[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18730-18732]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0302; Product Identifier 2013-NM-228-AD; Amendment
39-19258; AD 2018-09-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-23-16,
which applied to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes.
AD 99-23-16 required repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect
cracking of the vertical flange of the inboard Z-stiffeners of the
centerline panel of the fuselage belly fairing; and corrective actions,
if necessary. This AD was prompted by a new fatigue and damage
tolerance evaluation that concluded that the current inspection
thresholds and intervals had to be more restrictive. This AD requires
contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe
condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those
instructions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 15, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0302; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued AD 99-23-16, Amendment 39-11412 (64 FR 61485, November
12, 1999) (``AD 99-23-16''), which applied to certain Airbus Model A330
and A340 series airplanes. AD 99-23-16 was prompted by issuance of
mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil
aviation authority. AD 99-23-16 required repetitive detailed visual
inspections to detect cracking of the vertical flange of the inboard Z-
stiffeners of the centerline panel of the fuselage belly fairing; and
corrective actions, if necessary. We issued AD 99-23-16 to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the vertical flange of the inboard Z-
stiffeners of the centerline panel of the fuselage belly fairing, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the belly fairing.
    Since we issued AD 99-23-16, a new fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluation was conducted by the manufacturer. It was concluded that,
due to airplane utilization, the current inspection thresholds and
intervals had to be more restrictive.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2013-0241, dated October 1, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330 and A340
series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In order to prevent a damage in the inboard Z profile at the
Center Landing Gear (CLG) door fitting location (Frame 49 to 53.2)
caused by cracks evidenced during fatigue tests and which could lead
to a reduced structural integrity, DGAC France AD 96-056-029(B) and
DGAC France AD 96-057-042(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 99-23-16]
were issued to require a repetitive inspection of the inboard Z
profile on both Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) sides.
    An optional terminating action of the repetitive inspection of
this [EASA] AD exists by modification of the aeroplane in accordance
with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-53-3019
or Airbus SB A340-53-4028, as applicable.
    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, in the frame of a new
fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation, taking into account the
aeroplane utilisation, the threshold and intervals were reassessed.
This resulted in the conclusion that, in this specific case, certain
thresholds and intervals are more restrictive.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of both DGAC France AD 96-056-029(B) and DGAC France AD
96-057-042(B), which are superseded, and requires accomplishment of
repetitive inspections of the inboard Z profile (LH/RH) within the
new thresholds and intervals.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0302.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are
issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same type designs.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we
find good

cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0302; Product
Identifier 2013-NM-228-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD
requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the
unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those
instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are
providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is
placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per  product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection [new action]...........  7 work-hours x $85                 $0  $595 per inspection                $0
                                     per hour = $595 per                    cycle.
                                     inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
modification that would be required based on the results of the
required actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification..........................  13 work-hours x $85 per           $2,350          $3,455              $0
                                         hour = $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
99-23-16, Amendment 39-11412 (64 FR 61485, November 12, 1999), and
adding the following AD:

2018-09-02 Airbus: Amendment 39-19258; Docket No. FAA-2018-0302;
Product Identifier 2013-NM-228-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 15, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 99-23-16, Amendment 39-11412 (64 FR 61485,
November 12, 1999) (``AD 99-23-16'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model A330-301, A330-321, A330-322, A330-341 and A330-342
airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which
Airbus modification 42605 has been embodied in production.
    (2) Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, and
A340-313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on
which Airbus modification 42605 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a new fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluation that concluded that the current inspection thresholds and
intervals had to be more restrictive. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the vertical flange of the
inboard Z-stiffeners of the centerline panel of the fuselage belly
fairing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
belly fairing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request
instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in
paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times
specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance
can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0241, dated
October 1, 2013.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the International Section, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2013-0241, dated October 1, 2013, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0302.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 11, 2018.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-08648 Filed 4-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31909-31912]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13668]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1156]

Change-1 to Navigation and Inspection Circular 01-13, Inspection
and Certification of Vessels Under the Maritime Security Program

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of Change-1 to
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-13, Inspection and
Certification of Vessels Under the Maritime Security Program (MSP). The
MSP serves as a means for establishing a fleet of commercially viable
and militarily useful vessels to meet national defense as well as other
security requirements. NVIC 01-13 provides guidance to assist vessel
owners/

operators, Authorized Classification Societies, and Coast Guard
personnel with the inspection and certification of vessels under the
MSP. This Change clarifies the process for the issuance of the
Certificate of Documentation (COD) to the vessel during the reflag
process, adds a note to the equivalency provisions for inspection of
MSP vessels subsequent to initial certification, clarifies the trial
period requirements for automated systems in machinery spaces, includes
interim provisions for those vessels seeking to operate with minimally
attended or periodically unattended machinery spaces, and makes other
technical changes to NVIC 01-13.

DATES: Change-1 to NVIC 01-13 is effective as of June 4, 2015]. The
owner/operator may request an amended Certificate of Inspection to
align with Change-1 to NVIC 01-13 at the next scheduled Coast Guard
attendance. Documents discussed in this notice should be available in
the online docket within three business days of today's publication.

ADDRESSES: To view the documents mentioned in this notice go to http://www.regulations.gov and use ``USCG-2011-1156'' as your search term.
Locate this notice in the search results, and use the filters on the
left side of the page to locate specific documents by type. If you do
not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document,
call or email Lieutenant Corydon Heard, Office of Commercial Vessel
Compliance (CG-CVC), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, toll free 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    NVIC 01-13 provides uniform process guidance to assist vessel
owners/operators, authorized classification societies, and Coast Guard
personnel regarding the MSP. Vessels that meet MSP eligibility criteria
may obtain a Certificate of Inspection (COI) by following the
procedures and guidelines detailed in NVIC 01-13. NVIC 01-13 was first
published in February 2013. As part of the first annual review, the
Coast Guard considered policy guidance enhancements in order to better
facilitate the transition of vessels to U.S. registry under the MSP.
The Coast Guard published a notice in the Federal Register announcing
the availability of the draft changes to NVIC 01-13 and requested
public comments (79 FR 35177, June 19, 2014). Specifically, these draft
changes clarified the process for the issuance of the Certificate of
Documentation (COD) to the vessel during the reflag process, added a
note to the equivalency provisions for inspection of MSP vessels
subsequent to initial certification, clarified the trial period
requirements for automated systems in machinery spaces, and included
interim provisions for those vessels seeking to operate with minimally
attended or periodically unattended machinery spaces (MAMS/PUMS), which
do not otherwise meet the requirements of 46 CFR 62.50-20 and/or 62.50-
30 (as appropriate).
    We received eight public comment responses to the June 19, 2014,
Federal Register notice. In addition to several general comments, these
responses contained numerous specific recommendations, suggestions, and
other remarks. We have created a comment matrix that provides a summary
of each specific comment and the corresponding Coast Guard response;
the comment matrix also lists and explains changes made by the Coast
Guard but not prompted by public comments. A copy of this public
comment matrix is available for viewing in the public docket for this
notice. For more detailed information, please consult the actual public
comment letters in the docket. You may access the docket going to
http://www.regulations.gov, using ``USCG-2011-1156'' as your search
term, and following the instructions in the ADDRESSES section above.
    The basic framework of the draft Change-1 to NVIC 01-13 described
above is retained in the final version. The Coast Guard has made some
changes from the draft version of Change-1 to NVIC 01-13 to the final
version based on the public comments. All changes are underlined in the
final version and each changed page is annotated with CH-1 in the
footer. We note that several commenters recommended the establishment
of a working group to address MSP inspection issues. While the Coast
Guard welcomes public input and will continue to champion a transparent
and pragmatic approach which factors industry concerns, we believe that
the current process of issuing draft policy documents and incorporating
public input is the best means of policy development at this time. Some
commenters raised general concerns and objections over several key
aspects of NVIC 01-13. A discussion of these general concerns is
included below, while responses to specific technical issues are
contained in the supplementary material available in the docket.
    The Coast Guard received several comments asserting that NVIC 01-13
is inconsistent with the purpose and plain language of the MSP law.
Specifically, commenters suggested that pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 53102(e),
a vessel is eligible to receive a COI as long as the vessel continues
to comply with international agreements and the associated guidelines
of the vessel's prior flag State. Commenters contested the
applicability of Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by arguing
that vessels in the MSP are solely regulated under applicable
international agreements (e.g., SOLAS) and Classification Society
rules, specifically with regard to the manning and watchkeeping
requirements for periodically unattended machinery space (PUMS).
Commenters stated that to the extent that the CFR requirements differ
from international conventions and class society rules, they are
contrary to the statute.
    While we concur that the international agreements are applicable,
we disagree concerning the non-applicability of domestic regulations to
vessels in the MSP. Sections 53102(e)(1)(A) and (B) of 46 U.S.C.
specifically address the basis for accepting foreign construction and
equipment standards for the physical ship as a condition for receiving
a COI. The MSP law establishes broad equivalencies, rather than an
exemption, for equipment and provisioning required by U.S. regulations
at reflag. The MSP law does not require the vessel's systems to be
modified in order to meet U.S. equipment carriage requirements.
Compliance with classification society rules and the previous flag's
laws serve as evidence that the vessel is eligible for reflagging and
issuance of its initial COI. The intent of the MSP COI endorsement is
to identify this equivalency for equipment and provisioning.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard generally will not require the
installation of additional equipment as a condition of holding the COI
once it was initially issued. However, the statute is silent

with regard to operational matters such as manning, watchstanding,
record keeping, periodic inspections and casualty reporting.
    Unlike the design and equipment requirements needed to obtain a
COI, manning and watchstanding provisions, as well as other operational
requirements (logbooks, cargo authorities, inspection intervals and
certification rules), are described in the various CFR subchapters
depending on the vessel type. These regulations apply to MSP ships as
they would to any U.S. flag vessel depending on route and service, and
serve as the U.S. interpretations of the IMO international instruments
since these international regulations intentionally leave many areas to
``the satisfaction of the administration.'' These regulations include
provisions for an optional reduction in manning and/or discretionary
authorization for a PUMS. Considering the flexibility afforded by the
applicable IMO international instruments, especially in the area of
manning, operations, and the scope of flag administration inspections,
the Coast Guard recognized the need for consistent MSP inspection
procedures for vessel owners, class societies, and marine inspectors,
and therefore published NVIC 01-13. Accordingly, the procedural
guidance provided in NVIC 01-13 does not establish any original or new
requirements, but clarifies the applicability of existing regulations,
while incorporating previous and long standing policies.
    Some commenters expressed concern that NVIC 01-13 is inconsistent
with prior Coast Guard practice and assert that any change in
interpretation and formal imposition of new substantive requirements
require a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The
commenters argue that NVIC 01-13 imposes new substantive requirements
on MSP operators, and that the Coast Guard has not followed the
informal rulemaking process of the APA in enacting it. This, the
commenters argue, should invalidate the NVIC, pursuant to Alaska
Professional Hunters Ass'n v. Federal Aviation Administration, 177 F.3d
1030 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Specifically, the commenters argue that previous
policy guidance stated that MSP vessels will be inspected under special
provisions, except that ``new installations or modifications to
existing systems shall conform to the Coast Guard's interpretation of
international regulations,'' without specifying the meaning of
``interpretation''; while the new policy guidance contained in NVIC 01-
13 indicated that the Coast Guard's interpretation of international
regulation meant compliance with the requirements in Title 46 of the
CFR.
    We note that Alaska Hunters' reasoning was overturned by the U.S.
Supreme Court recently in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (March
9, 2015). Beyond that, we disagree with this argument on two counts.
First, the Coast Guard provided notice and an opportunity to comment on
this guidance document, and carefully considered the comments received.
The Coast Guard published a draft version of NVIC 01-13 for public
comment in the Federal Register on January 19, 2012 (77 FR 2741) and
the final version on February 28, 2013 (78 FR 13691). Similarly, the
draft version of this change to the NVIC was published in the Federal
Register on June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35177), and public comments are being
addressed in this notice.
    Second, the commenter made this argument in relation to a request
for reduced manning requirements for a PUMS. With regard to the manning
requirements at issue, NVIC 01-13 does not introduce new policies, but
merely clarifies existing policies and, in fact, the changes provide
additional flexibility for operators in compliance options.
    Notwithstanding the commenter's arguments, the Coast Guard's
procedural guidance and interpretations of MSP law have been consistent
with respect to the installation or modification to existing systems,
since the publication of MOC Policy Letter 1-97, Reflag Inspection and
Certification of Vessels Under the Maritime Security Program (MSP).
Prior to the issuance of NVIC 01-13, we stated that, with respect to
the installation or modification to existing systems, such systems must
be replaced with equipment that meets Coast Guard standards (that is,
the standards in Title 46 of the CFR). This guidance is clearly stated
in the Marine Safety Manual, where we stated that ``[a] reduction in
manning due to engine automation must be approved and tested as
satisfactory in accordance with U.S. regulations [emphasis added].''
\1\ Furthermore, the Coast Guard has applied this guidance to other
vessels prior to the promulgation of NVIC 01-13. For example, in 2010,
the Coast Guard denied an appeal regarding the MV HONOR's firefighting
system for unattended machinery spaces. In our response, we stated that
``The HONOR is not required to change the hardware of its accepted [by
the classification society] fire fighting system as a condition of
holding a COI. It is only a requirement if the plan is to maintain the
vessel's periodically unattended machinery space designation.'' \2\
NVIC 01-13 merely reiterates this existing guidance. Accordingly, it is
the view of the Coast Guard that NVIC 01-13 does not represent a
substantive alteration or supersede the previous policy
interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Marine Safety Manual, vol. II, p. B1-15.
    \2\ Letter to C.R. Cushing and Company, January 25, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In NVIC 01-13, the Coast Guard has sought to provide additional
flexibility in respect to the replacement of equipment ``in kind'' as
well as for the proposed acceptance of certain design and technical
specifications meeting existing classification society rules as
equivalent for the purposes of MSP. This posture has been consistently
evident in legacy Coast Guard policies, such as PCV Policy Letter 06-06
Guidance for Ships Reflagged under the Maritime Security Program
Participating in the Underwater Survey in Lieu of Drydocking (UWILD)
Program. NVIC 01-13 has further provided flexibility for vessels
transitioning to U.S. registry under the MSP to participate in elective
programs such as UWILD and PUMS while coming into compliance with Coast
Guard measures designed to enhance the safety of U.S. mariners.
    Several commenters recommended that for PUMS, the Coast Guard
should accept foreign non-Coast Guard approved equipment and systems
that comply with the applicable international conventions as determined
by the previous flag state's guidelines provided the vessel's
automation and remote population system are in accordance with SOLAS,
the previous flag state's requirements, and the vessel's classification
society's rules.
    As previously noted, the Coast Guard generally will not require the
installation of additional equipment as a condition of holding a COI
once it was initially issued. For example, under MSP the Coast Guard
accepts an attestation from the classification society stating that the
automation systems (i.e., power management system, propulsion control
system, dynamic positioning system, centralized machinery monitoring
and control system, etc.) are designed to meet the failsafe
requirements of SOLAS (see NVIC 01-13, Enclosure (2) Section 1.1.3). By
contrast, the requirements and authorization to electively operate with
an unattended machinery space rests with the flag administration.
However, the Coast Guard received a comment recommending that
particular supplemental Alternate Compliance Program (ACP) standards
for MAMS/

PUMS be incorporated into the MSP guidelines as an alternative to
certain requirements in 46 CFR part 62. The Coast Guard agrees with
this comment and has incorporated a general alternative provision into
the NVIC change. Additionally, the interim provisions provide for
continual MAMS/PUMS operation until the next credit dry dock (not
including UWILD) one year from the publication date of Change-1 to NVIC
01-13.
    The remainder of comments received were technical in nature, and
are discussed in the comment matrix available in the docket. Upon
reviewing these specific comments, the Coast Guard has included
additional guidance that maximizes flexibility by promoting alternative
inspection programs. Principally, revisions were made to streamline the
automation approval process, provide a standardized equivalency for
design and technical specifications under ACP supplements, and clarify
the provisions for servicing certain firefighting equipment and
liferafts.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: May 26, 2015.
Paul F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-13668 Filed 6-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 5, 2003

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-16333

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    US Airways, Inc.          filed   10/17/03  for:

XX Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States and any point or points
in the United Kingdom (excluding London’s Heathrow and Gatwick
Airports), and to integrate this authority with its existing certificate
and exemption authority.

Applicant rep:   Joel Stephen Burton,<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   November 5, 2003, through
November 5, 2005

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and

the United Kingdom.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificate of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon US Airways rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless US Airways notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any

necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in US Airways’ authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by US Airways,
the holding of such authority by route integration will not be
considered as providing any preference for US Airways in a competitive
carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be
entitled to use the authority at issue.

2

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(n) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										08/2003

 US Airways intends to inaugurate daily service between Philadelphia and
Glasgow, Scotland during the summer season beginning around May 2004.


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25783-25784]
[FR Doc No: E9-12451]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59965; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto,
Changing Certain NYSE Rules and Rule Interpretations To Harmonize Them
With Changes to Corresponding Rules Filed by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.

May 21, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On March 9, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make changes to certain NYSE rules and rule
interpretations, to be effective retroactively to December 15, 2008, to
harmonize them with changes to corresponding rules that were filed by
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and
approved by the Commission or were effective upon filing with the
Commission.\3\ On March 27, 2009, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, which was withdrawn.\4\ On March 30, 2009,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The
proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on April 6,
2009.\6\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58461 (September 4,
2008), 73 FR 52710 (September 10, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-033);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58514 (September 11, 2008), 73
FR 54190 (September 18, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-039); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174
(October 1, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-021, -022, -026,-028, -029);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58660 (September 26, 2008), 73
FR 57393 (October 2, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-027); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 58661 (September 26, 2008), 73 FR 57395 (October 2,
2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-030); and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59097 (December 12, 2008), 73 FR 78412 (December 22, 2008) (SR-
FINRA-2008-057).
    \4\ On March 30, 2009, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1.
    \5\ Amendment No. 2 to SR-NYSE-2009-25 replaced the original
filing in its entirety. References to Amendment No. 1 in Amendment
No. 2 should be read as Amendment No. 2. See telephone conversation
between Clare F. Saperstein, Managing Director, NYSE Regulation,
Inc., and Nancy J. Burke-Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, March 30, 2009.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59655 (March 30,
2009), 74 FR 15563 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    On July 30, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') and NYSE Regulation, Inc., the regulatory subsidiary of
the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), consolidated their member firm
regulation operations into FINRA. In connection with this
consolidation, FINRA is in the process of establishing a consolidated
FINRA rulebook (the ``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook'') \7\ that will
harmonize NASD rules and NYSE rules relating to member firm
regulation.\8\ All of these rules will be identified as ``FINRA Rules''
when the rule consolidation process is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of three sets of rules:
(1) NASD Rules, (2) rules and rule interpretations incorporated from
the NYSE (``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules'') (together, referred to
as the ``Transitional Rulebook''), and (3) consolidated FINRA Rules.
The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members of
FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members.
    \8\ Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, NYSE, NYSER and NASD
entered into an agreement (``Rule 17d-2 Agreement'') to reduce
regulatory duplication for Dual Members by allocating to FINRA
regulatory responsibility for specified NYSE rules (the ``Common
Rules''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Order
Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the Allocation of
Regulatory Responsibilities). The Common Rules include the FINRA
Incorporated NYSE Rules. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007) (Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule
Change to Incorporate Certain NYSE Rules Relating to Member Firm
Conduct) (SR-NASD-2007-054). Paragraph 2(b) of the Rule 17d-2
Agreement sets forth procedures regarding proposed changes by either
NYSE or FINRA to the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reduce regulatory duplication, the Exchange proposes to
harmonize several NYSE rules with certain FINRA rule changes by
deleting NYSE rules and rule interpretations and replacing them with
rules that are identical to, or substantially identical to, the FINRA
Rules that were approved by, or were effective upon filing with, the
Commission, subject to technical amendments to conform them to the
Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to adopt the same rule numbers
used in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook to allow members and others to
more readily identify those NYSE rules that have been harmonized with
FINRA Rules. The Notice provides a more detailed description of the
FINRA rule changes and the Exchange's proposed conforming rule
changes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act \10\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is deleting certain rules and rule interpretations
pertaining to: (1) Compensation or gratuities to

employees of others; (2) business conduct, trading against firm
recommendations, and private sales; (3) excessive trading by members,
excessive trading in discretionary accounts, successive transactions by
members, manipulative operations, reopening contracts, and loans for
accounts of non-members; (4) disciplinary proceedings concerning
conduct that is inconsistent with just and equitable principles of
trade; (5) reporting of certain information concerning short sales and
proprietary transactions; (6) reporting and certification of member or
member organization's supervision and compliance efforts; (7) formation
and approval or merger organizations; (8) reporting of short positions;
(9) notification requirements for listed securities; and (10)
disclosure and monitoring of non-managed fee based accounts.
    In the place of the deleted rules and interpretations, the Exchange
proposes to adopt rules that are identical to, or substantially
identical to, FINRA Rules that were approved by the Commission or were
effective upon filing with the Commission.\13\ In addition, NYSE is
making non-substantive changes to the FINRA Rules that it is
incorporating to reflect that they are NYSE rules and is deleting NYSE
rules that have become outdated and are no longer needed. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is appropriate and
should reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication of Dual Members by
harmonizing certain NYSE rules with FINRA Rules. With respect to the
Exchange's proposal to delete NYSE Rule 350 (and accompanying
interpretations) and to adopt NYSE Rule 3220 (relating to influencing
or rewarding employees of others), the Commission notes that NYSE has
stated that immediately upon Commission approval of new NYSE Rule 3220,
it will issue an Information Memorandum to its members and member
organizations, including NYSE-only members and those members registered
with FINRA, clarifying that FINRA's interpretive guidance related to
FINRA Rule 3220 is considered part of NYSE Rule 3220, and that such
members and member organizations are required to regulate their conduct
according to Rule 3220 and the interpretive guidance related to FINRA
Rule 3220.\14\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 3.
    \14\ See telephone conversation between Clare F. Saperstein,
Managing Director, NYSE Regulation, Inc., and Nancy J. Burke-Sanow,
Assistant Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, May
21, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2009-25) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12451 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80199-80200]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27206]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34130; 811-22260]

RMR Mortgage Trust

December 7, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for deregistration under Section 8(f) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').
    Summary of Application: RMR Mortgage Trust requests an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
    Applicant: RMR Mortgage Trust.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 27, 2020 and was
amended on August 17, 2020, November 18, 2020 and December 1, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the request
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 Applicant with a copy of the
request by email. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on January 4, 2021 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicant, 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 to the
Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Mehrespand, Senior Counsel; Trace
Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Applicant's Representations:
    1. Applicant is a Maryland statutory trust and is a non-
diversified, closed-end management investment company registered under
the Act. Prior to the Special Meeting (as defined below), Applicant was
named ``RMR Real Estate Income Fund'' and its primary investment
objective was to earn and pay to its common shareholders a high level
of current income by investing in real estate companies. Capital
appreciation was Applicant's secondary objective.
    2. At a special meeting of Applicant's shareholders on April 16,
2020 (``the Special Meeting''), Applicant's shareholders approved a
proposal (the ``Business Change Proposal'') to change Applicant's
business from a registered investment company to a commercial mortgage
real estate investment trust (``REIT'') that focuses primarily on
originating and investing in first mortgage whole loans secured by
middle market and transitional commercial real estate (``CRE'').
Notably, the proxy statement in connection with the Business Change
Proposal stated that, if approved, Applicant would realign its
portfolio so that it will not be considered an investment company under
the Act and apply to the Commission for an order declaring that
Applicant has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant represents
that it has operated during its 2020 taxable year so that it may
qualify for taxation as a REIT for federal tax purposes.
    3. Applicant states that, following the Special Meeting, it has
taken various steps to implement the Business Proposal, including
changing its name to ``RMR Mortgage Trust,'' divesting legacy portfolio
assets and reorienting its portfolio to originating and investing in
first mortgage whole loans secured by middle market and transitional
CRE. Applicant states that it also holds itself out in its periodic
reports to shareholders, press releases and website as a company that
focuses primarily on originating and investing in first mortgage whole
loans secured by middle market and transitional CRE.
    4. Applicant's investment advisory agreement (``IAA'') with RMR
Advisors LLC (the ``Adviser''), Applicant's investment adviser, remains
in effect but Applicant anticipates that, if Applicant receives the
order, the IAA would be terminated and Applicant would enter into a new
management agreement with the Adviser, or an affiliate of the Adviser.
Applicant represents that its officers devote significant time to
Applicant's new business strategy, including in connection with the
formation of business objectives, plans and strategies and sourcing of
mortgage origination opportunities. In addition, the Adviser has
established an investment committee (the ``Investment Committee'')
responsible for evaluating mortgage loan origination opportunities and
making determinations as to whether or not to fund such loan
opportunities, in each case, taking into account Applicant's investment
guidelines and considerations, subject to any required approvals by
Applicant's Board of Trustees (``Board''). Two of Applicant's Board
members serve as members of the Investment Committee.
    5. Applicant states that it currently originates commercial
mortgage loans through a wholly-owned subsidiary, RMTG Lender LLC (the
``Real Estate Subsidiary''). As of November 30, 2020, 100% of the
assets of the Real Estate Subsidiary consisted of commercial mortgage
loans fully secured by real estate. Applicant represents that it may
establish other wholly-owned subsidiaries to carry out specific
activities, consistent with Applicant's business of originating and
investing in first mortgage whole loans secured by middle market and
transitional CRE.
    6. Applicant represents that the Real Estate Subsidiary is excluded
from the definition of ``investment company'' by section 3(c)(5)(C) of
the Act and, therefore, securities issued by the Real Estate Subsidiary
are not ``investment securities'' as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the
Act. Applicant states that, as of November 30, 2020, the value of
investment securities owned by Applicant represents approximately 35.1%
of Applicant's total assets, exclusive of Government securities and
cash items, on an unconsolidated basis (``Adjusted Total Assets'').
    7. For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Applicant states
that it derived approximately 100% of its gross income from securities
(other than investments that qualify as ``mortgages and other liens on
and interests in real estate'' for purposes of section 3(c)(5)(C) of
the Act (``Qualifying Real Estate Assets'')) and approximately 0% of
its gross income from Qualifying Real Estate Assets, and for the period
from October 1, 2020 through November

30, 2020, Applicant derived approximately 82% of its gross income from
securities (other than Qualifying Real Estate Assets) and approximately
18% of its gross income from Qualifying Real Estate Assets. Applicant
expects its income from securities (other than Qualifying Real Estate
Assets and other assets that are not Qualifying Real Estate Assets but
which are real estate-related assets (``Real Estate-Related Assets'')
to continue to decrease, and its income from Qualifying Real Estate
Assets and Real Estate-Related Assets to continue to increase, as it
continues to divest its legacy portfolio assets and reinvest in
Qualifying Real Estate Assets and Real-Estate Related Assets. Applicant
represents that currently it derives no material portion of its gross
income from securities that are not Qualifying Real Estate Assets or
Real Estate-Related Assets.
    8. Upon deregistering as an investment company, which will be the
final step in implementing the Business Change Proposal, Applicant
represents that it will issue a press release to shareholders
indicating that it is no longer a registered investment company and
will cease indicating in its financial statements that it is a
registered investment company.
    9. Applicant states that it is not currently a party to any
litigation or administrative proceeding and has timely complied with
its obligations to file annual and other reports with the Commission.
    10. Applicant represents that, if the requested order is granted,
its common shares will continue to be traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC.
    Applicant's Legal Analysis:
    1. Section 8(f) of the Act provides that whenever the Commission,
upon application or its own motion, finds that a registered investment
company has ceased to be an investment company, the Commission shall so
declare by order and upon the taking effect of such order, the
registration of such company shall cease to be in effect.
    2. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Act defines an ``investment company''
as any issuer which ``is or holds itself out as being engaged
primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of
investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities.'' Section 3(a)(1)(B)
of the Act defines an ``investment company'' as any issuer which ``is
engaged or proposes to engage in the business of issuing face-amount
certificates of the installment type, or has been engaged in such
business and has any such certificate outstanding.''
    3. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act defines an ``investment company''
as any issuer which ``is engaged or proposes to engage in the business
of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities,
and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value
exceeding 40 per centum of the value of such issuer's total assets
(exclusive of Government securities and cash items) on an
unconsolidated basis.'' Section 3(a)(2) of the Act defines ``investment
securities'' as ``all securities except (A) Government securities, (B)
securities issued by employees' securities companies, and (C)
securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries of the owner which (i)
are not investment companies, and (ii) are not relying on the exception
from the definition of investment company in paragraph (1) or (7) of
subsection (c).''
    4. Applicant states that it is no longer an investment company as
defined in section 3(a)(1)(A), 3(a)(1)(B) or section 3(a)(1)(C). With
regard to section 3(a)(1)(A), Applicant represents that it now operates
as a commercial mortgage REIT, and argues that its historical
development, its public representations, the activities of its
directors and officers, the nature of its present assets and the
sources of its present income support this assertion.
    5. With regard to section 3(a)(1)(B), Applicant represents that it
is not engaged, and does not propose to engage, in the business of
issuing face-amount certificates of the installment type, has not been
engaged in such business and does not have any such certificate
outstanding.
    6. With regard to section 3(a)(1)(C), Applicant represents that, as
discussed in greater detail below, the Real Estate Subsidiary is
excluded from the definition of investment company by virtue of section
3(c)(5)(C) of the Act and that, as a result, securities issued by the
Real Estate Subsidiary are not ``investment securities'' within the
meaning of section 3(a)(2) of the Act. Because the value of Applicant's
interest in the Real Estate Subsidiary exceeds 60% of the value of
Applicant's Adjusted Total Assets, the value of any ``investment
securities'' owned by Applicant is less than 40% of the value of
Applicant's Adjusted Total Assets. Applicant, therefore, states that it
is not an investment company within the meaning of section 3(a)(1)(C)
of the Act.
    7. Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Act excludes from the definition of an
investment company ``any person who is not engaged in the business of
issuing redeemable securities, face-amount certificates of the
installment type or periodic payment plan certificates, and who is
primarily engaged in one or more of the following businesses: . . . (C)
purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and
interests in real estate.''
    8. Applicant represents that, as of November 30, 2020, the only
assets of the Real Estate Subsidiary were mortgage loans fully secured
by real estate and, as a result, the Real Estate Subsidiary meets the
exclusion from the definition of investment company in section
3(c)(5)(C).
    9. Applicant states that it is thus qualified for an order of the
Commission pursuant to section 8(f) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27206 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P