4372 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 19 /Thursday, January 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

this rule.

Further, the Committee’s meeting was

widely publicized throughout the raisin

industry and all interested persons were

invited to attend the meeting and

participate in Committee deliberations.

Like all Committee meetings, the August

14, 1997, meeting was a public meeting

and all entities, both large and small,

were able to express their views on this

issue.

Also, the Committee has a number of

appointed subcommittees to review

certain issues and make

recommendations to the Committee. As

previously mentioned, the Committee’s

Amendment Working Group met

throughout the year at public meetings

to discuss various changes to the raisin

order, including the recommended

changes to the RDP. The Working Group

made its recommendations concerning

revisions to the RDP to the Amendment

Subcommittee on August 7, 1997. The

Amendment Subcommittee in turn

made its recommendations to the full

Committee on August 14, 1997. All of

these meetings were public meetings

and both large and small entities were

able to participate and express their

views.

As stated earlier and in accordance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the

information collection requirements

contained in this rule have been

previously approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

have been assigned OMB No. 0581–

0178.

An interim final rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on November 13, 1997. Copies

of the rule were mailed by the

Committee’s staff to all raisin handlers.

In addition, the rule was made available

through the Internet by the Office of the

Federal Register. That rule provided for

a 60-day comment period which ended

on January 12, 1998. Interested persons

were also invited to submit information

on the information and regulatory

impact of the rule. No comments were

received.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

Committee’s recommendation, and

other information, it is found that

finalizing this interim final rule, as

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 60764; November 13, 1997), will

tend to effectuate the declared policy of

the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

Grapes, Marketing agreements,

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 989 which was

published at 62 FR 60764 on November

13, 1997, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Dated: January 23, 1998.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–2122 Filed 1–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 701

Organization and Operations of

Federal Credit Unions

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration.

ACTION: Final amendment to interpretive

ruling and policy statement 94–1 (IRPS

98–1).

SUMMARY: The NCUA Board is updating

the requirements for a credit union

converting to a community charter. The

final amendment deletes the

requirement that a credit union

converting to a community charter

provide evidence of community

support, since such evidence is not

necessary for the agency to determine

the economic viability of the credit

union.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: National Credit Union

Administration, 1775 Duke Street,

Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Leonard Skiles, President, Asset

Management and Assistance Center,

4807 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite

5100, Austin, Texas 78759, or telephone

(512) 795–0999; Lynn K. McLaughlin,

Program Officer, Office of Examination

and Insurance, 1775 Duke Street,

Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428, or

telephone (703) 518–6360; Michael J.

McKenna, Staff Attorney, Office of

General Counsel, at the above address or

telephone (703) 518–6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Comments

On October 22, 1997, the NCUA

Board proposed clarifying amendments

on what is necessary for the approval of

a community charter (62 FR 56134

(October 29, 1997)). Sixty-four

comments were received. Comments

were received from forty-two federal

credit unions, two state-chartered credit

unions, thirteen state credit union

leagues, four national credit union trade

associations, one state regulatory

agency, one consumer group and one

banking association.

B. Serving All Segments of the

Community

In the proposal, the Board stated that

all community charters must be

prepared to serve all segments of the

community. The Board suggested that

membership and loan penetration rates,

among other factors, could be reviewed

to assess how well the credit union is

serving the entire community. The

proposal also would have required that

a credit union receiving a community

charter review its business plan

regularly, as well as membership and

loan penetration rates throughout the

community, to determine if the

community is being adequately served.

The Board specifically proposed that a

new community charter or a credit

union converting to a community

charter be held accountable for its

business plan/marketing strategy

outlining how it will serve the entire

community. The proposal also would

have required that a credit union

converting to a community charter

provide information on the groups being

served. Finally, the Board proposed

deleting the requirement that a credit

union converting to a community

charter provide written evidence of

community support such as letters of

support, petitions or surveys.

At this time, the Board is addressing

only one aspect of the proposal

regarding credit unions converting to a

community charter. The Board needs

further time to study the remaining

proposed amendments to ensure that

they are necessary and will not unduly

burden credit unions. The Board plans

on addressing these issues in the near

future and will respond to the issues

raised by the commenters at that time.

C. Written Evidence of Community

Support

As stated above, the Board proposed

deleting the requirement that a credit

union converting to a community

charter provide written evidence of

community support such as letters of

support, petitions or surveys. Twentynine commenters do not believe a credit

union applying to convert to a

community charter should be required

to provide evidence of community

support. Most of these commenters find

the current requirement to be

burdensome. Seven commenters

specifically stated that the validity of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 19 /Thursday, January 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4373

these documents is questionable and the

effort to obtain such documentation is

time-consuming and expensive. Some

commenters believe that community

leaders are reluctant to give support

because they fear a backlash from banks.

Three commenters support any action

by NCUA to simplify the application

process and reduce the processing time

for community charter conversions.

Most of these commenters believe that

credit union management is better able

to gauge the depth of community

support than a petition or survey. Two

commenters stated that a letter from the

board of directors showing evidence of

the attitude of the credit union’s

sponsors and members toward a

conversion should be sufficient

documentation. One commenter stated

that the elimination of this requirement

offers modest relief from the burden of

providing information in support of the

conversion request.

Ten commenters believe a credit

union applying to convert to a

community charter should be required

to provide evidence of community

support before the conversion can be

approved. Two commenters believe this

evidence is a key element to any good

marketing plan and would provide the

credit union with valuable information

about its new market as well as an

introduction to potential new

constituencies. These commenters state

further that this evidence is useful to

NCUA in making its determination

whether the applied for area actually

constitutes a community. One

commenter also believes this evidence

helps build a substantial administrative

record in case of a legal challenge. One

commenter believes that credit unions

wishing to convert to a community

charter should be required to

demonstrate community support in a

manner validating the credit union’s

business plan. One commenter,

although opposing this amendment,

believes that, if we delete this

requirement for converting credit

unions, we should also eliminate it for

new credit unions.

The NCUA Board believes that

providing evidence of written support is

expensive, burdensome and not a

reliable indicator of the economic

viability of the converting credit union.

Such evidence is still needed for a new

charter so that the agency may

accurately determine the economic

viability of the new credit union.

Economic viability of an existing credit

union is self-evident. Furthermore, a

converting credit union can still submit

such evidence if it believes it would be

helpful to demonstrate that the area is

a well-defined community where

residents interact or will support some

other aspect of the credit union’s

business plan or marketing strategy.

The final amendment deletes the

requirement for a converting credit

union to provide written evidence of

community support. Nothing in this

final amendment changes or relaxes the

requirement that a credit union

converting to a community charter must

demonstrate that the proposed

community is a well-defined area where

residents interact.

D. Groups Outside the Community

The Board also proposed to eliminate

the ability of a credit union converting

to a community charter to continue to

serve groups outside the new

community boundaries. At this time, the

Board is still considering the

implications of such a policy change. As

a practical matter, because of the

injunction issued in the consolidated

cases of First National Bank and Trust

Co., et al. v. NCUA and the American

Bankers Association v. NCUA, et al.,

which was partially stayed by the Court

of Appeals on December 24, 1996, a

credit union converting to a community

charter cannot continue to serve groups

outside the new community boundaries,

but may only serve members of record.

The Board plans on addressing this

issue in the near future and will

respond to the concern raised by the

commenters at that time.

E. Ongoing Litigation

Five commenters did not believe that

this is the appropriate time to initiate

changes to field of membership policies,

because of the ongoing litigation

involving multiple group credit unions.

NCUA disagrees since NCUA’s

community chartering policy is not

affected by the injunction issued in the

consolidated cases of First National

Bank and Trust Co., et al. v. NCUA and

the American Bankers Association v.

NCUA, et al., which was partially stayed

by the Court of Appeals on December

24, 1996. Nor would other ongoing

chartering litigation be affected because

this change in policy modifies only the

requirement for evidence of support for

conversion to a community charter, not

the requirement for evidence that the

community to be served is a ‘‘welldefined community.’’

The NCUA Board believes it is

necessary to address the documentation

requirements for converting credit

unions because questions regarding cost

and value have been raised during

NCUA Board review of requests by

credit unions converting to community

charters. The NCUA Board has not been

provided with any compelling rationale

that would justify a delay in amending

this aspect of community chartering

policy at this time.

F. Regulatory Procedures

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to

describe any significant economic

impact a regulation may have on a

substantial number of small credit

unions (primarily those under $1

million in assets). The final amendment

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

credit unions and therefore a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

NCUA has determined that the final

amendment does not increase

paperwork requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and

regulations of the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). 60 FR 44978

(August 29, 1995).

Executive Order 12612

Executive Order 12612 requires

NCUA to consider the effect of its

actions on state interests. This final

amendment makes no significant

changes with respect to state credit

unions and therefore, will not materially

affect state interests.

Congressional Review

Awaiting OMB determination.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701

Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

By the National Credit Union

Administration Board on January 22, 1998.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

Accordingly, NCUA amends 12 CFR

part 701 as follows:

PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND

OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT

UNIONS

1. The authority citation for part 701

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756,

1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782,

1784, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also

authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31

is also authorized by 12 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.,

42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601–3610. Section

701.35 is also authorized by 12 U.S.C. 4311–

4312.

2. Section 701.1 is revised to read as

follows:
4374 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 19 /Thursday, January 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

§ 701.1 Federal credit union chartering,

field of membership modifications, and

conversions.

National Credit Union Administration

policies concerning chartering, field of

membership modifications, and

conversions are set forth in Interpretive

Ruling and Policy Statement 94–1,

Chartering and Field of Membership

Policy (IRPS 94–1), as amended by IRPS

96–1 and IRPS 98–1. Copies may be

obtained by contacting NCUA at the

address found in § 792.2(g)(1) of this

chapter. The combined IRPS are

incorporated into this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and

Budget under control number 3133–0015.)

IRPS 94–1—[Amended]

Note: The text of the Interpretive Ruling

and Policy Statement (IRPS 94–1) does not,

and the following amendments will not,

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

3. IRPS 94–1, Chapter 1, Section II.C.2

is amended by removing the words

‘‘field of membership expansion or

conversion to a community credit

union’’.

4. In IRPS 94–1, Chapter 2, Section

IV.B is revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

IV.B—Conversion to Community Charter

An existing occupational, associational, or

multiple group federal credit union may

apply to convert to a community charter. In

most cases, groups currently in the credit

union’s field of membership but outside the

new community credit union’s boundaries

may be included in the new community

charter.

In order to support a case for a conversion

to community charter, the applicant federal

credit union must, in addition to the

requirements for a community charter set

forth in Chapter I (except for the requirement

to demonstrate community support), develop

a detailed business plan which may include,

but not be limited to the following data:

• Current financial statements, including

the income statement and a summary of loan

delinquency;

• A map or maps showing both the

existing and proposed boundaries for the

field of membership, as well as existing and

planned service facilities;

• A written description of the area of

community service for the proposed

community credit union;

• The most current population figures for

the existing and proposed boundaries;

• The source of the population information

(census data are considered the most

authoritative); the greater the population of

the proposed area, the greater justification

necessary to support the existence of the

‘‘community’’ and interaction among its

residents;

• Evidence that the proposed area is a

‘‘community’’ as defined in ‘‘Community

Common Bond’’ in Chapter 1;

• Information concerning the availability

of financial services to the residents of the

new area;

• A list of credit unions with a home or

branch office in the proposed area (If present

credit union service to the residents of the

new area is adequate, there may be no basis

for the proposed conversion.);

• The attitude of the current credit union

sponsors and existing credit union members

toward the proposed conversion; and

• The anticipated financial impact on the

credit union in terms of need for additional

employees and fixed assets.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–2076 Filed 1–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFI Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–293–AD; Amendment

39–10295; AD 98–03–03]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A330 and A340 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A330 and A340 series airplanes. This

action requires a one-time inspection of

the free-fall actuators of the landing gear

for discrepancies, and replacement of

discrepant actuators with new,

improved actuators. This action also

requires eventual replacement of certain

free-fall actuators. This amendment is

prompted by the issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent electrical short

circuits to the free-fall actuators of the

landing gear, which could result in

failure to extend the landing gear, and

consequent damage to the airplane

structure during landing.

DATES: Effective February 13, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February

13, 1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

March 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

293–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Airbus

Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

certain Airbus Model A330 and A340

series airplanes. The DGAC advises that,

during several attempted free-fall

extensions of the landing gear, electrical

short circuits and circuit breaker

overloads have occurred. The cause of

the short circuits was attributed to

installation of incorrect screws in the

motor brush housing of the free-fall

actuators during manufacture. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in electrical short circuits to the free-fall

actuators of the landing gears, which

could result in failure to extend the

landing gear, and consequent damage to

the airplane structure during landing.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins

A340–32–4066, Revision 1, and A340–

32–3042, Revision 1, both dated

September 19, 1995, which describe

procedures for a one-time inspection of

the free-fall actuators of the landing gear

to ensure that no electrical short circuit

occurs, and to ensure that replacement

free-fall actuators having correct serial

numbers are installed. The service

bulletins also describe procedures for

eventual replacement of certain

actuators with new, improved actuators.

The DGAC classified these service

bulletins as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directives 95–

187–020(B) and 95–189–032(B), both

dated September 27, 1995, in order to

assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France.

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France and are type