Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60655 

survey sample of at least 250 potential 

members, subscribers may use a sample 

of at least 30 potential members. 

(3) NCUA Form 4008—Organization 

Certificate. This document establishes 

the seven criteria required of subscribers 

by the Act and is signed by the 

subscribers and notarized. This 

document should be executed in 

duplicate. 

(4) NCUA Form 9501—Certification of 

Resolutions. This document certifies the 

board of the proposed corporate credit 

union has resolved to apply for federal 

insurance of member’s accounts and has 

authorized the chief executive officer 

and chief financial officer to execute the 

Application and Agreements for 

Insurance of Accounts. Both the chief 

executive officer and recording officer of 

the proposed corporate credit union 

must sign this certification. 

(5) NCUA Form 9500—Application 

and Agreements for Insurance of 

Accounts. This document contains 

agreements FCUs must comply with in 

order to obtain NCUA insurance 

coverage of member accounts. The 

document must be completed and 

signed by both the chief executive 

officer and chief financial officer. 

V—Name Selection 

It is the responsibility of the corporate 

FCU organizers to ensure that the 

proposed corporate FCU name does not 

constitute an infringement on the name 

of any corporation in its trade area. This 

responsibility also includes researching 

any service marks or trademarks used by 

any other corporation (including credit 

unions) in its trade area. NCUA will 

ensure, to the extent possible, that the 

corporate credit union’s name: 

• Is not already being officially used 

by another FCU; 

• Will not be confused with NCUA or 

another federal or state agency, or with 

another credit union; and 

• Does not include misleading or 

inappropriate language. 

The last three words in the name of 

every credit union chartered by NCUA 

must be ‘‘Federal Credit Union.’’ 

VI—NCUA Review 

A—General 

OCCU will conduct an independent 

investigation of the corporate credit 

union’s charter application to assess the 

economic and long-term viability of the 

proposed corporate credit union. OCCU 

field staff will conduct the review and, 

if necessary, perform an on-site contact 

with selected officials and others having 

an interest in the proposed corporate 

credit union. 

The review will include evaluation of 

proposed management’s experience and 

suitability, commitment of proposed 

officials, and assessment of economic 

viability. OCCU field staff may also be 

called upon to assist subscribers in the 

proper completion of required forms 

and the Organization Certificate—NCUA 

Form 4008. 

OCCU field staff will thoroughly 

analyze the prospective corporate credit 

union’s business plan for realistic 

projections, attainable goals, and time 

commitment. Any concerns will be 

reviewed with the subscribers and 

discussed with prospective officials. 

NCUA will follow the timeline set 

forth below in processing corporate 

charter applications: 

1. Within 30 days of receipt of the 

charter package, OCCU field staff will 

meet with the proposed officials and 

management team to evaluate the 

adequacy of management and the 

information provided and to discuss the 

FCU’s ability to begin operations and 

meet their financial projections if the 

charter is approved. 

2. On completion of all required 

reviews, but no later than 60 days after 

the meeting described above, OCCU 

field staff will make a recommendation 

to the OCCU Director regarding the 

charter application. The 

recommendation may include 

provisional requirements to be 

completed prior to final approval of a 

corporate FCU charter. 

3. Within 30 days of receiving OCCU 

field staff recommendation, an OCCU 

analyst will determine if the application 

package can be forwarded to the NCUA 

Board for appropriate action, or if it 

should be returned to the subscribers. 

The subscribers will receive written 

notification of this decision. 

4. Within 60 days after receipt of a 

complete application that addresses all 

of OCCU’s concerns, the NCUA Board 

will vote on the proposed charter. If the 

charter is approved, the officials must 

sign a ‘‘Letter of Understanding and 

Agreement’’ (LUA) before the corporate 

credit union can commence operations. 

This LUA will impose certain 

operational restrictions, require 

compliance with NCUA’s Rules and 

Regulations and adoption of the 

standard Corporate FCU Bylaws, and 

contain several financial performance 

milestones that the new charter must 

meet, consistent with Part 704. 

B—Finalization of New Charter 

If NCUA approves the charter 

application, the subscribers, as their 

final duty, will elect the board of 

directors for the newly chartered 

corporate FCU. The new board of 

directors will subsequently appoint the 

supervisory committee. The corporate 

FCU must then submit a report of 

officials to OCCU. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24659 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0952; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–131–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–201, –202, –203, –223, and –243 

Airplanes; Airbus Model A330–300 

Series Airplanes; and Airbus Model 

A340–200 and –300 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: 

[T]he FAA published SFAR 88 (Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation 88). 

By mail referenced 04/00/02/07/01–L296 

of March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03–L024 

of February 3rd, 2003 the JAA [Joint Aviation 

Authorities] recommended to the National 

Aviation Authorities (NAA) the application 

of a similar regulation. 

The aim of this regulation is to require 

* * * a definition review against explosion 

hazards. 

* * * * * 

Failure of the auxiliary power unit 

(APU) bleed leak detection system could 

result in overheat of the fuel tank 

located in the horizontal stabilizer and 

ignition of the fuel vapors in that tank, 

which could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 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 November 15, 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• 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— 

Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; e-mail 

airworthiness.A330–A340@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: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; 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–2010–0952; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–131–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 2010–0089, 

dated May 10, 2010 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

[T]he FAA published SFAR 88 (Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation 88). 

By mail referenced 04/00/02/07/01–L296 

of March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03–L024 

of February 3rd, 2003 the JAA [Joint Aviation 

Authorities] recommended to the National 

Aviation Authorities (NAA) the application 

of a similar regulation. 

The aim of this regulation is to require all 

holders of type certificates for transport 

aircraft certified after 01 January 1958 with 

a capacity of 30 passengers or more, or a 

payload of 3,402 kg or more, to carry out a 

definition review against explosion hazards. 

To be compliant with SFAR88/JAA INT/ 

POL 25/12 requirements, this AD requires the 

installation of the updated FWC [flight 

warning computer] software standard which 

ensures correct operation of the APU bleed 

leak detection system before each flight. 

Failure of the auxiliary power unit 

(APU) bleed leak detection system could 

result in overheat of the fuel tank 

located in the horizontal stabilizer and 

ignition of the fuel vapors in that tank, 

which could result in a fuel tank 

explosion and consequent loss of the 

airplane. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

The FAA has examined the 

underlying safety issues involved in fuel 

tank explosions on several large 

transport airplanes, including the 

adequacy of existing regulations, the 

service history of airplanes subject to 

those regulations, and existing 

maintenance practices for fuel tank 

systems. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (66 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). In addition to new airworthiness 

standards for transport airplanes and 

new maintenance requirements, this 

rule included Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’ 

Amendment 21–78, and subsequent 

Amendments 21–82 and 21–83). 

Among other actions, SFAR 88 

requires certain type design (i.e., type 

certificate (TC) and supplemental type 

certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate 

that their fuel tank systems can prevent 

ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This 

requirement applies to type design 

holders for large turbine-powered 

transport airplanes and for subsequent 

modifications to those airplanes. It 

requires them to perform design reviews 

and to develop design changes and 

maintenance procedures if their designs 

do not meet the new fuel tank safety 

standards. As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, we intended to adopt 

airworthiness directives to mandate any 

changes found necessary to address 

unsafe conditions identified as a result 

of these reviews. 

In evaluating these design reviews, we 

have established four criteria intended 

to define the unsafe conditions 

associated with fuel tank systems that 

require corrective actions. The 

percentage of operating time during 

which fuel tanks are exposed to 

flammable conditions is one of these 

criteria. The other three criteria address 

the failure types under evaluation: 

single failures, single failures in 

combination with a latent condition(s), 

and in-service failure experience. For all 

four criteria, the evaluations included 

consideration of previous actions taken 

that may mitigate the need for further 

action. 

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) 

has issued a regulation that is similar to 

SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated 

body of the European Civil Aviation 

Conference (ECAC) representing the 

civil aviation regulatory authorities of a 

number of European states who have 

agreed to co-operate in developing and 

implementing common safety regulatory 

standards and procedures.) Under this 

regulation, the JAA stated that all 

members of the ECAC that hold type 

certificates for transport category 

airplanes are required to conduct a 

design review against explosion risks. 

We have determined that the actions 

identified in this AD are necessary to 

reduce the potential of ignition sources 

inside fuel tanks, which, in combination 

with flammable fuel vapors, could result 

in fuel tank explosions and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60657 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued the service 

information identified in the table 

below. 

RELEVANT SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus Service Bulletin— Revision— Dated— 

A330–31–3125 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. December 31, 2008. 

A330–31–3146, including Appendix 01 ................................ 01 ......................................................................................... May 5, 2010. 

A340–31–4111 ...................................................................... Original ................................................................................. February 5, 2007. 

A340–31–4125 ...................................................................... 01 ......................................................................................... December 9, 2008. 

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 53 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 5 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $0 per product. 

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 $22,525, or $425 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–2010–0952; 

Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–131–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 15, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the airplanes 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 

this AD. 

(1) Airbus Model A330–201, –202, –203, 

–223, –243, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, 

–323, –341, –342 and –343 airplanes, all 

manufacturer serial numbers except those on 

which Airbus modification 51790 has been 

embodied in production or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A330–31–3066, A330–31–3082, 

A330–31–3093, or A330–31–3105 has been 

embodied in service; certificated in any 

category. 

(2) Airbus Model A340–211, –212, –213, 

–311, –312, and –313 airplanes, all 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturer serial numbers; certificated in 

any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 31: Instruments. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

[T]he FAA published SFAR 88 (Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation 88). 

By mail referenced 04/00/02/07/01–L296 

of March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03–L024 

of February 3rd, 2003 the JAA [Joint Aviation 

Authorities] recommended to the National 

Aviation Authorities (NAA) the application 

of a similar regulation. 

The aim of this regulation is to require 

* * * a definition review against explosion 

hazards. 

* * * * * 

Failure of the auxiliary power unit (APU) 

bleed leak detection system could result in 

overheat of the fuel tank located in the 

horizontal stabilizer and ignition of the fuel 

vapors in that tank, which could result in a 

fuel tank explosion and consequent loss 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. 

Actions 

(g) Within 6 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do the applicable actions 

specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of 

this AD. 

(1) For Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, 

–243, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, 

–341, –342 and –343 airplanes: Install flight 

warning computer (FWC) software standard 

T3 (part number (P/N) LA2E20202T30000) 

on both FWCs, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A330–31–3146, including 

Appendix 01, Revision 01, dated May 5, 

2010. 

(2) For Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, 

–312, and –313 airplanes: Install FWC 

software standard L11 (P/N 

LA2E0060D110000) on both FWCs, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340– 

31–4125, Revision 01, dated December 9, 

2008. 

(h) Prior to or concurrently with 

accomplishing the corresponding 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, 

install FWC software standard T2–0 in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330– 

31–3125, dated December 31, 2008 (for 

Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223, –243, 

–301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, 

–342 and –343 airplanes). 

(i) Prior to or concurrently with 

accomplishing the corresponding 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, 

install FWC software standard L10–1 in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340– 

31–4111, dated February 5, 2007 (for Model 

A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, and –313 

airplanes). 

(j) Actions done before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with Airbus Service 

Bulletin A330–31–3146, dated February 2, 

2010; or A340–31–4125, dated October 27, 

2008; are acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of paragraph (g) 

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 

(k) 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: Vladimir 

Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; 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 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 

(l) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 

2010–0089, dated May 10, 2010, and the 

service information identified in Table 1 of 

this AD, for related information. 

TABLE 1—RELATED SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus Service Bulletin— Revision— Dated— 

A330–31–3125 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. December 31, 2008. 

A330–31–3146, including Appendix 01 ............................................................... 01 .......................................................... May 5, 2010. 

A340–31–4111 ..................................................................................................... Original .................................................. February 5, 2007. 

A340–31–4125 ..................................................................................................... 01 .......................................................... December 9, 2008. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on 

September 23, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24711 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS