LC/MS/MS) may be used.  The Limit of Quantitation for rice is 0.01 ppm for all analytes. The Limit of Detection is 0.003 for all analytes.]

. [Field trials were carried out in order to determine the

magnitude of residue in rice.  Field trials were carried out using the maximum label rate of 100 grams a.i. per hectare applied as treatment rate in Brazil.  The maximum seed treatment rate was conducted in Brazil at 500 grams a.i. per 100 kg of seed.  The results demonstrate the any residue is below 0.01 ppm for all analytes.    I

.  [For technical fipronil :

Oral LD50		Rat	  	LD50 = 97 mg/kg b.w.		category II

(moderately toxic)

Dermal LD50		Rat	  	LD50 > 2000 mg/kg b.w. (HDT)	category III

(slightly toxic)

Dermal LD50		Rabbit	  	LD50 = 354 mg/kg b.w.		category II

(moderately toxic)

Inhalation LC50	Rat	  	LC50 = 0.39 mg/L			category II

(moderately toxic)

Eye Irritation		Rabbit	  	slight irritation			category III

Skin Irritation	Rabbit	  	slight	irritation			category IV

Skin Sensitization

(Maximization Test)	Guinea pig 	Not sensitizing]

Acute			Rat		NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day

Neurotoxicity				(for general toxicity)]

.  [Fipronil was negative in both in vitro and in vivo assays conducted

.  [Fipronil: The developmental toxicity NOELs in the rat and rabbit were 20 mg/kg/day (HDT) and 1 mg/kg/day (HDT), respectively. Maternal toxicity was observed in the rat at the HDT as evidenced by decreased body weight gain and food efficiency. In the rabbit, the maternal toxicity NOAEL was less than 0.1 mg/kg/day, based on reduced body weight gain and food efficiency at all dose levels tested. In a two-generation rat study, the NOEL for parental (systemic) toxicity was 3 ppm (0.26 mg/kg/day for both sexes combined), based on increased weight of the thyroid glands and liver in males and females, decreased weight of the pituitary gland in females, and an increased incidence of follicular epithelial hypertrophy in females at 30 ppm.  The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was 30 ppm (2.64 mg/kg/day for both sexes combined), based on clinical signs of toxicity in pups, decreased litter size, decreased pup body weights, decreased mating, decreased fertility index, reduced pre- and postnatal survival, and delays in physical development at 300 ppm (26.03 and 28.40 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).

In a developmental neurotoxicity study in the rat, the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 10 ppm (0.91 mg/kg/day), based on decreased body weights and body weight gain at 200 ppm (HDT; 15 mg/kg/day). Considerable maternal toxicity at the HDT prevented adequate neurotoxicity evaluation of pups at this dose level. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity at 10 ppm (0.91 mg/kg/day), which was the NOAEL for developmental neurotoxicity. The NOAEL for general developmental toxicity was 0.5 ppm (0.05 mg/kg/day), based on systemic effects consisting of decreases in pup weights during lactation and increases in time of preputial separation in males at 10 ppm.]

[Fipronil:   The NOAEL for systemic toxicity in rat was 5 ppm (0.35 mg/kg/day for both sexes combined), based on alterations in serum protein values and

increased weight of the liver and thyroid at 30 ppm (1.93 and 2.28 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). The NOAELs in the dog were 2 and 0.5 mg/kg/day for male and female, respectively, based on clinical signs of toxicity in males at 10 mg/kg/day and clinical signs of toxicity and decreased body weight gain in females at 2 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for mice was 10 ppm (1.27 and 1.72 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively), based on a possible decreased body weight gain at 25 ppm (3.2 and 4.53 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). A repeated dose dermal study in the rabbit had a systemic NOAEL of 5 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight gain and food consumption at 10 mg/kg/day, and a dermal irritation NOEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day (HDT).

. [Fipronil:    The NOAEL for systemic toxicity in a one-year feeding

. [The metabolism of fipronil is adequately understood.

. [MB46513 photodegradate

Acute Oral Toxicity:

 Oral LD50		Rat		LD50 = 16 mg/kg b.w.		category I

(highly toxic)

Dermal LD50		Rabbit		LD50 > 2000 mg/kg b.w. (HDT)	category III

(slightly toxic)

Acute Neurotoxicity: The NOEL was 2 mg/kg, based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption in males and females during the week following treatment, decreases in locomotor activity, hind-limb splay and rectal temperature 6-hr post dosing in males and females, and decreases in the proportion of males with an immediate righting reflex on days 7 and 14, at 12 mg/kg/day.

In a rat developmental toxicity study, the NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day, based on the slight increase in fetal and litter incidence of reduced ossification of several bones at 2.5 mg/kg/day.

Subchronic Toxicity: The NOAEL in the rat was 3 ppm (0.18 and 0.21 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), based on clinical signs of toxicity in both sexes and decreased body weight and body weight gain in males at 10 ppm. The NOEL for the mouse was 0.5 ppm (0.08 mg/kg/day), based on the aggressive and irritable behavior with increased motor activity in males at 2 ppm. The NOEL for the dog was 9.5 ppm (0.29 mg/kg/day), based on behavioral changes in females at 35 ppm (1.05 mg/kg/day).

The rat chronic/carcinogenicity study was negative for carcinogenicity.  The LOAEL for females was 0.5 ppm (0.032 mg/kg/day), based on clinical signs of toxicity.  There was no NOEL established. For males, the NOAEL was 2 ppm (0.098 mg/kg/day), based on clinical signs of toxicity, and stomach and lung histopathology at 10 ppm (0.497 mg/kg/day). No thyroid effects are observed in any of the rat, mouse or dog studies with MB 46513, supporting the conclusion that there is no concern for cancer due to exposure to MB 46513.]

.  [Data from the reproduction / developmental toxicity and short- and long-term repeated dose toxicity studies with fipronil in the rat, rabbit, mouse, or dog, do not suggest any endocrine disruption activity.  This information is based on the absence of any treatment-related effects from the histopathological examination of reproductive organs as well as the absence of possible effects on fertility, reproductive performance, or any other aspect of reproductive function, or on growth and development of the offspring. Evidence of offspring toxicity was observed only in the presence of significant parental toxicity. Fipronil disrupts the thyroid-pituitary axis. However, mechanistic studies have demonstrated that fipronil decreases thyroid hormone levels in long-term studies via increased clearance, rather than a direct effect on the thyroid. Concerns related to long-term exposure of fipronil are addressed in human risk estimates, as the chronic RfD (0.0002 mg/kg/day) is based on endpoints that include thyroid hormone related effects in rats.]

.  [Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) used was 0.025 mg/kg bw/day.  The dietary exposure includes both food and water.  The acute water concentration was 2.654 ppb (ug/L).   This water value is the highest modeled water concentration and is related to the onion seed use.  The maximum fipronil acute dietary exposure from food and water is 25 % aPAD.  The results of the acute dietary assessment are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.  Fipronil Acute Dietary Analysis for Food and Water Conducted by the US EPA for all Existing and New Uses.

Subgroups

Exposure at 95th Percentile  (mg/kg bw/day)

% aPADa

US Population	0.002345	9.4

All infants (< 1 year)	0.003215	12.9

Children 1-2	0.006195	24.8

Children 3-5	0.004412	17.6

Children 6-12	0.002878	11.5

Youth 13-19	0.001811	7.2

Adults 20-49	0.001343	5.4

Adults 50+ yrs	0.0011	4.4

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.00128	5.1

a The aPAD = 0.025 mg/kg bw/day.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) used was 0.0002 mg/kg bw/day.  The dietary exposure includes both food and water.  The chronic water concentration was 0.318 ppb (ug/L).   This water value is the highest modeled water concentration and is related to the onion seed use.  The maximum fipronil chronic dietary exposure from food and water is 96%.   .  The results of the chronic dietary assessment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Fipronil Chronic  Dietary Analysis for Food and Water Conducted by the US EPA for all Existing and New Uses.

Subgroups

Chronic Exposure  (mg/kg bw/day)

% aPADa

US Population	0.000096	48.0

All infants (< 1 year)	0.000126	63.0

Children 1-2	0.000192	96.0

Children 3-5	0.000186	93.0

Children 6-12	0.00013	65.0

Youth 13-19	0.000098	49.0

Adults 20-49	0.000079	39.5

Adults 50+ yrs	0.00008	40.0

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.000074	37.0

 ADVANCE \d6

. [The drinking water values used for the dietary exposure analysis were from the US EPA assessment (June 19, 2007. PC code 129121, DP Barcode 322415, 319940, 328892).  The highest modeled water concentrations are from the use on onion seeds.  The acute water concentration is 2.654 ppb (ug/L) and the chronic water concentration is 0.317 ppb (ug/L).

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

The acute aggregate risk associated with the existing and new fipronil uses does not exceed a level of concern.  The estimated exposure at the 95th percentile uses < 25% of the aPAD (Table 1).

Short- and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food, Water and Residential Exposure)

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water.

The US EPA determined that short-term exposure was greatest from the pet use of fipronil.  Therefore, the US EPA conducted a short-term aggregate risk assessment using children (1-2 years old) with the combined dermal and oral exposures from pet use.  Since the level of concern for oral and dermal are different, the Aggregate Risk Index (ARI) method was used to evaluate short-term aggregate risk. An ARI greater than one indicate an acceptable level of risk.  Adult short-term post-application is considered negligible and an short-term aggregate risk for adults was not conducted.  The ARI for children 1-2 years old was 1.5 and, therefore, short-term aggregate risk estimates do not exceed the level of concern.

Table 3.  Short-term Aggregate Risk for Fipronil.

Pop.	Food + Water	Oral from pet use	Dermal from pet use	ARI Aggregate

Children 1-2 yrs	LOAEL	EXP	LOC	MOE	LOAEL	LOC	MOE	NOAEL	LOC	MOE

0.1	0.00019	300	520	0.1	300	3300	5	100	5000	1.5

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The chronic aggregate risk associated with the existing and new fipronil uses does not exceed a level of concern.  The estimated exposure uses 96% of the cPAD (Table 2).    ADVANCE \d6 	]

. [The residential exposure for fipronil products was assessed by the US EPA in the cotton risk evaluation in 2001.

Pet Products:

The residential exposure for the Frontline® pet products was assessed.  The residential exposure for the Frontline® pet products was determined based on the following submitted studies: 1)  Dermal and Inhalation Exposure of Commercial Pet Groomers During the Application of Frontline® Spray Treatment (MRID #44433302), 2) Dermal Exposure of Commercial Pet Groomers During the Application of Frontline® and Top Spot® (MRID 44433303), and four studies examining the dislodgeable residues of fipronil following the spray and spot treatment application to dogs and cats (MRID 44433301 – 09).  Based on these studies, HED determined the dermal and inhalation exposure for residential applicators were 3.0 x 10-3 mg/kg bw/day and 1.78 x 10-6 mg/kg bw/day, respectively.  The non-dietary, oral (hand to mouth) was estimated to be no greater than 3.0 x 10-5 mg/kg bw/day1.  The post-application dermal exposure for toddlers was estimated to be 1.0 x 10-3 mg/kg bw/day1.  The MOEs for all exposure scenarios evaluated were greater than 1500.

Fire Ant Products:

The applicator exposure was determined using the “Draft Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure” (December 18, 1997).  The greatest homeowner applicator exposure was calculated from the application of the granular product with a drop spreader.  The average daily dose for dermal and inhalation exposure were 6.0 x 10-4 mg/kg bw/day and 1.3 x 10-6 mg/kg bw/day, respectively.  The MOEs for all exposure scenarios were > 8000.

Post-application from the fire ant granular products can occur from dermal exposure and by children ingestion of granules from treated soil and/or ingestion of treated soil.  Based on a submitted dislodgeable foliar residue study (MRID 44506901), HED concluded that fipronil cannot be dislodged from treated turf and post-application exposure from turf will not occur.  HED calculated the children exposure from the ingestion of granules in the treated area to be 2.8 x 10-3 mg/kg bw/day which resulted in a MOE of 890.  The post-application children exposure from ingestion of treated soil was calculated to be 1.2 x 10-6 mg/kg bw/day which resulted in a MOE of 83,000.

	[Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.

. [Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate

	[The following Maximum residue levels (MRLs) have been established  by the Codex

Alimentarius Commission (CODEX) for fipronil residues  on   the following plant commodities: Banana, 0.005 mg/kg; Barley 0.002 mg/kg; Cabbage, Head, 0.02 mg/kg; Flowerhead brassicas, 0.02 mg/kg; Maize 0.01 mg/kg; Maize fodder 0.1 mg/kg; Maize forage 0.1; Oats 0.002, mg/kg; Potato 0.02 mg/kg; Rice 0.01 mg/kg; Rice, straw and fodder, dry, 0.2 mg/kg; Rye 0.002 mg/kg; Sugar beet 0.2 mg/kg; Sugar beet leaves or tops, 0.2 mg/kg; Sunflower seed, 0.002 mg/kg; Triticale, 0.002 mg/kg; Wheat 0.002 mg/kg.

 PAGE  1

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

Comment{
}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

Comment{
}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{
}


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19408-19409]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2011-0786]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Primary, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement
Funds for Fiscal Year 2012

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces May 1,
2012, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA
whether or not it will use its fiscal year 2012 entitlement funds
available under Section 47105(f) of Title 49, United States Code, to
accomplish Airport Improvement Program (AIP)-eligible projects that the
sponsor previously identified through the Airports Capital Improvement
Plan (ACIP) process during the preceding year.
    This notice must address all entitlement funds apportioned for
fiscal year 2012. After Friday, August 10, 2012, the FAA will carry
over all remaining entitlement funds, and the

funds will not be available again until at least the beginning of
fiscal year 2013. This notification requirement does not apply to non-
primary airports covered by the block-grant program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank J. San Martin, Manager,
Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, on<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title 49 of the United States Code, section 47105(f), provides that
the sponsor of each airport to which funds are apportioned shall notify
the Secretary by such time and in a form as prescribed by the
Secretary, of the sponsor's intent to apply for its apportioned funds,
also called entitlement funds. Therefore, the FAA is hereby notifying
sponsors about steps required to ensure that the FAA has sufficient
time to carryover and convert remaining entitlement funds, due to
processes required under federal and local laws. This notice applies
only to those airports that have had entitlement funds apportioned to
them, except those nonprimary airports located in designated Block
Grant States. Sponsors intending to apply for any of their available
entitlement funds, including those unused from prior years, shall
submit by 12 p.m. prevailing local time on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, a
written indication to the designated Airports District Office (or
Regional Office in regions without Airports District Offices) their
intent to submit a grant application no later than close of business
Friday, August 10, 2012, to use their fiscal year 2012 entitlement
funds available under Title 49 of the United States Code, section
47105(f). This notice must address all entitlement funds apportioned
for fiscal year 2012. By Friday, July 13, 2012, airport sponsors that
have not yet submitted a final application to the FAA, should notify
the FAA of any issues with meeting the final application deadline of
August 10, 2012. Absent notification by the May 1st deadline and/or
subsequent notification of any issues by the July 13th deadline, the
FAA will proceed after Friday, August 10, 2012 to take action to carry
over all remaining entitlement funds without further notice, and the
funds will not be available again until at least the beginning of
fiscal year 2013.
    This notice is promulgated to expedite and prioritize the grant-
making process.
    The AIP grant program is operating under the requirements of Public
Law 112-91 (Feb. 14, 2012), the ``FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012,'' enacted on February 14, 2012, which amends 49 U.S.C. 48103, to
extend AIP through September 30, 2015.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 23, 2012.
Benito DeLeon,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2012-7734 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55554-55555]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1330; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-41]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rutherfordton, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Rutherfordton, NC. The
Rutherford Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed for
Rutherford County-Marchman Field. This action also updates the
geographic coordinates of the airport and changes the airport name.
This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 1, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace 700 feet above the
surface, at Rutherfordton, NC (76 FR 31510) Docket No. FAA-2010-1330.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending

upward from 700 feet above the surface to support new standard
instrument approach procedures developed at Rutherford County-Marchman
Field, Rutherfordton, NC. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to
the decommissioning of the Rutherford NDB and cancellation of the NDB
approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database, and changes
the airport name from to Rutherford County Airport to Rutherford
County-Marchman Field, Rutherfordton, NC.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace at Rutherfordton, NC.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Rutherfordton, NC [Amended]

Rutherford County-Marchman Field, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]25'42'' N., long. 81[deg]56'06'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 11.6-mile radius of Rutherford County-Marchman Field.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 19, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-22312 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68105-68110]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23778]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-34071; File No. 812-15172]

Goldman Sachs (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., et al.; Notice of Application
and Temporary Order

October 22, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

Summary of Application: Applicants have received a temporary order
(``Temporary Order'') exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with
respect to a guilty plea entered on October 22, 2020 (``Guilty Plea''),
by Goldman Sachs (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (the ``Pleading Entity'' or ``GS
Malaysia'') in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (the ``District Court'') in connection with a plea
agreement (``Plea Agreement'') between the Pleading Entity and the
United States Department of Justice (``DOJ''), until the Commission
takes final action on an application for a permanent order (the
``Permanent Order,'' and with the Temporary Order, the ``Orders'').
Applicants also have applied for a Permanent Order.
    Applicants: GS Malaysia, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (``GS&Co.''),
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (``GSAM''), Goldman Sachs Asset
Management International (``GSAMI'') and GS Investment Strategies, LLC
(``GSIS'' and collectively, the ``Applicants'').

Filing Date: The application was filed on October 22, 2020.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving applicants with a
copy of the request, by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on November 16, 2020 and should be
accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an
affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by emailing the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: David
A. Markowitz, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6773 or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>

(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained
via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations:

    1. The Pleading Entity is a Malaysia Sendirian Berhad (private
company limited by shares) that provides asset management and corporate
finance services to clients in Malaysia and is a wholly-owned indirect
subsidiary of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (``GS Group''). GS Group is a
bank holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``FRB'').
    2. GS&Co., a New York limited liability company, is registered as
an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the
``Advisers Act'') and is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary (as such
term is defined in the Act) of GS Group. GS&Co. is also registered as a
broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act''). GS&Co. serves as principal underwriter to the Funds \1\ and as
adviser to the ESCs (as defined below) listed in Part 1 of Appendix A
to the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``Funds'' as used herein refers to any registered
investment company, employees' securities company or investment
company that has elected to be treated as a business development
company under the Act for which a Covered Person (as defined below)
currently or in the future serves as an investment adviser (as
defined in section 2(a)(20) of the Act) or depositor, or any
registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment
trust, or registered face-amount certificate company for which a
Covered Person currently or in the future serves as principal
underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. GSAM, a New York limited partnership, is registered as an
investment adviser under the Advisers Act and is a wholly-owned
indirect subsidiary of GS Group. GSAM serves as an adviser or
subadviser to the Funds listed in Part 2 of Appendix A to the
application.
    4. GSAMI, a United Kingdom limited company, is registered as an
investment adviser under the Advisers Act and is a wholly-owned
indirect subsidiary of GS Group. GSAMI serves as an adviser or
subadviser to the Funds listed in Part 3 of Appendix A to the
application.
    5. GSIS, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an
investment adviser under the Advisers Act and is a wholly-owned
indirect subsidiary of GS Group. GSIS serves as an adviser to the ESCs
listed in Part 4 of Appendix A to the application.
    6. While no existing company of which the Pleading Entity is an
``affiliated person'' within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act
(``Affiliated Person''), other than GSIS, GS&Co., GSAM and GSAMI
(together, the ``Fund Servicing Applicants''), currently serves as an
investment adviser (as defined in section 2(a)(20) of the Act) or
depositor of any registered investment company, employees' securities
company (``ESC''), or investment company that has elected to be treated
as a business development company under the Act, or as principal
underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) for any
registered open-end investment company (``Open-End Fund''), registered
unit investment trust (``UIT''), or registered face-amount certificate
company (``FACC'') (such activities performed on behalf of such
persons, collectively ``Fund Servicing Activities''), Applicants
request that any relief granted by the Commission pursuant to the
application also apply to any other current or future Affiliated Person
of the Pleading Entity other than GS Group (together with the Fund
Servicing Applicants, the ``Covered Persons'') with respect to any
activity contemplated by section 9(a) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Covered Persons may, if the Order is granted, in the future
act in any of the capacities contemplated by section 9(a) of the Act
subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the Orders. GS
Group, the ultimate parent of the Pleading Entity, does not and will
not serve as an investment adviser, depositor or principal
underwriter to any registered investment company as it is not a
Covered Person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. On October 22, 2020, the DOJ filed a criminal information (the
``Information'') in the District Court charging the Pleading Entity
with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United
States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, that
is, to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act of 1977 (``FCPA''), as amended, see Title 15, United
States Code, Sections 78dd-1 and 78dd-3. According to the Statement of
Facts that served as the basis for the Plea Agreement (the ``Statement
of Facts''), between 2009 and 2014, the GS Group (together with its
wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliated entities, the ``Company''),
through certain of its agents and employees, including Tim Leissner
(``Leissner'') \3\ and Roger Ng (``Ng''),\4\ knowingly and willfully
conspired with others to provide payments and other things of value to
or for the benefit of foreign officials to induce the officials to
influence the decisions of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (``1MDB''), a
sovereign development company wholly owned by the Government of
Malaysia, International Petroleum Investment Company (``IPIC'') (an
investment fund wholly owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi), and Aabar
Investments PJS (a subsidiary of IPIC) to obtain and retain business
for the Company (the ``Conduct''), as further described in the
application, in violation of the FCPA. Leissner, Ng, and another
employee of the Company referred to in the Statement of Facts as
Employee 1 (``Employee 1''), also used the connections of an outside
individual involved in the Conduct (Jho Low) to obtain and retain
business for the Company and, in turn, concealed that individual's
involvement in the deals from certain other employees and agents of the
Company.\5\ In connection with the Plea, the Company expects to enter
into a deferred prosecution agreement with DOJ (the ``DPA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ From November 2006 to February 2016, Leissner was a
Participating Managing Director of the Company and, from 2011 to
2016, held various senior positions in the Company's investment
banking division in Asia and served on the board of directors of GS
Malaysia.
    \4\ From 2010 to 2014, Ng was a Managing Director of the Company
and, for part of that time, served as Head of Investment Banking
for, and was on the board of directors of, GS Malaysia.
    \5\ Employee 1 is no longer employed by any Company affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the Pleading Entity entered the
Guilty Plea on October 22, 2020 in the District Court to the charge set
out in the Information. Applicants state that, according to the Plea
Agreement, the Pleading Entity agrees as follows: First, the Pleading
Entity shall cooperate fully with the DOJ and the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York (collectively,
the ``Offices'') in any and all matters relating to the conduct
described in the Plea Agreement and the Statement of Facts and other
conduct under investigation by the Offices or any other component of
the DOJ at any time during the term of the DPA (the ``Term'') until the
later of the date upon which all investigations and prosecutions
arising out of such conduct are concluded or the end of the Term.
Second, at the request of the Offices, the Pleading Entity shall also
cooperate fully with other domestic or foreign law enforcement and
regulatory authorities and agencies, as well as the Multilateral
Development Banks in any investigation of the Pleading Entity, GS
Group, or any of its present or former officers, directors, employees,
agents, and

consultants, or any other party, in any and all matters relating to the
conduct described in the Plea Agreement and the Statement of Facts and
any other conduct under investigation by the Offices or any other
component of the DOJ. Third, should the Pleading Entity learn during
the Term of any evidence or any allegations of conduct that may
constitute a violation of the money laundering laws that involve the
employees or agents of the Pleading Entity, or should the Pleading
Entity learn of any evidence or allegation of conduct that may
constitute a violation of the FCPA's anti-bribery or accounting
provisions had the conduct occurred within the jurisdiction of the
United States, the Pleading Entity shall promptly report such evidence
or allegation to the Offices. Fourth, the Pleading Entity agrees that
any fine imposed by the District Court will be due and payable as
specified in Paragraph 19 of the Plea Agreement, and that any
restitution imposed by the District Court will be due and payable in
accordance with the District Court's order. Finally, the Pleading
Entity agrees to commit no further crimes and to work with GS Group in
fulfilling GS Group's obligations under the DPA.
    9. The Applicants expect that the District Court will enter a
judgment against the Pleading Entity (the ``Judgment'') that will
require remedies that are materially the same as set forth in the Plea
Agreement. The individuals referenced in the Information as responsible
for the Conduct are no longer employed by the Pleading Entity or any of
its affiliates.
    10. On October 22, 2020, the SEC instituted cease-and-desist
proceedings against GS Group relating to the Conduct (the ``SEC
Order''). In anticipation of the institution of those proceedings, GS
Group submitted an Offer of Settlement consenting to the entry of such
order, which the Commission has accepted. The SEC Order includes
findings that GS Group violated the following sections of the Exchange
Act: Section 30A (the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA), section
13(b)(2)(A) (the books and records provision of the FCPA), and section
13(b)(2)(B) (requiring Exchange Act registered companies to devise and
maintain a sufficient system of internal accounting controls).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(2)(A), 78m(b)(2)(B), and 78dd-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. GS Group and its affiliates have entered into settlement
agreements with other U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory or enforcement
agencies related to the Conduct. The Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System (``FRB'') entered a cease and desist order and order of
assessment of a civil monetary penalty (the ``FRB Order'') on October
22, 2020 against GS Group concerning unsafe and unsound banking
practices relating to the 1MDB transactions that resulted from
deficient policies, procedures and controls. The New York State
Department of Financial Services (``DFS'') entered into a consent order
(the ``DFS Order'') on October 22, 2020 with GS Group as the parent
company of Goldman Sachs Bank USA (``GS Bank'') (which operates in New
York State and is licensed and regulated by the DFS) to settle DFS'
investigations into alleged violations of New York banking law arising
out of GS Bank's investments in 1MDB-related instruments. GS Group
entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Government of Malaysia and
1MDB (the ``Malaysian Settlement Agreement'') on August 18, 2020 to
resolve all criminal and regulatory proceedings in Malaysia involving
the Company, including pending criminal proceedings against
subsidiaries of GS Group and certain of their current and former
directors, relating to the 1MDB transactions and the Conduct. On
October 22, 2020, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority and the U.K.
Prudential Regulation Authority each entered a warning notice
(together, the ``U.K. Notices'') against Goldman Sachs International
(``GSI''), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of GS Group, relating to
GSI's failure to assess and manage the risks associated with the 1MDB
transactions, properly record how GSI committees assessed and managed
those risks and respond appropriately to allegations of bribery. The
Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission issued a Statement of
Disciplinary Action (the ``SFC Statement'') against Goldman Sachs
(Asia) L.L.C. (``GS Asia''), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of GS
Group, on October 22, 2020, relating to GS Asia's failure to properly
examine and address red flags in connection with the 1MDB transactions
and to diligently supervise its senior personnel in connection with
their participation in the 1MDB transactions. On October 22, 2020, the
Singapore Commercial Affairs Department, at the direction of the
Singapore Attorney General's Chambers, issued a Notice of Conditional
Warning against Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of GS Group (``GS Singapore''), relating to the Conduct (the
``Singapore Notice''). On October 22, 2020, the Monetary Authority of
Singapore (the ``MAS'') issued a letter of direction (the ``MAS
Letter'') requiring GS Singapore to appoint an independent auditor to
review the effectiveness and sustainability of the remedial measures
implemented by GS Singapore following the MAS' inspection.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(1) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that a
person may not serve or act as an investment adviser or depositor of
any registered investment company or as principal underwriter for any
Open-End Fund, UIT, or FACC, if such person within ten years has been
convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, including those arising out of
such person's conduct as a broker, dealer or bank. Section 2(a)(10) of
the Act defines the term ``convicted'' to include a plea of guilty.
Section 9(a)(3) of the Act extends the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)
to a company, any affiliated person of which has been disqualified
under the provisions of section 9(a)(1). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act
defines ``affiliated person'' to include, among others, any person
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with, the other person. The Pleading Entity is an Affiliated
Person of each of the other Applicants within the meaning of section
2(a)(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Applicants state that the Plea
Agreement would result in a disqualification of each Fund Servicing
Applicant for ten years under section 9(a)(3) were they to act in any
of the capacities listed in section 9(a), by effect of a conviction
described in section 9(a)(1).
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that: ``[t]he Commission shall
by order grant [an] application [for relief from the prohibitions of
subsection 9(a)], either unconditionally or on an appropriate temporary
or other conditional basis, if it is established [i] that the
prohibitions of subsection 9(a), as applied to such person, are unduly
or disproportionately severe or [ii] that the conduct of such person
has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the
protection of investors to grant such application.'' Applicants have
filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a Temporary Order
and a Permanent Order exempting the Fund Servicing Applicants and other
Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of
the Act. The Covered Persons may, if the Orders are granted, in the
future act in any of the capacities contemplated by section 9(a) of the
Act subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the Orders.

    3. Applicants believe they meet the standards for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants assert that (i) the scope of the
misconduct was limited and did not involve any of the Applicants acting
as an investment adviser, depositor or principal underwriter for any
Fund, or any Fund with respect to which the Fund Servicing Applicants
engage in Fund Servicing Activities, (ii) application of the statutory
bar would impose significant hardships on the Funds and their
shareholders, (iii) the prohibitions of section 9(a), if applied to the
Fund Servicing Applicants, would be unduly or disproportionately severe
and (iv) the Conduct did not constitute conduct that would make it
against the public interest or protection of investors to grant the
exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants represent that the Conduct did not involve any of
Applicants acting in the capacity as an investment adviser, depositor
or principal underwriter for any Fund. Applicants represent that the
Conduct similarly did not involve any Fund with respect to which the
Fund Servicing Applicants engage in Fund Servicing Activities.\7\
Instead, the Applicants state that the Conduct occurred primarily as a
result of the actions of a few employees. As discussed above, the
individuals referenced in the Information as responsible for the
Conduct are no longer employed by the Pleading Entity or any of its
affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Pleading Entity does not engage, has not engaged, and
will not engage in in any of the capacities contemplated by section
9(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants acknowledge that the Conduct also reflected failures
of GS Group control functions and that the Company's control functions
and committees should have done more to follow up on red flags. The
application states that five employees identified in the Statement of
Facts as having been involved in these failures are employed by
affiliates of the Pleading Entity that are not Covered Persons.
Applicants represent, however, that none of these five employees has
been, or will in the future be, employed by a Covered Person relying on
the Orders or otherwise involved in the Fund Servicing Activities.
    6. Applicants state that one of the employees discussed above was
employed by a Fund Servicing Applicant before the 1MDB bond
transactions, but was employed by an affiliate that is not a Fund
Servicing Applicant at the time of the 1MDB bond transactions.
Applicants state that this employee did not engage in the Conduct.
Applicants further state that, after the 1MDB bond transactions were
completed, the employee became aware of and failed to escalate
information and concerns about bribery related to the bond
transactions. Applicants state that this individual currently serves as
a manager or director of a Fund Servicing Applicant and has had, and in
the future will have, no day-to-day involvement in Fund Servicing
Activities. Applicants state that this individual's role includes
oversight of that Fund Servicing Applicant commensurate with the
responsibilities of a manager or director.
    7. Applicants state that GS Group is committed to promoting a
general culture of compliance, including continuing to implement
significant changes in connection with its relevant practices and
controls, as summarized below and described in more detail in the
application. Applicants assert that, in light of the limited scope of
the Conduct, it would be unduly and disproportionately severe to impose
a section 9(a) disqualification on the Fund Servicing Applicants.
Applicants assert that the conduct of the Applicants has not been such
to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors
to grant the exemption from section 9(a).
    8. Applicants assert that neither the protection of investors nor
the public interest would be served by permitting the section 9(a)
disqualifications to apply to the Fund Servicing Applicants because
those disqualifications would deprive the Fund of the advisory or sub-
advisory and underwriting services that shareholders expected the Funds
would receive when they decided to invest in the Funds. Applicants also
assert that the prohibitions of section 9(a) could operate to the
financial detriment of the Funds and their shareholders, including by
causing the Funds to spend time and resources to engage substitute
advisers, subadvisers, and principal underwriters, which would be an
unduly and disproportionately severe consequence given that the Conduct
did not involve any of the Fund Servicing Activities.
    9. Applicants assert that if the Fund Servicing Applicants were
barred under section 9(a) from providing investment advisory services
to the Funds and were unable to obtain the requested exemption, the
effect on their businesses and employees would be severe. Applicants
state that the Fund Servicing Applicants have committed substantial
capital and other resources to establishing expertise in advising and
sub-advising Funds with a view to continuing and expanding this
business, which Applicants consider strategically important. Similarly,
Applicants represent that if GS&Co. were barred under section 9(a) from
continuing to provide underwriting services to the Funds and were
unable to obtain the requested exemption, the effect on its current
business and employees would be significant. GS&Co. has committed
capital and other resources to establish expertise in underwriting the
securities of the Funds and to establish distribution arrangements for
Fund shares. Applicants further state that prohibiting the Fund
Servicing Applicants from engaging in Fund Servicing Activities would
not only adversely affect their business, but would also adversely
affect their employees who are involved in these activities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Applicants represent that GS&Co. acts as transfer agent for
most of the Funds. Although GS&Co. would retain the authority to act
in this capacity even if it were prohibited under section 9(a) from
engaging in Fund Servicing Activities, Applicants represent that as
a practical matter, it is unlikely that the Funds would continue to
retain GS&Co. as transfer agent if GS&Co. were unable to perform
Fund Servicing Activities. Thus, GS&Co. would likely lose another
significant part of its business. This would also adversely affect
its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Applicants represent that: (1) None of the current or former
directors, officers or employees of Applicants (other than certain
former personnel of the Pleading Entity and GS&Co.\9\ who were not
involved in any of the Fund Servicing Applicants' Fund Servicing
Activities) engaged in the Conduct; (2) no current or former employee
of the Pleading Entity or any Covered Person who previously has been or
who subsequently may be identified by the Pleading Entity or any U.S.
or non-U.S. regulatory or enforcement agencies as having been
responsible for the Conduct will be an officer, director, or employee
of any Covered Person; (3) the identified employees have had no, and
will not have any future, involvement in the Covered Persons'
activities in any capacity described in section 9(a) of the Act; and
(4) because the personnel of Applicants (other than certain former
personnel of the Pleading Entity and GS&Co.\10\ who were not involved
in any of the Fund Servicing Applicants' Fund Servicing Activities) did
not engage in the Conduct, shareholders of the Funds were not affected
any differently than if those Funds had received services from any
other non-affiliated investment adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ One of the employees most extensively involved in and
responsible for the Conduct (Leissner), was employed by GS&Co. for
approximately two months immediately prior to his termination in
February 2016. During this time, the employee had no involvement in
GS&Co.'s Fund Servicing Activities.
    \10\ See paragraph 6, supra.

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

    11. Applicants have agreed that none of GS Group, the Applicants or
any of the other Covered Persons will employ the former employees of an
affiliate of the Pleading Entity or any other person who subsequently
may be identified by the Pleading Entity or any U.S. or non-U.S.
regulatory or enforcement agencies as having been responsible for the
Conduct in any capacity without first making a further application to
the Commission pursuant to section 9(c).
    12. Applicants have also agreed that GS Group and each Applicant
and Covered Person will adopt and implement policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions
of the Orders granted under section 9(c).
    13. In addition, GS Group and each Applicant and Covered Person
will comply in all material respects with the material terms and
conditions of the Plea Agreement and with the material terms of the
DPA, the FRB Order, the DFS Order, the SEC Order, the Malaysian
Settlement Agreement, the U.K. Notices, the SFC Statement, the
Singapore Notice, the MAS Letter, and any other orders issued by
regulatory or enforcement agencies addressing the Conduct. Applicants
note that in connection with the DPA, GS Group will represent that it
has implemented and will continue to implement a compliance and ethics
program designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other
anti-corruption laws throughout its operations, including its
subsidiaries. In addition, GS Group will represent that it has
undertaken, and will continue to undertake, a review of its existing
internal accounting controls, policies, and procedures regarding
compliance with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws, and modify
them where necessary to ensure that it maintains (i) an effective
system of internal accounting controls, and (ii) a rigorous anti-
corruption compliance program designed to effectively detect and deter
violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The
DPA will require GS Group to provide an initial report to DOJ within
one year describing its remediation efforts to date, and to undertake
two annual follow-up reviews and reports to DOJ.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The required remedial steps with respect to GS Group's
Corporate Compliance Program are described in Attachment C to the
DPA, and the reporting requirements are described in Attachment D to
the DPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Applicants further state that GS Group and its affiliates have
undertaken certain other remedial measures, as described in greater
detail in the application. These remedial measures include: Enhancing
the scrutiny of senior personnel in high-risk areas and products,
heightening the firm's focus on accountability when employee red flags
are identified, and taking steps to ensure that employees are hearing
about compliance expectations from the firm's executive management.
Applicants state that GS Group has also been strengthening processes to
heighten attention to potential red flags identified by deal teams and
committees, increasing representation of the firm's control functions
in key vetting groups and committees, and reviewing transactions
earlier in the life cycle to reduce the possibility that later momentum
in the deals could inappropriately carry them over the line for
approval. Applicants also state that the firm has been continually
improving its electronic surveillance to take advantage of recent
technological advances and has increased its commitment to spending on
compliance efforts and headcount in order to maintain the efficacy of
the enhancements described above and to continue improving the firm's
controls and systems.
    15. As a result of the foregoing, the Applicants submit that absent
relief, the prohibitions of section 9(a) would be unduly or
disproportionately severe, and that the Conduct did not constitute
conduct that would make it against the public interest or protection of
investors to grant the exemption.
    16. To provide further assurance that the exemptive relief being
requested in the application would be consistent with the public
interest and the protection of the investors, the Applicants agree that
they will, as soon as reasonably practical, with respect to each of the
Funds for which a Fund Servicing Applicant is the primary adviser,
distribute to the boards of directors or trustees of the Funds
(``Board'') written materials describing the circumstances that led to
the Plea Agreement, as well as any effects on the Funds and the
application. The written materials will include an offer to discuss the
materials at an in-person meeting with the Board, including the
directors who are not ``interested persons'' of the Funds as defined in
section 2(a)(19) of the Act and their ``independent legal counsel'' as
defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, if any. With respect to each
of the Funds for which a Fund Servicing Applicant is not the primary
investment adviser, the relevant Fund Servicing Applicant will provide
such materials to the Fund's primary investment adviser and offer to
discuss the materials with such primary investment adviser. The
Applicants undertake to provide the Boards with all information
concerning the Plea Agreement and the application as necessary for
those Funds to fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under the
U.S. federal securities laws and will provide them a copy of the
Judgment as entered by the District Court.
    17. Certain Fund Servicing Applicants, as well as certain of their
affiliates, have previously applied for exemptive orders under section
9(c) of the Act, as described in greater detail in the application.
Applicants, however, note that none of the conduct underlying the
previous section 9(c) orders granted to Fund Servicing Applicants
involved the provision of Fund Servicing Activities.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granted by the Commission pursuant
to the application will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application will
be without prejudice to, and will not limit the Commission's rights in
any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or
administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered Persons,
including, without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a
permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to
the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary
exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.
    2. None of GS Group, the Applicants or any of the other Covered
Persons will employ the former employees of an affiliate of the
Pleading Entity or any other person who subsequently may be identified
by the Pleading Entity or any U.S. or non-U.S. regulatory or
enforcement agencies as having been responsible for the Conduct in any
capacity without first making a further application to the Commission
pursuant to section 9(c).
    3. GS Group and each Applicant and Covered Person will adopt and
implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it
will comply with the terms and conditions of the Orders within 60 days
of the date of the Permanent Order or, with respect to condition four,
such later date or dates as may be contemplated by the Plea Agreement,
the DPA, the FRB Order, the DFS Order, the SEC Order, the Malaysian
Settlement Agreement, the U.K. Notices, the SFC Statement, the
Singapore Notice, the MAS Letter or any other

orders issued by regulatory or enforcement agencies addressing the
Conduct.
    4. GS Group and each Applicant and Covered Person will comply in
all material respects with the material terms and conditions of the
Plea Agreement and with the material terms of the DPA, the FRB Order,
the DFS Order, the SEC Order, the Malaysian Settlement Agreement, the
U.K. Notices, the SFC Statement, the Singapore Notice, the MAS Letter
and any other orders issued by regulatory or enforcement agencies
addressing the Conduct. In addition, within 30 days of each anniversary
of the Permanent Order (until and including the third such
anniversary), GS Group will submit a certification signed by its chief
executive officer and its global head of regulatory affairs, confirming
that the Pleading Entity has complied with the terms and conditions of
the Plea Agreement in all material respects and that GS Group has
complied with the terms and conditions of the DPA in all material
respects. Each such certification will be submitted to the Chief
Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment Management with a
copy to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Enforcement.
    5. Applicants will provide written notification to the Chief
Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment Management with a
copy to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Enforcement
of a material violation of the terms and conditions of the Orders
within 30 days of discovery of the material violation. In addition, GS
Group will submit to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of
Investment Management, with a copy to the Chief Counsel of the
Commission's Division of Enforcement, a copy of each report submitted
to the Department of Justice pursuant to Paragraph 14 and Attachments C
and D of the DPA within five days of the submission of each report to
the Department of Justice. GS Group's first such report will be signed
by its chief executive officer and global head of regulatory affairs.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary
exemption.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that the
Applicants and any other Covered Persons are granted a temporary
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), effective as the date of
the Guilty Plea, solely with respect to the Guilty Plea entered into
pursuant to the Plea Agreement, subject to the representations and
conditions in the application, until the Commission takes final action
on their application for a permanent order.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23778 Filed 10-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1-2]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32998]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 121, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0100; Amdt. Nos. 61-130C, 121-365B, 135-127B]
RIN 2120-AJ67

Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air
Carrier Operations; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule published on July 15, 2013.
In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to create new
certification and qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier
operations. The FAA unintentionally required without notice and comment
that if a certificate holder conducting part 135 operations who has
voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121
training and qualification requirements, a pilot serving as a second in
command in part 135 for that certificate holder is required to have an
airline transport pilot certificate and an aircraft type rating. This
document corrects those errors and makes several additional
miscellaneous corrections to part 61 and a cross-reference error in
part 121.

DATES: Effective: January 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Adams, Air Transportation
Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 2013, the FAA published a final rule entitled, ``Pilot
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier
Operations'' (78 FR 42324). In that final rule, which became effective
July 15, 2013, the FAA revised the pilot certificate requirements for a
second in command (SIC) in part 121 operations. Section 121.436(b)
requires the SIC to hold an ATP certificate and an aircraft type rating
for the airplane flown.
    The FAA intended these certification requirements to apply only to
pilots serving in part 121 operations. Existing Sec.  135.3(c) states,
however, that if authorized by the Administrator upon application, each
certificate holder that conducts operations under part 135 to which
Sec.  135.3(b) does not apply,\1\ may comply with the applicable
sections of subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements of
subparts E, G, and H of part 135.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 135.3(b) states that each certificate holder that
conducts commuter operations under part 135 with airplanes in which
two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate must comply
with subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements of
subparts E, G, and H of part 135.
    \2\ The regulation contains a provision that allows the
certificate holder to comply with the operating experience
requirements of Sec.  135.244 instead of the requirements of Sec.
121.434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each certificate holder conducting part 135 operations who has
voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121
training and qualification requirements, is required to comply with
Subparts N and O of part 121. Because the certification requirements in
Sec.  121.436 are located in subpart O of part 121, an SIC in those
operations is now required by reference to hold an ATP certificate and
an aircraft type rating. The FAA did not discuss this issue in the
preamble to the final rule nor did the FAA intend to impose this
requirement on certificate holders conducting part 135 operations who
have voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121
training and qualification requirements.

Technical Amendment

    Because the FAA did not intend to impose additional requirements on
SICs serving in part 135 operations in which the certificate holder has
voluntarily chosen and been authorized to comply with the part 121
training and qualification requirements, the FAA is revising Sec.
135.3(c) to clarify that an SIC in those part 135 operations does not
need to comply with Sec.  121.436(b) but may continue to hold a
commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.
    The FAA is also making three minor corrections that have been
identified since publication of the final rule. In Sec.  61.155(d), the
FAA is making it clear that the training required by Sec.  61.156 is
only required for those pilots seeking an ATP certificate in the
airplane category with a multiengine class rating. In Sec.
61.165(f)(2), the FAA is clarifying that a knowledge test applicable to
multiengine airplanes is required only if the pilot does not have valid
ATP airplane knowledge test results that were taken prior to August 1,
2014. This correction is necessary to be consistent with the
eligibility requirements in Sec.  61.153, which is referenced in Sec.
61.165(f)(1). The FAA notes that until July 31, 2016, pilots will be
able to use the same ATP-airplane knowledge test with passing results
taken prior to August 1, 2014, for both the ATP airplane single-engine
class rating and multiengine class rating practical tests. In Sec.
61.167(a)(2), the FAA is correcting the inadvertent exclusion of
helicopter pilots that hold an ATP certificate in the rotorcraft
category from the privilege of instructing.
    Finally, the FAA is correcting a cross-reference error. In Sec.
121.431, the FAA is correcting the cross-reference in paragraph (a)(1)
to reflect Sec.  135.244 rather than Sec.  135.344.
    Because these amendments clarify existing requirements and result
in no substantive change, the FAA finds that the notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. For the same reason,
the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the
amendments effective in less than 30 days.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

Correcting Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration is amending chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
2. In Sec.  61.155, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  61.155  Aeronautical knowledge.

* * * * *
    (d) An applicant who successfully completes the knowledge test for
an airline transport pilot certificate prior to August 1, 2014, must
successfully complete the practical test within 24 months from the
month in which the knowledge test was successfully completed. An
applicant who passes the knowledge test prior to August 1, 2014, but
fails to successfully complete the airplane category with a multiengine
class rating practical test within 24 months must complete the airline
transport pilot certification training program specified in Sec.
61.156 and retake the knowledge test prior to applying for the airplane
category with a multiengine class rating practical test.
0
3. In Sec.  61.165, revise paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  61.165  Additional aircraft category and class ratings.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) After July 31, 2014, pass a required knowledge test on the
aeronautical knowledge areas of Sec.  61.155(c), as applicable to
multiengine airplanes; unless a pilot can present valid airline
transport pilot knowledge test results from a test taken prior to
August 1, 2014.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  61.167, revise paragraph (a)(2) introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  61.167  Airline transport pilot privileges and limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (2) A person who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and
has met the aeronautical experience requirements of Sec.  61.159 or
Sec.  61.161, and the age requirements of Sec.  61.153(a)(1) of this
part may instruct--
* * * * *

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
7. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706,
44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722,
44729, 44732, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C.
44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

0
8. In Sec.  121.431, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  121.431  Applicability.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Prescribes crewmember qualifications for all certificate
holders except where otherwise specified. The qualification
requirements of this subpart also apply to each certificate holder that
conducts commuter operations under part 135 of this chapter with
airplanes for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type
certification rules of this chapter. The Administrator may authorize
any other certificate holder that conducts operations under part 135 of
this chapter to comply with the training and qualification requirements
of this subpart instead of subparts E, G, and H of part 135 of this
chapter, except that these certificate holders may choose to comply
with the operating experience requirements of Sec.  135.244 of this
chapter, instead of the requirements of Sec.  121.434. Notwithstanding
the requirements of this subpart, a pilot serving under part 135 of
this chapter as second in command may meet the requirements of Sec.
135.245 instead of the requirements of Sec.  121.436; and
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
9. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105;
Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).

0
10. In Sec.  135.3, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  135.3  Rules applicable to operations subject to this part.

* * * * *
    (c) If authorized by the Administrator upon application, each
certificate holder that conducts operations under this part to which
paragraph (b) of this section does not apply, may comply with the
applicable sections of subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the
requirements of subparts E, G, and H of this part, except that those
authorized certificate holders may choose to comply with the operating
experience requirements of Sec.  135.244, instead of the requirements
of Sec.  121.434 of this chapter. Notwithstanding the requirements of
this paragraph, a pilot serving under this part as second in command
may meet the requirements of Sec.  135.245 instead of the requirements
of Sec.  121.436.

    Issued in Washington, DC under the authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a) and Secs. 216-217, Public Law 111-216, 124
Stat. 2348 on December 23, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-32998 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P