27956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2008. If the scope of required stresstesting is expanded, what types and 

severity of liquidity event scenarios 

should be tested, and how should 

forward-looking cash-flow projections 

be built around these scenarios? 

IV. List of Key Questions 

• To ensure an appropriate level of 

earnings performance while limiting 

risk to an acceptable level, should our 

regulations (and/or Farmer Mac board 

policy) specify earnings performance 

benchmarks and some acceptable band 

of earnings performance above and 

below such benchmarks? If so, how 

might Farmer Mac’s liquidity 

management policy establish limits 

around an investment portfolio 

benchmark, either statically or 

dynamically, to reflect the potential 

changes in investment value that can 

occur in stressful market or economic 

environments? 

• Would it be appropriate for our 

regulations to require a liquidity 

contingency funding plan? If so, how 

specific should the regulation be 

regarding required components of the 

plan versus simply requiring that the 

plan reasonably reflect current 

standards, for example, those specified 

by the Basel Committee on Banking 

Supervision? 

• In light of the marginal funding 

instability that results from relying 

primarily on shorter term debt—even 

when the maturity is extended 

synthetically—would it be appropriate 

to require Farmer Mac to establish a 

debt maturity management plan? If so, 

how might such a requirement be 

structured? 

• Should the availability of a liquid 

market for Farmer Mac’s program 

investments be considered in the 

Corporation’s liquidity contingency 

funding plan? 

• Are there other metrics or 

approaches available that might 

improve upon, augment, or 

appropriately replace days-of-liquidity 

as currently used in § 652.20(a)? For 

example, to recognize greater 

differences in the liquidity value of 

different asset classes, and to augment 

the minimum days-of-liquidity 

requirement, would it be appropriate to 

establish a subcategory of the minimum 

days-of-liquidity requirement that 

would include, for example, only cash 

or Treasury securities in the definition 

of ‘‘primary liquid assets’’ but also set a 

smaller minimum required number of 

days? If such a requirement is 

warranted, what would be the 

appropriate number of minimum 

primary days-of-liquidity, balancing the 

benefits gained from maintaining these 

higher quality liquid assets against their 

higher cost? 

• Would it be appropriate to reevaluate the discounts in § 652.20(c) in 

order to better reflect the risk of 

diminished marketability of liquid 

investments under adverse conditions? 

If so, which ones and what would be the 

appropriate degree of change? In 

particular, we request public comment 

on whether the discount currently 

applied on Farmer Mac II securities is 

appropriate. Would it be appropriate to 

refine the schedule of discounts in 

§ 652.20(c)? For example, there is no 

difference in the discounts applied to 

AAA-rated versus AA-rated corporate 

debt securities. 

• Would the experience gained 

during the financial markets crisis of 

2008 and 2009 justify adjustments to 

many of the portfolio limits in § 652.35 

to add conservatism to them and 

improve diversification of the portfolio? 

We invite specific comments on 

appropriate changes for each asset class, 

final maturity limit, credit rating 

requirement, portfolio concentration 

limit, and other restrictions. 

Given that Farmer Mac might not 

always hold the ‘‘on the run’’ (i.e., 

highest liquidity) issuance of Treasury 

securities, would imposing maximum 

maturity limitations enhance the resale 

value of these investments in stressful 

conditions? 

In light of the recent financial 

instability of Government-sponsored 

agencies such as Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac, would it be appropriate to 

revise this section to put concentration 

limits on exposure to these entities in 

§ 652.35(a)(2)? 

The requirements in § 652.35(a)(3) 

carry the implied assumption that 

general obligation bonds are always less 

risky than revenue bonds. But is that 

always the case? Would it be more 

appropriate for our regulation to limit 

both sub-categories equally? 

We invite comment on whether it is 

appropriate to include mortgage 

securities collateralized by ‘‘jumbo’’ 

mortgages as an eligible liquidity 

investment. 

Further, is it appropriate to allow 

investments in subordinated debt as the 

current rule does? If so, is it appropriate 

that subordinated debt receives 

discounts and investment limits at the 

same level as more senior types of 

corporate debt? 

• Do the obligor limits in 

§ 652.35(d)(1) generally provide for an 

adequate level of diversification? 

Specifically, in light of the uncertainty 

associated with the current 

conservatorships of both Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac, is it appropriate to 

maintain a higher obligor limit for 

Government-sponsored agencies? 

• Is the scope of the stress-testing 

requirement adequate, or should it be 

broadened to apply to the entire 

investment portfolio (both individually 

and at a portfolio level)? Should the 

scope of the stress-testing be expanded 

to include market price risks due to 

factors other than interest rate changes? 

If the scope of required stress-testing is 

expanded, what types and severity of 

liquidity event scenarios should be 

tested, and how should forward-looking, 

cash flow projections be built around 

these scenarios? 

V. Conclusion 

We welcome comments on all 

provisions of this notice, even if we did 

not request specific comments on those 

provisions. 

Dated: May 13, 2010. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12012 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0478; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–090–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R 

Series Airplanes, and Model C4–605R 

Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called 

A300–600 Series Airplanes); and Model 

A300 and A310 Series 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: Two cases of complete 

nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber 

bolts failure were reported to the 

manufacturer. In both cases, the crew 

was unable to retract the gear and was 

forced to an In Flight Turn Back. In one 

case, the aircraft experienced a low 

speed runway excursion. The root cause 

of the bolts failure has been identified 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27957 

being due to a bolt(s) over-torque. The 

investigation has highlighted that the 

design of the NLG shock absorber was 

not tolerant to the over-torque, and an 

inspection plan has been developed to 

track any NLG shock absorber-to-main 

barrel attachment bolts status. 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 July 6, 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 Airbus SAS— 

EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail: 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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. 

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 

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: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2010–0478; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–090–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 European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2008–0052R1, 

dated June 30, 2008 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Two cases of complete nose landing gear 

(NLG) shock absorber bolts failure were 

reported to the manufacturer. In both cases, 

the crew was unable to retract the gear and 

was forced to an In Flight Turn Back. In one 

case, the aircraft experienced a low speed 

runway excursion. The root cause of the bolts 

failure has been identified being due to a 

bolt(s) over-torque. The investigation has 

highlighted that the design of the NLG shock 

absorber was not tolerant to the over-torque, 

and an inspection plan has been developed 

to track any NLG shock absorber-to-main 

barrel attachment bolts status. The 

preliminary inspection plan, required by 

DGAC France Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

F–2004–075 and F–2004–076, has allowed 

limiting the number of findings: High at the 

initial inspection, it has decreased following 

the repetitive inspections. 

This new AD retains the requirements of 

those ADs, which are superseded, and 

requires a repetitive torque check of the NLG 

shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment 

bolts with new thresholds and intervals. This 

new AD also refers to an optional 

modification as terminating action. 

* * * * * 

The optional modification involves 

modifying the shock absorber-to-barrel 

attachment to increase over-torque 

tolerances. The actions to address the 

unsafe condition also include inspecting 

the NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel 

attachment bolts and doing corrective 

actions. The corrective actions include 

replacing bolts, screws, nuts, washers, 

and cotter pins; contacting Airbus for 

repair and doing the repair; and 

modifying the shock absorber; as 

applicable. The inspection of the NLG 

shock absorber-to-main barrel 

attachment bolts is repeated at intervals 

not to exceed 400 flight hours or 1,000 

flight cycles, depending on the 

inspection results and corrective actions 

performed. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued the following 

service information: 

• All Operator Telexes A300– 

32A0447, A300–32A6093, and A310– 

32A2132, all dated April 22, 2004; 

• Mandatory Service Bulletins A300– 

32–0447, A300–32–6093, and A310–32– 

2132, all Revision 01, all including 

Appendix 01, all dated June 1, 2007; 

and 

• Service Bulletins A300–32–0453, 

A300–32–6099, and A310–32–2135, all 

dated June 1, 2007. 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
27958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 229 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 2 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$38,930, or $170 per product. 

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: 

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: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2010–0478; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–090–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by July 6, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 

B2–1A, B2–1C, B4–2C, B2K–3C, B4–103, B2– 

203, and B4–203 airplanes; Model A300 B4– 

601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4– 

622R, F4–605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R 

Variant F airplanes; and Model A310–203, 

–204, –221, –222, –304, –322, –324, and –325 

airplanes; all certified models, all serial 

numbers, certificated in any category; except 

airplanes on which Airbus Modification 

13212 has been done in production or Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–32–0453, A310–32– 

2135, or A300–32–6099 has been done in 

service. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 32: Landing gear. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Two cases of complete nose landing gear 

(NLG) shock absorber bolts failure were 

reported to the manufacturer. In both cases, 

the crew was unable to retract the gear and 

was forced to an In Flight Turn Back. In one 

case, the aircraft experienced a low speed 

runway excursion. The root cause of the bolts 

failure has been identified being due to a 

bolt(s) over-torque. The investigation has 

highlighted that the design of the NLG shock 

absorber was not tolerant to the over-torque, 

and an inspection plan has been developed 

to track any NLG shock absorber-to-main 

barrel attachment bolts status. The 

preliminary inspection plan, required by 

DGAC France Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

F–2004–075 and F–2004–076, has allowed 

limiting the number of findings: high at the 

initial inspection, it has decreased following 

the repetitive inspections. 

This new AD retains the requirements of 

those ADs, which are superseded, and 

requires a repetitive torque check of the NLG 

shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment 

bolts with new thresholds and intervals. This 

new AD also refers to an optional 

modification as terminating action. 

The optional modification involves 

modifying the shock absorber-to-barrel 

attachment to increase over-torque 

tolerances. The actions to address the unsafe 

condition also include inspecting the NLG 

shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment 

bolts and corrective actions. The corrective 

actions include replacing bolts, screws, nuts, 

washers, and cotter pins; contacting Airbus 

for repair and doing the repair; and 

modifying the shock absorber; as applicable. 

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. 

Inspection and Corrective Action 

(g) At the applicable time specified in 

paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: 

Do a visual inspection to detect operational 

condition (i.e., free of corrosion and not 

deformed) and inspect rotation/torque of the 

NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel 

attachment bolts and do all applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

applicable all operators telex (AOT) 

identified in Table 1 of this AD. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the 

applicable intervals, depending on 

inspection results and the corrective actions 

performed, as specified in the applicable 

AOT identified in Table 1 of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes on which the NLG has 

been overhauled (the bolts have been 

removed) as of the effective date of this AD: 

Within 30 days or 1,000 flight cycles on the 

NLG after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever occurs later. 

(2) For airplanes on which, as of the 

effective date of this AD, the NLG has 

accumulated less than 1,000 total flight 

cycles, has not been overhauled (the bolts 

have never been removed), since 

manufacture of the NLG: Before the 

accumulation of 1,000 total flight cycles on 

the NLG, or within 30 days after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(3) For airplanes on which, as of the 

effective date of this AD, the NLG has 

accumulated 1,000 or more total flight cycles, 

and has not been overhauled since new (the 

bolts have never been removed): Within 30 

days after the effective date of this AD. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27959 

TABLE 1—AIRBUS ALL OPERATOR

TELEXES

Airbus all operator telex— Dated— 

A300–32A0447 ................ April 22, 2004. 

A300–32A6093 ................ April 22, 2004. 

A310–32A2132 ................ April 22, 2004. 

Torque Load Inspection and Corrective 

Action 

(h) At the latest of the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and 

(h)(3) of this AD, do an inspection of the 

torque load of the nuts of the NLG shock 

absorber-to-main barrel attachment bolts in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the applicable service bulletin 

listed in Table 2 of this AD. Depending on 

the torque load value found during the 

inspection, before further flight: Retighten 

the bolt(s) or replace the discrepant bolt(s), 

or replace all bolts, in accordance with the 

applicable service bulletin listed in Table 2 

of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the torque load 

inspection at intervals not to exceed 3,200 

flight cycles or 30 months’ time-in-service 

accumulated by the NLG, whichever occurs 

first. 

(1) Within 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months 

since NLG’s first flight, whichever occurs 

first. 

(2) Within 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months 

accumulated by the NLG since installation of 

new bolts, whichever occurs first. 

(3) Within 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

TABLE 2—SERVICE INFORMATION FOR INSPECTIONS

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin— Revision 

level— Dated— 

A300–32–0447, including Appendix 01 .............................................................................................................. 01 June 1, 2007. 

A300–32–6093, including Appendix 01 .............................................................................................................. 01 June 1, 2007. 

A310–32–2132, including Appendix 01 .............................................................................................................. 01 June 1, 2007. 

(i) After accomplishment of the initial 

inspection in accordance with paragraph (h) 

of this AD, as applicable, the repetitive 

inspections of paragraph (g) of this AD are no 

longer required. 

Optional Terminating Action 

(j) For airplanes on which the modification 

of the shock absorber-to-barrel attachment 

has been done in accordance with the 

applicable service bulletin listed in Table 3 

of this AD, the requirements of this AD are 

no longer required, as long as that 

modification remains installed. 

TABLE 3—SERVICE INFORMATION FOR

OPTIONAL TERMINATING ACTION

Airbus Service Bulletin— Dated— 

A300–32–0453 ................. June 1, 2007. 

A300–32–6099 ................. June 1, 2007. 

A310–32–2135 ................. June 1, 2007. 

Reporting Requirement 

(k) For each inspection required in 

paragraph (h) of this AD that results in retorque or replacement of bolt(s): At the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) 

or (k)(2) of this AD, send a report to Airbus, 

using Appendix 01 of the applicable service 

bulletin listed in Table 2 of this AD. 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

Differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(l) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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: Dan Rodina, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149. 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. 

(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 FAAapproved 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 

(m) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness 

Directive 2008–0052R1, dated June 30, 2008; 

and the service information identified in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this AD; for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11902 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0477; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–226–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BAE 

Systems (Operations) Limited Model 

BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ 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: Three events have been 

reported where insulation material was 

found to be fouling pulleys in the 

aileron interconnect circuit in the cabin 

roof area. Interference between the cable 

and the insulation bag causes the 

material to be drawn into the gap 

between the pulley and the pulley 

guard. This condition, if not detected 

and corrected, could lead to restricted 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1