### 2826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules

risk or penalize institutions with programs that present higher risks?

3. How should the FDIC measure and assess whether an institution’s board of directors is effectively overseeing the design and implementation of the institution’s compensation program?

4. As an alternative to the FDIC’s contemplated approach (see q. 1), should the FDIC consider the use of quantifiable measures of compensation—such as ratios of compensation to some specified variable—that relate to the institution’s health or performance? If so, what measure(s) and what variables would be appropriate?

5. Should the effort to price the risk posed to the DIF by certain compensation plans be directed only toward larger institutions; institutions that engage only in certain types of activities, such as trading; or should it include all insured depository institutions?

6. How large (that is, how many basis points) would an adjustment to the initial risk-based assessment rate of an institution need to be in order for the FDIC to have an effective influence on compensation practices?

7. Should the criteria used to adjust the FDIC’s risk-based assessment rates apply only to the compensation systems of insured depository institutions? Under what circumstances should the criteria also consider the compensation programs of holding companies and affiliates?

8. How should the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system be adjusted when an employee is paid by both the insured depository institution and its related holding company or affiliate?

9. Which employees should be subject to the compensation criteria that would be used to adjust the FDIC’s risk-based assessment rates? For example, should the compensation criteria be applicable only to executives and those employees who are in a position to place the institution at significant risk? If the criteria should only be applied to certain employees, how would one identify these employees?

10. How should compensation be defined?

11. What mix of current compensation and deferred compensation would best align the interests of employees with the long-term risk of the firm?

12. Employee compensation programs commonly provide for bonus compensation. Should an adjustment be made to risk-based assessment rates if certain bonus compensation practices are followed, such as: Awarding guaranteed bonuses; granting bonuses that are greatly disproportionate to regular salary; or paying bonuses all-atonce, which does not allow for deferral or any later modification?

13. For the purpose of aligning an employee’s interests with those of the institution, what would be a reasonable period for deferral of the payment of variable or bonus compensation? Is the appropriate deferral period a function of the amount of the award or of the employee’s position within the institution (that is, large bonus awards or awards for more senior employees would be subject to greater deferral)?

14. What would be a reasonable vesting period for deferred compensation?

15. Are there other types of employee compensation arrangements that would have a greater potential to align the incentives of employees with those of the firm’s other stakeholders, including the FDIC? Paperwork Reduction Act

At this stage of the rulemaking process it is difficult to determine with precision whether any future regulations will impose information collection requirements that are covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act ( ‘‘PRA ’’ ) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Following the FDIC’s evaluation of the comments received in response to this ANPR, the FDIC expects to develop a more detailed description regarding incorporating employee compensation criteria into the risk assessment system, and, if appropriate, solicit comment in compliance with PRA.

Dated at Washington, DC, this 12th day of January 2010.

By order of the Board of Directors. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–718 Filed 1–15–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6714–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2010–0040; Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–203–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Sicma Aero Seat 88xx, 89xx, 90xx, 91xx, 92xx,**  **93xx, 95xx, and 96xx Series Passenger Seat Assemblies, Installed on Various**  **Transport Category Airplanes**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. **ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

Cracks have been found on seats [with] backrest links P/N (part number) 90–000200– 104–1 and 90–000200–104–2. These cracks can significantly affect the structural integrity of seat backrests.
Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 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: (202) 493–2251.

• 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 W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Sicma Aero Seat, 7, Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 ISSOUDUN, France; telephone 33 (0) 2 54 03 39 39; fax 33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; e-mail: customerservices@sicma.zodiac.com; Internet: http://www.sicma.zodiac.com/ en/. You may review copies of the referenced 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 425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 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 proposed AD, the


### 2827 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules

regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the **ADDRESSES** section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238–7161; fax (781) 238–7170.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the

**ADDRESSES** section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2010–0040; Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–203–AD ’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.

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 proposed AD.

Discussion

The Direction Generale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued French Airworthiness Directive 2001–613(AB), dated December 12, 2001 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI ’’ ), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Cracks have been found on seats [with] backrest links P/N (part number) 90–000200– 104–1 and 90–000200–104–2. These cracks can significantly affect the structural integrity of seat backrests.
Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions. The required actions include a general visual inspection for cracking of backrest links; replacement with new, improved links if cracking is found; and eventual replacement of all links with new, improved links.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

Sicma Aero Seat has issued Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001, including Annex 1, Issue 1, dated June 26, 2001. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 611 seats on 4 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per seat to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per seat. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $48,880, or $80 per seat. 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

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a ‘‘ significant rule ’’ under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed 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. The Proposed Amendment

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


### 2828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules

**PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES** 

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

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

**§ 39.13 [Amended]**

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Sicma Aero Seat: Docket No. FAA–2010– 0040; Directorate Identifier 2008–NM– 203–AD. Comments Due Date (a) We must receive comments by March 5,
2010.

Affected ADs

(b) None.
Applicability

(c) This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat 88xx, 89xx, 90xx, 91xx, 92xx, 93xx, 95xx, and 96xx series passenger seat assemblies identified in Annex 1, Issue 1, dated June 26, 2001, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001, that have backrest links having part numbers (P/Ns) 90–000200–104–1 and 90– 000200–104–2; and that are installed on, but not limited to, the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. This AD does not apply to Sicma Aero Seat series 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174, 9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C3, 91C4, 91C5, 9301, and 9501 passenger seat assemblies.



### TABLE 

### 1—C ERTAIN 

### A FFECTED 

### M ODELS

Manufacturer Model

Airbus ........................................................................................................ A300 Airplanes. Airbus ........................................................................................................ A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330–200 and A330–300 Series Airplanes. ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Re  ́ gional ................................................ ATR42–200, –300, –320, and –500 Airplanes. ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Re  ́ gional ................................................ ATR72–101, –201, –102, –202, –211, –212, and –212A Airplanes. The Boeing Company ............................................................................... 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F Series Airplanes. The Boeing Company ............................................................................... 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –4 00, –500, –600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER Series Airplanes. The Boeing Company ............................................................................... 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SU D, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747– 200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes. The Boeing Company ............................................................................... 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 Series Airplanes. The Boeing Company ............................................................................... 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400 ER Series Airplanes. The Boeing Company ............................................................................... 777–200, 777–300, 777–300ER, 7 77–200LR, and 777F Series Airplanes. Bombardier, Inc ........................................................................................ CL–600–1A11 (CL–600), CL–600–2A12 (CL–601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, CL–601–3R, and CL–604) Airplanes. Bombardier, Inc ........................................................................................ CL–600–2B19 (Regional Je t Series 100 & 440) Airplanes. Bombardier, Inc ........................................................................................ CL–600–2C10 (Regional Je t Series 700, 701, & 702) Airplanes. Bombardier, Inc ........................................................................................ CL–600–2D15 (Regional Je t Series 705) Airplanes. Bombardier, Inc ........................................................................................ CL–600–2D24 (Regional Je t Series 900) Airplanes. Bombardier, Inc ........................................................................................ DHC–8–100, DHC–8–200, DH C–8–300, and DHC–8–400 Airplanes. Fokker Services B.V ................................................................................. F.27 Mark 050, 100, 200, 30 0, 400, 500, 600, and 700 Airplanes. Fokker Services B.V ................................................................................. F.28 Mark 0070, 0100, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Airplanes. McDonnell Douglas Corporation .............................................................. DC–8–11, DC–8–12, DC–8–21, DC–8–31, DC–8–32, DC–8–33, DC– 8–41, DC–8–42, DC–8–43, DC–8–51, DC–8–52, DC–8–53, DC–8– 55, DC–8F–54, DC–8F–55, DC–8–61, DC–8–62, DC–8–63, DC–8– 61F, DC–8–62F, DC–8–63F, DC–8–71, DC–8–72, DC–8–73, DC–8– 71F, DC–8–72F, and DC–8–73F Airplanes. McDonnell Douglas Corporation .............................................................. DC–9–11, DC–9–12, DC–9–13, DC–9–14, DC–9–15, DC–9–15F, DC– 9–21, DC–9–31, DC–9–32, DC–9–32 (VC–9C), DC–9–32F, DC–9– 33F, DC–9–34, DC–9–34F, DC–9–32F (C–9A, C–9B), DC–9–41, DC–9–51, DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD– 83), and DC–9–87 (MD–87) Airplanes. McDonnell Douglas Corporation .............................................................. DC–10–10, DC–10–10F, DC–10–15, DC–10–30, DC–10–30F (KC–10A and KDC–10), DC–10–40, and DC–10–40F Airplanes. McDonnell Douglas Corporation .............................................................. MD–11 and MD–11F Airplanes.

Note 1: This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat passenger seat assemblies as installed on any airplane, regardless of whether the airplane has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

Subject

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

Reason

(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:

Cracks have been found on seats [with] backrest links P/N (part number) 90–000200– 104–1 and 90–000200–104–2. These cracks can significantly affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions. The required actions include a general visual inspection for cracking of the backrest links; replacement with new, improved links if cracking is found; and eventual replacement of all links with new, improved links.
Actions and Compliance

(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the backrest links having P/Ns 90–000200–


### 2829 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules

104–1 and 90–000200–104–2, in accordance with Part One of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001:

(i) Before 6,000 flight hours on the backrest link since new.

(ii) Within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, cracking is found between the side of the backrest link and the lock-out pin hole but the cracking does not pass this lock-out pin hole (refer to Figure 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25– 013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001): Within 600 flight hours or 3 months after doing the inspection, whichever occurs first, replace both backrest links of the affected seat with new, improved backrest links having P/Ns 90–100200–104–1 and 90– 100200–104–2, in accordance with Part Two of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25– 013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001.

(3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, cracking is found that passes beyond the lock-out pin hole (refer to Figure 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001): Before further flight, replace both backrest links of the affected seat with new, improved backrest links having P/Ns 90– 100200–104–1 and 90–100200–104–2, in accordance with Part Two of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001.

(4) If no cracking is found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Do the replacement required by paragraph (f)(5) of this AD at the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD.

(5) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (f)(5)(ii) of this AD, replace the links, P/Ns 90– 000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2, with new improved links, P/Ns 90–100200–104–1 and 90–100200–104–2, in accordance with Part Two of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001. Doing this replacement for an affected passenger seat assembly terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD for that passenger seat assembly.

(i) Before 12,000 flight hours on the backrest links, P/Ns 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2, since new.

(ii) Within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

FAA AD Differences

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI specifies doing repetitive inspections for cracking of links having over 12,000 flight hours since new until the replacement of the link is done. This AD does not include those repetitive inspections because we have reduced the compliance time for replacing those links. This AD requires replacing the link before 12,000 flight hours since new or within 900 flight hours or 5 months of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest. Other FAA AD Provisions (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 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: Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238–7161; fax (781) 238–7170. 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.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, 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 and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

Related Information

(h) Refer to MCAI French Airworthiness Directive 2001–613(AB), dated December 12, 2001; and Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–013, Issue 3, dated December 19, 2001, including Annex 1, Issue 1, dated June 26, 2001; for related information.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
8, 2010. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–697 Filed 1–15–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2010–0042; Directorate Identifier 2009–NM–010–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A**  **(SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes Modified in Accordance With**  **Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA00244WI–D, ST00146WI–D, or**  **SA984GL–D**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the fuselage surface for corrosion and cracking behind the external adapter plate of the antennae installation, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report of a crack found behind the external adapter plate of the antennae during inspection. Similar cracking was found on two additional airplanes, and extensive corrosion was found on one airplane. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking behind the external adapter plate of the antennae of certain safe-life structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity and consequent rapid depressurization of the airplane.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 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: 202–493–2251.

• 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.