[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69158-69159]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27453]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73608; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Finance Procedures

November 14, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 6, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
``the Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items
I, II and III below, which Items have been primarily prepared by ICE
Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to facilitate the
use by F&O Clearing Members of an additional triparty collateral
service provider.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the amendments is to modify the Finance Procedures
to appoint Clearstream Banking as an additional triparty collateral
service provider in addition to Euroclear Bank, which currently acts as
the sole service provider. Clearstream Banking will only serve as a
triparty collateral service provider for Original Margin provided in
respect of F&O Contracts.
    Specifically, changes are made throughout paragraph 3 of the
Finance Procedures to add a reference to Clearstream Banking and to
remove references to Euroclear Bank as the sole triparty collateral
service provider, as appropriate. Paragraph 3.1 has been revised to
designate Clearstream Banking as an additional triparty collateral
service provider, solely with respect to Original Margin provided in
respect of F&O Contracts. Paragraph 3.2 has been revised to reflect
that there are two triparty collateral service providers, and to refer
to equivalent documentation that may be required by Clearstream Banking
as well as Euroclear Bank. Paragraph 3.9 has been revised to indicate
that the Clearing House will provide to Clearing Members the relevant
account details for the Clearing House's account at each triparty
collateral service provider. Revised paragraph 3.9 also provides that
the Clearing House will specify relevant details of the manner in which
a Clearing Member may use a pledged collateral arrangement in
connection with a triparty collateral account. Current paragraph 3.10,
which addressed pledged collateral arrangements only with Euroclear,
has been removed as unnecessary. Remaining subparagraphs in paragraph 3
have been renumbered accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed changes are consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions and to assure the safeguarding
of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are intended to extend the Clearing House's
existing triparty collateral service to allow optional use by Clearing
Members of Clearstream Banking as an additional triparty collateral
service provider with respect to Original Margin for F&O Contracts. The
amendments do not otherwise change the substantive terms of the
service. ICE Clear Europe views Clearstream Banking as substantially
similar to Euroclear, the current service provider, from an operational
and risk perspective and otherwise in terms of the safeguarding of
funds and securities. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes that the
proposed changes will not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or
for which it is responsible, and are therefore consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
changes will provide additional flexibility to F&O Clearing Members by
permitting the use, on a voluntary basis, of an alternative triparty
collateral service provider. The changes will otherwise not affect the
terms or conditions of any cleared contract or the

standards or requirements for participation in or use of the Clearing
House. Accordingly, the changes should not, in the Clearing House's
view, affect the availability of clearing, access to clearing services
or the costs of clearing for clearing members or other market
participants.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have
not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the
Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \9\ thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that primarily affects the operations of the clearing
agency with respect to products that are not securities, including
futures that are not security futures, swaps that are not security-
based swaps or mixed swaps, and forwards that are not security
forwards, and does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of the clearing agency or any rights or obligations of the
clearing agency with respect to securities clearing or persons using
such securities clearing service, within the meaning of Rule 19b-
4(f)(4)(ii).\10\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2014-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2014-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filings.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2014-19
and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27453 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The EDMVS The EDMVS''

Draft Work Plan Draft Work Plan Presentation to the EDMVS,

Presentation to the EDMVS,

August 18 August 18 20, 2003 20, 2003 Purpose of Today's Purpose of Today's WorkPlan WorkPlan Show progress of EDSP Show progress of EDSP Provide the status of each assay Provide the status of each assay Project what's next Project what's next Tier I Screening Battery Tier I Screening Battery recommended for consideration by EDSTAC recommended for consideration by EDSTAC Steroidogenesis Steroidogenesis Pubertal Pubertal  female female Fish Screen Fish Screen aka aka short term fish reproduction short term fish reproduction Amphibian Metamorphosis Amphibian Metamorphosis Estrogen / Androgen receptor binding Estrogen / Androgen receptor binding Hershberger Hershberger Uterotrophic Uterotrophic Alternative Assays Alternative Assays recommended for consideration by EDSTAC recommended for consideration by EDSTAC Tier I Tier I Aromatase Aromatase Pubertal male Pubertal male Adult 14 Adult 14   day intact male day intact male Tier ?

Tier ?

In In Utero Utero through Lactation through Lactation Tier II Assays Tier II Assays recommended for consideration by EDSTAC recommended for consideration by EDSTAC Mammalian 2 Mammalian 2 generation generation Avian 2 Avian 2 gen. Reproduction gen. Reproduction Amphibian Development and Repro.

Amphibian Development and Repro.

Invertebrate (

Invertebrate ( Mysid Mysid) Lifecycle ) Lifecycle Fish Lifecycle Fish Lifecycle Tier I Assays Tier I Assays Steroidogenesis Steroidogenesis Milestone Milestone Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol   June June 02 02  cell based ( H295R) Dev by ORD cell based ( H295R) Dev by ORD Prevalidation Prevalidation  sectional testes sectional testes optimization optimization   June 03 &

June 03 & Today Today  cell based ( H295R)

cell based ( H295R) In Lab soon In Lab soon  multichem multichem & interlab interlab to lab Sept 03 to lab Sept 03 Validation Validation  inter inter lab lab to lab June 04 to lab June 04 Current Status = dates presented to EDMVS &

Current Status = dates presented to EDMVS &

other information other information Pubertals Pubertals   m& f m& f Milestone Milestone DRP equivalent DRP equivalent Prevalidation Prevalidation  Single Dose Study Single Dose Study  Multi Multi chemical & multi chemical & multi dose dose Protocols Protocols  Multi Multi chemical & multi chemical & multi dose dose to EDMVS Dec 03 to EDMVS Dec 03  Restricted Feeding Study Restricted Feeding Study Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab)

lab) Current Status Current Status   Dec 01 Dec 01   Dec Dec 01 01   Dec Dec 01 01 In statistical In statistical analysis analysis   July 02 July 02 To lab Jan 04 To lab Jan 04 Fish Screen Fish Screen Milestones Milestones Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol   Mar 02 Mar 02 Prevalidation Prevalidation  FHM FHM   Mar 02 Mar 02  FHM w/ multi FHM w/ multi chemicals In lab chemicals In lab   Comparative Study Plans:

Comparative Study Plans:   Mar Mar 02 02  Results: Comparative Studies Results: Comparative Studies Vitellogenin Vitellogenin Methods, FHM assays Methods, FHM assays   Today Today Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab) depends on OECD lab) depends on OECD Phase 1A ( OECD)

Phase 1A ( OECD) Today Today Phase 1B ( OECD)

Phase 1B ( OECD) Spring 04 Spring 04 Amphibian Metamorphosis Amphibian Metamorphosis Milestone Milestone Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol   July 02 July 02 Pre Pre validation validation prometamorphosis prometamorphosis  optimize protocol optimize protocol in lab in lab  protocol demonstration to lab in 04 protocol demonstration to lab in 04 Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab OECD) TBD lab OECD) TBD ER / AR binding ER / AR binding ICCVAM ICCVAM Scientific Expert Panel Scientific Expert Panel'' s May 2002 s May 2002 retrospective validation retrospective validation EDMVS briefed by ICCVAM July 2002 EDMVS briefed by ICCVAM July 2002 Expert Panel Final Report Sept 2002 Expert Panel Final Report Sept 2002 ICCVAM Final Report ICCVAM Final Report May 2003 May 2003 EDSP: AR in lab (

EDSP: AR in lab ( preval preval) Aug 02 Aug 02   Sept 03 Sept 03 EDSP: ER in lab ( valid) Aug EDSP: ER in lab ( valid) Aug 02 02   May 04 May 04 Aromatase Aromatase Milestones Milestones Current Status Current Status DRP / Protocol DRP / Protocol   Mar 02 Mar 02 Prevalidation Prevalidation  placental placental microsomal microsomal assay assay   June 03 &

June 03 &

compare bovine, human,

compare bovine, human, Dec 03 Dec 03 porcine uterine tissue porcine uterine tissue  comparison:

comparison: microsomal microsomal & "

recombinant, multi recombinant, multi chem chem Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab)

lab) to lab Jan 03 to lab Jan 03 In In Utero Utero  Lactation Lactation Milestone Milestone Current Status Current Status DRP DRP   Dec Dec 02 02  Protocol review Protocol review   Mar 02 Mar 02 Prevalidation Prevalidation  Protocol Demo Protocol Demo Dec 03 Dec 03  Multi Multi chem chem study TBD study TBD Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab)

lab) TBD TBD Tier II Assays Tier II Assays Mammalian 2 Mammalian 2 generation generation Milestone Milestone Current Status Current Status Prevalidation Prevalidation One One gen. Ext. Protocol gen. Ext. Protocol   Dec Dec 02 02 Propylthiouracil Propylthiouracil Study Study   July 02 July 02 One One gen gen Ext. study Ext. study   June 03 June 03 Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab) TBD lab) TBD Avian 2 Avian 2 gen. Reproduction gen. Reproduction Milestone Milestone Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol Today Today Prevalidation Prevalidation  Avian Dosing Study Plan Avian Dosing Study Plan   Mar 02 Mar 02  Avian Dose Study in lab Avian Dose Study in lab to EDMVS in Fall 04 to EDMVS in Fall 04  Protocol demo future Protocol demo future Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab OECD) future lab OECD) future Amphibian Amphibian Dev. & Repro.

Dev. & Repro.

Milestones Milestones Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol Spring 04 Spring 04 Prevalidation Prevalidation  transferable protocol future transferable protocol future  multi multi chem chem study future study future Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab) future lab) future Mysid Lifecycle Mysid Lifecycle Milestones Milestones Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol   July 02 July 02 Prevalidation Prevalidation  transferable protocol transferable protocol Spring 04 Spring 04  multi multi chem chem study future study future Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab OECD) future lab OECD) future Fish Lifecycle Fish Lifecycle Milestones Milestones Current Status Current Status DRP/ Protocol DRP/ Protocol   Dec Dec 02 02 Prevalidation Prevalidation  protocol demo protocol demo In Lab In Lab  multi multi chem chem study future study future Validation ( inter Validation ( inter lab OECD) future lab OECD) future December 2003 December 2003 Pubertals Pubertals male and female male and female In In Utero Utero Through Lactation Through Lactation Update on Androgen Receptor binding Update on Androgen Receptor binding Aromatase Aromatase Adult Male ( tentative)

Adult Male ( tentative) Spring 2004 Spring 2004 Amphibian DRP Amphibian DRP Amphibian Screen transferable protocol Amphibian Screen transferable protocol Fish Screen multi Fish Screen multi chemical results chemical results Fish Screen Phase 1B ( OECD)

Fish Screen Phase 1B ( OECD)

Mysid Mysid Transferable Protocol Transferable Protocol


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60681-60683]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0480; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-090-AD;
Amendment 39-17589; AD 2013-19-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France (Eurocopter)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B,
EC155B1, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with
certain EADS Sogerma pilot and co-pilot seats installed. This AD
requires inspecting the rear beam of

each seat to determine if all of the weld beads are present and
replacing the seat if any weld bead is missing. This AD is prompted by
a maintenance inspection that discovered a missing weld bead on the
rear beam of a pilot seat. These actions are intended to prevent
failure of the pilot and co-pilot seats and subsequent injury to the
pilot or co-pilot.

DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of November 6,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 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 European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 5, 2013, at 78 FR 33766, the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model SA-365N,
SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, AS332C, AS332L,
AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with an EADS Sogerma pilot or
co-pilot seat, part number (P/N) 2510106-03-00 or P/N 2510106-06-00,
with a serial number 720 through 1451, installed. The NPRM proposed to
require, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting the rear
beam of each pilot and co-pilot seat to determine if any weld beads are
missing. If any weld beads are missing, before further flight, the NPRM
proposed removing the seat from the helicopter and replacing it with an
airworthy seat. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent
failure of the pilot and co-pilot seats and subsequent injury to the
pilot or co-pilot.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2012-0206, dated October 2, 2012
(AD 2012-0206), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Union. EASA advised that during a
maintenance inspection, a weld bead was found missing on the rear beam
of an EADS Sogerma pilot seat. According to EASA, this non-conformity
impairs the seat anti-crash function and may be present on a limited
number of seats installed on Eurocopter helicopters. EASA states that
this condition, if not corrected, could lead to pilot injury following
a hard landing following an emergency.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD No. 2012-0084,
dated May 16, 2012 (AD 2012-0084), to require inspecting the flight
crew seats, replacing any improperly welded seat, and marking all
correctly welded seats. After issuing AD 2012-0084, a missing weld bead
was discovered on another part of the seat rear beam that was not
required to be inspected. As a result, EASA issued AD 2012-0206, which
superseded AD 2012-0084, to revise the inspection procedure and add new
areas of the rear beam of the seat to be inspected.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 33766,
June 5, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows compliance within 3 months or 50 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier; this AD requires compliance within 50 hours
TIS. The EASA AD applies to Model AS332C1 helicopters. This AD does not
because this model is not FAA type-certificated.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-
25.01.18 for Model SA-365N, SA-365 N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3
helicopters; ASB No. EC155-25A114 for Model EC155 B and EC155B1
helicopters; ASB No. AS332-25.02.49 for model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1,
and AS332L2 helicopters; and ASB No. EC225-25A110 for Model EC225LP
helicopters; all Revision 1, dated August 9, 2012. The ASBs incorporate
the procedures in EADS Sogerma Inspection Service Bulletin No. 2510106-
25-888, Revision 1, dated July 16, 2012, for inspecting the rear beam
of the pilot and co-pilot seats to verify all of the weld beads are
present. The complete EADS Sogerma bulletin is contained in the
Appendix of the ASBs. EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and
issued AD 2012-0206 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these
helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 65 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour,
inspecting the seats will require about .2 work-hour, for a cost per
helicopter of $17 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $1,105.
Replacing a seat with a missing weld bead will require about 1 work-
hour, and required parts will cost about $30,251, for a cost per
helicopter of $30,336.
    According to Eurocopter's service information some of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by
Eurocopter. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-19-07 Eurocopter France (Eurocopter): Amendment 39-17589;
Docket No. FAA-2013-0480; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-090-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2,
AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and
EC225LP helicopters with an EADS Sogerma pilot or co-pilot seat,
part number (P/N) 2510106-03-00 or P/N 2510106-06-00, with a serial
number 720 through 1451, installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a missing weld on a seat
rear beam, which could result in failure of the seat and injury to
the pilot during a hard landing.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 6, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service, using a mirror, inspect the
rear beam of each seat for weld beads in the areas depicted in the
Appendix, Figure 1, of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
AS365-25.01.18 for model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3
helicopters; ASB No. EC155-25A114 for model EC155 B and EC155B1
helicopters; ASB No. AS332-25.02.49 for model AS332C, AS332L,
AS332L1, and AS332 L2 helicopters; and ASB No. EC225-25A110 for
model EC225LP helicopters. All ASBs are Revision 1 and dated August
9, 2012.
    (2) If any weld bead is missing from the rear beam, before
further flight, remove the seat and replace it with an airworthy
seat.
    (3) Do not install a seat listed in paragraph (a) of this AD on
any helicopter unless it has been inspected as required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2012-0206, dated October 2, 2012. You may view
the EASA AD on the internet in the AD Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510: Flight
Compartment Equipment.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter ASB No. AS365-25.01.18, Revision 1, dated August
9, 2012.
    (ii) Eurocopter ASB No. AS332-25.02.49 Revision 1, dated August
9, 2012.
    (iii) Eurocopter ASB No. EC155-25A114, Revision 1, dated August
9, 2012.
    (iv) Eurocopter ASB No. EC225-25A110 Revision 1, dated August 9,
2012.
    (3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD,
contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (5) You may also view this service information that is
incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 13, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23092 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12667-12670]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0226; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-034-AD;
Amendment 39-16238; AD 2010-06-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Model 45 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 45 airplanes. This AD requires a general visual inspection for
cracked and missing ballscrew assembly sleeves of the flap actuator,
repetitive non-destructive liquid penetrant inspections of each sleeve
or flap actuator for cracks, and replacement or modification of the
flap actuator if necessary. This AD results from reports of cracked and
missing ballscrew assembly sleeves of the flap actuators. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked and missing sleeves,
which could cause loss of the load-carrying ball bearings on both
actuators on one flap, resulting in flap asymmetry and loss of control
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 1, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 1, 2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Learjet,
Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942; telephone 316-946-
2000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-

Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(316) 946-4107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have received reports of cracked and missing ballscrew assembly
sleeves of the flap actuators. Three flap actuators were found with the
ballnut sleeves corroded and cracked. Three additional airplanes were
discovered to contain similar corrosion on the ballnut sleeves. The
root cause is galvanic corrosion due to an aluminum sleeve installed on
a steel ballnut. This condition, if not corrected, could cause loss of
the load-carrying ball bearings on both actuators on one flap,
resulting in flap asymmetry and loss of control of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletins A45-27-40
(for Model 45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-005 through 45-380), and
A40-27-24 (for Model 45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-2001 through 45-
2111), both dated January 11, 2010. These service bulletins describe
procedures for a general visual inspection for cracked and missing
ballscrew assembly sleeves of the flap actuator; a non-destructive
liquid penetrant inspection for cracks of each sleeve and flap
actuator, depending on the findings; and replacement of the flap
actuator and ballscrew actuator sleeve if the sleeve is cracked along
its entire length.
    We also reviewed Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service Bulletins
45-27-41 (for Model 45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-005 through 45-
380), and 40-27-25 (for Model 45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-2001
through 45-2111), both dated January 11, 2010. These service bulletins
describe procedures for modifying the flap actuator if a certain crack
length is found and the part does not need to be replaced.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.''

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

    Although Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletins A45-27-40 and
A40-27-24, both dated January 11, 2010, specify a compliance time of 30
days after the publication of those service bulletins, this AD requires
a compliance time of 15 days after the effective date of this AD. We
have received additional reports of fully cracked sleeves requiring
replacement. Therefore, we have determined that the 15-day compliance
time is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. This
difference has been coordinated with Learjet.
    Although Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletins A45-27-40 and
A40-27-24, both dated January 11, 2010, do not specify repetitive
inspections, this AD requires operators to repeat the non-destructive
liquid penetrant inspections at intervals not to exceed 6 months. The
repetitive inspections will help determine the extent of the problem in
the fleet. This difference has been coordinated with Learjet.
    Although Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletins A45-27-40 and
A40-27-24, both dated January 11, 2010, specify to inspect for missing
ballscrew assembly sleeves, these service bulletins do not specify a
corrective action if any sleeve is missing. This AD requires replacing
the flap actuator if any sleeve is missing. This difference has been
coordinated with Learjet.
    Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletins A45-27-40 and A40-27-
24, both dated January 11, 2010, specify modifying or replacing the
flap actuator as corrective action for a cracked sleeve, depending on
the percentage of the length of the sleeve that is cracked. This AD
instead requires replacing the actuator if a sleeve is cracked along
its entire length, and modifying the actuator for any cracked sleeve
that is not cracked along its entire length. This difference has been
coordinated with Learjet.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. Learjet Inc. is currently
developing a new modification of the ballscrew assembly of the flap
actuator that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD.
Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might
consider additional rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    We have received reports of cracked and missing ballscrew assembly
sleeves of the flap actuators. Cracked and missing sleeves could result
in the loss of the load-carrying ball bearings from the assembly,
resulting in the loss of the flap drive load path for that actuator.
Loss of the sleeves on both actuators on one flap could result in flap
asymmetry, resulting in loss of control of the airplane. Because of our
requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus the
critical need to ensure structural integrity of the ballscrew assembly
sleeves of the flap actuator and the short compliance time involved
with this action, this AD must be issued immediately.
    Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable and 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 provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2010-0226; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-034-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 because of 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.

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.

Regulatory Findings

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 adding the following new AD:

2010-06-13 Learjet Inc.: Amendment 39-16238. Docket No. FAA-2010-
0226; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-034-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 1,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 45 airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers 45-005 through 45-380
inclusive and 45-2001 through 45-2111 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of cracked and missing
ballscrew assembly sleeves of the flap actuators. The Federal
Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracked and missing sleeves, which could cause loss of the load-
carrying ball bearings on both actuators on one flap, resulting in
flap asymmetry and loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

General Visual Inspection

    (g) Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, do a
general visual inspection for cracked or missing ballscrew assembly
sleeves of the flap actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletin A45-27-
40 (for Model 45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-005 through 45-380);
or Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletin A40-27-24 (for Model
45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-2001 through 45-2111); both dated
January 11, 2010. Thereafter, do the actions in paragraph (h) or
(i), as applicable, of this AD.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection
is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or
irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to
ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This
level of inspection is made under normally available lighting
conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or
droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

Non-Destructive Liquid Penetrant Inspection (Sleeve Is Present and Not
Cracked Along Its Entire Length)

    (h) During the general visual inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if the sleeve is present and not cracked along its
entire length, before further flight after accomplishing the general
visual inspection, do a non-destructive liquid penetrant inspection
to detect cracking of the flap actuators, in accordance with
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service
Bulletin A45-27-40, or Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletin
A40-27-24, both dated January 11, 2010.
    (1) If no crack is found during the non-destructive liquid
penetrant inspection, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 6 months.
    (2) If any crack is found during the non-destructive liquid
penetrant inspection, before further flight, modify the flap
actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 45-27-41 (for Model
45 airplanes, serial numbers 45-005 through 45-380); or Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 40-27-25 (for Model 45
airplanes, serial numbers 45-2001 through 45-2111); both dated
January 11, 2010. Repeat the non-destructive liquid penetrant
inspection of the half (modified) sleeve thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 6 months. If any crack is found in any half (modified)
sleeve, before further flight, replace the sleeve with a new half
sleeve, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 45-27-41, or
Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 40-27-25, both dated
January 11, 2010, and repeat the non-destructive liquid penetrant
inspection of the half sleeve thereafter at intervals not to exceed
6 months.

Replacement (Sleeve Is Missing or Cracked Along Its Entire Length)

    (i) During the general visual inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if the sleeve is missing or cracked along its entire
length, before further flight after accomplishing the general visual
inspection, replace the actuator with a new or serviceable actuator,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
(Learjet) Alert Service Bulletin A45-27-40, or Bombardier (Learjet)
Alert Service Bulletin A40-27-24, both dated January 11, 2010.
Within 6 months after any actuator replacement required by paragraph
(i) of this AD: Do a non-destructive liquid penetrant inspection to
detect cracking of the actuator, in accordance with Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletin A45-27-
40, or Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service Bulletin A40-27-24, both
dated January 11, 2010.
    (1) If no crack is found during the non-destructive liquid
penetrant inspection, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 6 months.
    (2) If any crack is found during the non-destructive liquid
penetrant inspection, but the sleeve is not cracked along its entire
length, before further flight, modify the flap actuator, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 45-27-41, or Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 40-27-25, both dated January 11,
2010. Repeat the non-destructive liquid penetrant inspection of the
half (modified) sleeves thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6
months. If any crack is found in any half (modified) sleeve, before
further flight, replace the sleeve with a new half sleeve, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 45-27-41, or Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 40-27-25, both dated January 11,
2010. Repeat the non-destructive liquid penetrant inspection of the
half sleeve thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months.
    (3) If the sleeve is cracked along its entire length, before
further flight, replace the actuator with a new or serviceable
actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier (Learjet) Optional

Service Bulletin 45-27-41, or Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service
Bulletin 40-27-25, both dated January 11, 2010, and repeat the non-
destructive liquid penetrant inspection of the sleeve thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6 months.

    Note 2: Guidance on modification of the flap actuator can be
found in Microtecnica Service Bulletin 27-0018, dated November 24,
2009.

Parts Installation

    (j) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install,
on any airplane, a ballscrew assembly sleeve of the flap actuator,
unless the actuator has been modified according to Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 45-27-41, or Bombardier
(Learjet) Optional Service Bulletin 40-27-25, both dated January 11,
2010.

Reporting Requirement

    (k) Submit a one-time report of the findings of the general
visual inspection and the initial non-destructive liquid penetrant
inspection required by this AD to Chris Broadrick, Bombardier
Aerospace, Project Coordinator--Fielding Specialist, Customer
Support Engineering, One Learjet Way, P.O. Box 7707, Wichita, Kansas
67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD. The report must
include airplane serial number, flap actuator part number, flap
actuator serial number, and flap actuator time in service (in
hours). Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements contained in this
AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 10 days after the effective date of
this AD.

Special Flight Permits

    (l) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the airplane can be modified, unless cracks are discovered in both
an inboard and outboard actuator sleeve for any flap.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-
118W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (316)
946-4107.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use the service information included in Table 1 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

               Table 1--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Document                               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service      January 11, 2010.
 Bulletin A40-27-24.
Bombardier (Learjet) Alert Service      January 11, 2010.
 Bulletin A45-27-40.
Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service   January 11, 2010.
 Bulletin 40-27-25.
Bombardier (Learjet) Optional Service   January 11, 2010.
 Bulletin 45-27-41.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-5669 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 39)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9936-9938]
[DOCID:fr28fe06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-IN-0007; FRL-8036-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Dearborn County Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 25, 2005 (70 FR 70999), EPA published a direct
final rule approving revisions to Indiana's sulfur dioxide
(SO2) state implementation plan (SIP) for sources located in
Dearborn County. These revisions to the SIP include: revising
SO2 emission limits for existing sources; making minor
corrections by removing obsolete rule language; and updating
information for sources listed in the rule. On November 25, 2005 (70 FR
71071), EPA also published a proposed rule on this revision. The direct
final rule stated that if EPA received an adverse comment, EPA would
withdraw the direct final rule and address all public comments received
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA received an
adverse comment and removed the direct final rule on January 27, 2006
(71 FR 4490). This rule responds to the comments received and announces
EPA's final action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-IN-0007. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles
Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the
Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
886-6031<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever we, us, or
your is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. General Information
II. Public Comments Received and EPA Response
III. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. General Information

    This action applies to specific SO2 sources located in
Dearborn County, Indiana. The SIP revision amends Title 326 of the
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), section 7-4-13, by revising the
SO2 emission limits for the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners
Creek Station. The SIP revision also makes minor corrections and
removes obsolete rule language, and updates information for other
companies listed in 326 IAC 7-4-13. Indiana held public hearings on
these revisions on May 5, 2004 and October 6, 2004.

II. Public Comments Received and EPA Response

    Three comments on the rulemaking were submitted to EPA, through the
electronic public docket and comment system. One commenter expressed
support for the rule. A second commenter stated that he didn't
``understand what the rule was about,'' while a third commenter stated
that he ``disagreed.'' Because the latter two commenters failed to
provide any further information or explain the bases for their
comments, EPA is unable to respond beyond directing them to the
rationale for approval discussed below.

III. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?

    Indiana's SO2 emission limits for Dearborn County are
contained in 326 IAC 7-4-13. The current SO2 emission
limitations in 326 IAC 7-4-13 are based on air quality modeling used by
the State when EPA approved the SIP in 1987. The SIP revision amends
326 IAC 7-4-13, as described below.

A. Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek Station

    The SIP revision removes obsolete rule language that included
interim requirements restricting the SO2 emission limits for
the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners Creek Station, Unit 4. These interim
requirements are no longer necessary, and have been deleted; the rule
limits Unit 4 to an SO2 emission limit of five and twenty-
four hundredths (5.24) pounds per MMBTU since August 1, 1991. This
revision reflects these changes. This SIP revision also adds source
identification number, No. 00002, to the Indiana Michigan Power Tanners
Creek Station.

B. Schenley Distillers, Inc.

    Schenley Distillers, Inc. closed in 1998 and has been removed from
the rule.

C. Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc.

    The revision changes the name from Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc.
to Pernod Ricard USA, Seagram Lawrenceburg Distillery. The company has
removed one boiler listed in the current rule, and renamed the
remaining boiler. This revision reflects this change. The revision also
adds source identification number, No. 00005, to the Pernod Ricard USA,
Seagram Lawrenceburg Distillery.

D. Diamond Thatcher Glass

    The furnaces formerly owned by Diamond Thatcher Glass are owned by
Anchor Glass Container Corporation, and have been renamed as such. This
revision reflects this change. The revision also adds source
identification number, No. 00007, to the Anchor Glass Container
Corporation.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving revisions to 326 IAC 7-4-13, which contains the
SO2 emission limitations for existing stationary sources
located in Dearborn County, Indiana. The SIP revision amends 326 IAC 7-
4-13, by removing obsolete rule language for the Indiana Michigan Power
Tanners Creek Station, and by making minor revisions for other
companies listed in 326 IAC 7-4-13, including adding source
identification numbers.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 1, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 10, 2006.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (171) On April 8, 2005, Indiana submitted final adopted revisions
for the Dearborn County sulfur dioxide emission limitations in 326 IAC
7-4-13 as a requested revision to the Indiana state implementation
plan. EPA is approving these revisions, which remove obsolete rule
language for Indiana Michigan Tanners Creek Station and update
information for other companies listed in the rule.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Indiana Administrative Code
Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 7: Sulfur Dioxide
Rules, Rule 4: Emission Limitations and Requirements by County, Section
13: Dearborn County Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations. Filed with the
Secretary of State on February 14, 2005, and effective March 16, 2005.
Published in the Indiana Register on April 1, 2005 (28 IR 2021).
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-1786 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19415-19416]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0056]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Old River, Orwood, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating regulation that governs the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe
Railroad (BNSF) Drawbridge across Old River, mile 10.4, at Orwood, CA.
The deviation is to allow the bridge owner to perform essential
mechanical repairs on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. April 15, 2013, until 4
p.m. on April 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0056], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section,
Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNSF has requested a temporary change to the
operation of the BNSF Railroad Drawbridge, mile 10.4, over Old River,
at Orwood, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical
clearance of 11.2 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-
navigation position. The draw opens promptly and fully when a request
to open is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and
recreational.
    This temporary deviation has been coordinated with commercial
operators and various marinas. No objections to the proposed temporary
deviation were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in
the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 19, 2013.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-07483 Filed 3-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4523-4526]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01905]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-32995; File No. 812-14874]

BNP Paribas USA, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application and
Temporary Order

January 26, 2018.
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 January 25, 2018 (``Guilty Plea''),
by BNP Paribas USA, Inc. (the ``Pleading Entity'') in the United States
District Court for the Southern 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:  BNP Paribas USA, Inc., BNP Paribas Asset Management USA,
Inc. (``BNPP AM USA''), Bishop Street Capital Management Corp.
(``BSCM''), and BNP Paribas Asset Management UK Limited (``BNPP AM
UK'') (each, an ``Applicant'' and collectively, ``Applicants'').

Filing Date:  The application was filed on January 25, 2018.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on February 20, 2018 and should be accompanied by proof of service
on 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 writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: BNP Paribas USA,
Inc., 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019; BNPP AM USA: 200 Park
Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10166; BSCM: First Hawaiian Center,
999 Bishop Street, Suite 2806, Honolulu, HI 96813; BNPP AM UK: 5
Aldermanbury Square, London EC2V 7BP, United Kingdom.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jessica Shin, Attorney-Adviser, or
Robert H. Shapiro, 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 corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware and wholly owned subsidiary of BNP Paribas S.A. (``BNPP'').\1\
The Pleading Entity serves as BNPP's U.S. intermediate holding company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BNPP, the 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 (as defined below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. BNPP AM USA, a corporation formed under the laws of New York, is
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') and is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of BNPP and of the Pleading Entity. BNPP AM USA serves as
sub-adviser to the investment companies registered under the Act or
series of such companies listed in Part 1 of Appendix A to the
application (each a ``Fund'' and, collectively, ``Funds''). Until late
April 2017, BNPP AM USA was named ``Fischer Francis Trees & Watts,
Inc.''
    3. BSCM, a corporation formed under the laws of Hawaii in 1999, is
registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. BSCM is an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of First Hawaiian, Inc., which is an
approximately 62% owned indirect subsidiary of BNPP. BSCM serves as
investment adviser to each Fund listed in Part 2 of Appendix A to the
application.
    4. BNPP AM UK, a corporation formed under the laws of the United
Kingdom, is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
BNPP AM UK is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BNPP. BNPP AM UK
does not currently advise any Fund, but expects to be sub-adviser to
the newly-organized Fund listed in Part 1B of Appendix A to the
application.
    5. 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 BNPP AM USA, BSCM and BNPP AM UK
(together, the ``Fund Servicing Applicants''), currently serves as an
investment adviser or depositor of any Fund, employees' securities
company (``ESC'') or investment company that has elected to be treated
as a business development company under the Act (``BDC''), or principal
underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) for any open-
end management investment company registered under the Act (``Open-End
Fund''), unit investment trust registered under the Act (``UIT''), or
face-amount certificate company registered under the Act (``FACC''),
Applicants request that any relief granted by the Commission pursuant
to the application also apply to any current or future Affiliated
person of the Pleading Entity other than BNPP (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On January 25, 2018, the United States Department of Justice
(the ``Department of Justice'') filed a one-count criminal information
(the ``Information'') in the District Court. The Information charges
that from as early as September 2011 until at least July 2013, the
Pleading Entity, through a single Central and Eastern European, Middle
Eastern and African Emerging Markets currencies (``CEEMEA'' currencies)
trader employed by BNP Paribas Securities Corp. (``Sec Corp''),
participated in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in
CEEMEA currencies by various methods (the ``Conduct''), as further
described in the application, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act
(Title 15, United States Code, section 1).
    7. Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the Pleading Entity entered the
Guilty Plea on January 25, 2018 in the District Court to the charge set
out in the Information. According to the Plea Agreement, the Pleading
Entity, among other things, agreed to a fine of $90 million. 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
individual referenced in the Information as responsible for the Conduct
is no longer employed by BNPP or any of its affiliates.
    8. BNPP and its affiliates have entered into settlement agreements
with other 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 (the ``FRB Order'') on July 17, 2017
against BNPP, the Pleading Entity and Sec Corp concerning unsafe and
unsound banking practices relating to BNPP's foreign exchange (``FX'')
business. The New York State Department of Financial Services (``DFS'')
entered into a consent order (the ``DFS Order'') on May 24, 2017 with
BNPP and its New York branch (the ``DFS Order Parties'') to settle DFS'
investigations into alleged violations of the New York laws and
regulations arising out of conduct in the DFS Order Parties' FX
business during the period between 2007 and 2013.

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
registered open-end investment company, 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 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 the Applicants 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, upon application, the
Commission shall by order grant an exemption from the disqualification
provisions of section 9(a) of the Act, either unconditionally or on an
appropriate temporary or other conditional basis, to any person if that
person establishes that: (a) The prohibitions of section 9(a), as
applied to the person, are unduly or disproportionately severe or (b)
the conduct of the person has been such as not to make it against the
public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption.
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 Fund Servicing
Applicants acting as an ``investment adviser'' (as defined in section
2(a)(20) of the Act) to Funds (such activities, ``Fund Service
Activities''), or any Fund with respect to which the Applicants engage
in Fund Service 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 BNPP and other
Covered Persons, 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 or depositor
of any Fund, ESC or BDC or as principal underwriter for any Open-End
Fund, UIT or FACC. Applicants represent that the Conduct similarly did
not involve any Fund with respect to which the Applicants engage in
Fund Service Activities.\3\ Instead, the Applicants state that the
Conduct occurred as a result of the actions of a single employee. The
employee is no longer employed and will not be employed in the future,
by BNPP, the Applicants or any of the other Covered Persons. 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 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 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, which would be an unduly
and disproportionately severe consequence given that the Conduct did
not involve any of the Fund Service Activities.
    6. Applicants further represent that the inability of the Fund
Servicing Applicants to continue providing investment advisory services
to Funds would result in the Funds and their shareholders facing
potential hardship, as described in the application. 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. Applicants further state that
prohibiting the Fund Servicing Applicants from engaging in Fund Service
Activities would not only adversely affect their business, but would
also adversely affect their employees who are involved in these
activities. In addition, Applicants assert that if the Fund Servicing
Applicants or Covered Persons are unable to expand their businesses in
the future because of the imposition of the section 9(a)
disqualification, it could also have an adverse impact on their
businesses.
    7. Applicants represent that: (1) None of the current or former
directors, officers or employees of Applicants had any involvement in
the Conduct; (2) no current or former employee of the Pleading Entity
or of any other 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 employee has 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 did not have any involvement in the Conduct,
shareholders of the Fund were not affected any differently than if the
Fund had received services from any other non-affiliated investment
adviser.
    8. Applicants have agreed that none of BNPP, the Applicants or any
of the other Covered Persons will employ the former employee 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).
    9. Applicants have also agreed that BNPP 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).
    10. In addition, BNPP 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 materials terms of the FRB Order,
the DFS Order any other orders issued by regulatory or enforcement
agencies addressing the Conduct. Applicants further state that BNPP and
its affiliates have undertaken certain remedial measures, as described
in greater detail in the application. These include certain remedial
measures as required by the Plea Agreement, the FRB Order, and the DFS
Order, including improvements to the oversight, internal controls and
compliance program, compliance risk management program, and internal
audit program for FX trading. Applicants state that BNPP and its
affiliates have taken a number of steps to enhance its internal
controls, policies and procedures relating to its FX activities.
Specifically, Applicants represent BNPP has devised and implemented new
global detailed FX-specific policies and procedures and a comprehensive
program to change the culture of the business with the aim that each
individual within the business understands their responsibility for
proper conduct and compliance. Applicants also represent that BNPP has
globally rolled out culture and conduct workshops and training on
BNPP's Foreign Exchange Local Markets remediation program.
Additionally, Applicants represent that supervisors have been given
increased tools to directly oversee their staff and identify conduct
issues more effectively, permanent cross-bank chat rooms have been
prohibited, and reverse trades are monitored through software designed
to detect transactions (proprietary and customer) that were not exposed
to the risk of the market and did not result in a change of beneficial
ownership.
    11. As a result of the foregoing, the Applicants submit that
granting the exemption as requested in the application is consistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors.
    12. To provide further assurance that the exemptive relief being
requested herein would be consistent with the public interest and the
protection of the investors, the Applicants agree that they will, as
soon as reasonably practical, 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. 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.
    13. Applicants state that certain of the Applicants and their
affiliates have previously received an order under section 9(c) of the
Act, as the result of conduct that triggered section 9(a), as described
in greater detail in the application.

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 BNPP, the Applicants or any of the other Covered Persons
will employ the former employee 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. BNPP 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 FRB Order, the
DFS Order or any other orders issued by regulatory or enforcement
agencies addressing the Conduct.
    4. BNPP 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 FRB Order, the DFS Order
and any other orders issued by regulatory or enforcement agencies
addressing the Conduct.
    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 any of the
Orders within 30 days of discovery of the material violation.

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.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01905 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P