892 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

paragraph except for those in 

§ 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(F) which are optional.

* * * * *

(C) * * * 

(1) A depth sizing requirement of 0.15 

inch RMS must be used in lieu of the 

requirements in Subparagraphs 3.2(a) 

and 3.2(c), and a length sizing 

requirement of 0.75 inch RMS must be 

used in lieu of the requirement in 

Subparagraph 3.2(b).

* * * * *

(J) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(xx) System leakage tests. When 

performing system leakage tests in 

accordance IWA–5213(a), 1997 

Addenda through the 2001 Edition, a 

10-minute hold time after attaining test 

pressure is required for Class 2 and 

Class 3 components that are not in use 

during normal operating conditions, and 

no hold time is required for the 

remaining Class 2 and Class 3 

components provided that the system 

has been in operation for at least 4 hours 

for insulated components or 10 minutes 

for uninsulated components.

* * * * *

(xxii) Surface Examinations. The use 

of the provisions in IWA–2220, ‘‘Surface 

Examination,’’ of Section XI, 2001 

Edition through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, that 

allow the use of an ultrasonic 

examination method, is prohibited. 

(xxiii) Evaluation of Thermally Cut 

Surfaces. The tests and inspections and 

the analysis specified in IWA–

4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) of the 2001 

Edition through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be 

performed whenever a thermally cut 

surface is not mechanically processed. 

(xxiv) Incorporation of the 

Performance Demonstration Initiative 

and Addition of Ultrasonic Examination 

Criteria. The use of Appendix VIII and 

the supplements to Appendix VIII and 

Article I–3000 of Section XI of the 

ASME BPV Code, 2002 Addenda 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, is prohibited. 

(xxv) Mitigation of Flaws. The use of 

the provisions in IWA–4340, 

‘‘Mitigation of Defects by Modification,’’

of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the 

latest edition and addenda incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section are prohibited. 

(xxvi) Pressure Testing Classes 1, 2, 

and 3 Mechanical Joints. The repair and 

replacement activity provisions in IWA–

4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of Section XI 

for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 

mechanical joints must be applied when 

using the 2001 Edition through the 

latest edition and addenda incorporated 

by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section.

(xxvii) Removal of Insulation. When 

performing visual examinations in 

accordance with IWA–5242, 2003 

Addenda through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(2) of the section, 

insulation must be removed from 17–4 

PH or 410 stainless steel studs or bolts 

aged at a temperature below 1100 °F or 

having a hardness above Rc 30, and 

from A–286 stainless steel studs or bolts 

preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square 

inch or higher. If insulation is removed 

from a bolted connection to perform a 

VT–2 examination with the system 

depressurized in accordance with IWA–

5242(a), a system pressure test and VT–

2 examination must be performed after 

the insulation is reinstalled. 

(xxviii) Reconciliation of Quality 

Assurance Requirements. Components 

used for repair/replacement must be 

manufactured, procured, and controlled 

as a safety-related component under a 

quality assurance program meeting the 

requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 

part 50 when using IWA–4226.1, 2003 

Addenda through the latest edition and 

addenda incorporated by reference in 

paragraph (b)(2) of the section. 

(3) As used in this section, references 

to the OM Code refer to the ASME Code 

for Operation and Maintenance of 

Nuclear Power Plants, and include the 

1995 Edition through the 2003 Addenda 

subject to the following limitations and 

modifications: 

(i) Quality Assurance. When applying 

editions and addenda of the OM Code, 

the requirements of NQA–1, ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Requirements for Nuclear 

Facilities,’’ 1979 Addenda, are 

acceptable as permitted by ISTA 1.4 of 

the 1995 Edition through 1997 Addenda 

or ISTA–1500 of the 1998 Edition 

through the latest edition and addenda 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, provided the 

licensee uses its 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix B, quality assurance program 

in conjunction with the OM Code 

requirements. Commitments contained 

in the licensee’s quality assurance 

program description that are more 

stringent than those contained in NQA–

1 govern OM Code activities. If NQA–

1 and the OM Code do not address the 

commitments contained in the 

licensee’s Appendix B quality assurance 

program description, the commitments 

must be applied to OM Code activities.

* * * * *

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) Appendix II. Licensees applying 

Appendix II, ‘‘Check Valve Condition 

Monitoring Program,’’ of the OM Code, 

1995 Edition with the 1996 and 1997 

Addenda, shall satisfy the requirements 

of (b)(3)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(iv)(B), and 

(b)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. Licensees 

applying Appendix II, 1998 Edition 

through the 2002 Addenda, shall satisfy 

the requirements of (b)(3)(iv)(A), 

(b)(3)(iv)(B), and (b)(3)(iv)(D) of this 

section.

* * * * *

Footnotes to § 50.55a:

* * * * * 10Supplemental inservice inspection 

requirements for reactor vessel pressure 

heads have been imposed by Order EA–03–

09 issued to licensees of pressurized water 

reactors. The NRC expects to develop revised 

supplemental inspection requirements, based 

in part upon a review of the initial 

implementation of the order, and will 

determine the need for incorporating the 

revised inspection requirements into 10 CFR 

50.55a by rulemaking.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day 

of December 2003.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

William D. Travers, 

Executive Director For Operations.

[FR Doc. 04–314 Filed 1–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Part 5 

[Docket No. 04–02] 

RIN 1557–AC11 

Fundamental Change in Asset 

Composition of a Bank

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency (OCC) is proposing to 

amend its regulations to require a 

national bank to obtain the approval of 

the OCC before two types of 

fundamental changes in the 

composition of the bank’s assets: (1) 

Changing the composition of all, or 

substantially all, of its assets through 

sales or other dispositions or, (2) after 

having sold or disposed of all or 

substantially all of its assets, 

subsequently purchasing or otherwise 

acquiring assets. The proposal also 

provides that, in the second case, the 

OCC will apply, among other factors, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 893

1The OCC defines a significant deviation from a 

bank’s business plan or operations to include a 

material deviation or material change in the bank’s: 

(1) Projected growth, such as planning significant 

growth in a product or service; (2) strategy or 

philosophy, such as significantly reducing the 

emphasis of its targeted niche (for example, small 

business lending) in favor of significant expansion 

of another area (for example, funding large 

commercial real estate projects); (3) lines of 

business, such as initiating a new program for 

subprime lending; (4) funding sources, such as 

shifting from core deposits to brokered deposits; (5) 

scope of activities, such as establishing 

transactional Internet banking or entering new, 

untested markets; (6) stock benefit plans for de novo

banks, including the introduction of plans that were 

not previously reviewed during the chartering 

process with no objection by the OCC; and (7) 

relationships with a parent company or affiliate, 

such as a shift to significant reliance on a parent 

or affiliate as a funding source or provider of back 

office support. See OCC’s Significant Deviation 

Policy, as posted as a supplemental policy 

document to the Charters Booklet of the 

Comptroller’s Licensing Manual, http://

www.occ.treas.gov/corpbook/forms/SigDevPolicy8–

03.pdf.

2 In the past few years, for example, some 

national banks have materially changed the general 

character of their business by shifting to a 

concentration of subprime loans or relying on 

technology-based product and service delivery 

systems. In some cases, the safety and soundness 

of these banks was adversely affected because bank 

management did not fully understand or effectively 

control the risks associated with the changes.

the same factors as it applies to the 

establishment of a de novo bank. This 

new approval requirement will enable 

the OCC to better assess the bank’s 

compliance with applicable law and 

safe and sound banking practices.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments 

to: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Public Information Room, 250 

E Street, SW., Mail Stop 1–5, 

Washington, DC 20219, Attention: 

Docket No. 04–02. Due to delays in 

paper mail delivery in the Washington, 

DC area, commenters are encouraged to 

submit their comments by fax or e-mail. 

You may fax your comments to (202) 

874–4448 or electronic mail them to 

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. 

Comments may be inspected and 

photocopied at the OCC’s Public 

Information Room, 250 E Street, and 

SW., Washington, DC. You can make an 

appointment to inspect and photocopy 

comments by calling (202)–874–5043.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heidi M. Thomas, Special Counsel, 

Legislative and Regulatory Activities, at 

(202) 874–5090; or Jan Kalmus, NBE/

Licensing Expert, Licensing Policy and 

Systems, at (202) 874–5060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A national bank that divests itself of 

assets through sale or other disposition 

to become a ‘‘stripped’’ or ‘‘dormant’’

bank charter, or, having ‘‘stripped 

down,’’ subsequently takes on new 

assets through purchases or 

acquisitions, raises significant 

supervisory concerns. These concerns 

include increased operations risk, 

increased concentration risk (especially 

where asset composition changes as a 

result of divestiture), and the ability of 

bank management to implement the 

new strategy successfully. In addition, 

the dormant bank being revived may 

propose to engage in activities that 

significantly deviate or are a change 

from the bank’s original business plan 

or operations.1 Ill-conceived, poorly 

planned, or inadequately executed 

changes in a national bank’s business 

can expose the bank to imprudent levels 

of risk, with the potential for adverse 

consequences for the bank’s financial 

condition and, in the extreme situation, 

for its viability.2 Even entry into lines of 

business that are traditional for national 

banks may present elevated levels of 

risk to a particular bank if the bank 

expands too quickly from a dormant 

status, misjudges its markets, or fails to 

ensure that bank management and 

internal control systems keep pace with 

the change. Moreover, the acquisition of 

a dormant charter by a third party raises 

concerns about the need to thoroughly 

review the nature of the services and 

products that might be initiated by an 

acquiring entity.

Our current regulations do not require 

the approval of the OCC before a bank 

‘‘strips down’’ to a dormant bank 

charter, nor do they require our 

approval when a dormant bank 

increases its asset size to engage again 

in the business of banking. To better 

assess the bank’s compliance with 

applicable law and safe and sound 

banking practices, we are proposing to 

amend our regulations to require prior 

OCC approval for two types of 

fundamental changes in the 

composition of a national bank’s assets: 

(1) A change in composition of all or 

substantially all of a bank’s assets 

resulting from a sale or other disposition 

of the bank’s assets, or (2) an increase 

in the asset size of a national bank that 

had previously ‘‘stripped down’’ in a 

transaction described in item (1), 

regardless of existing or new ownership. 

In addition, because a ‘‘stripped’’ or 

dormant charter that subsequently 

increases in asset size fundamentally 

resembles a new entrant obtaining a 

new charter, transactions described in 

item (2) will be evaluated under the 

same standards that the OCC applies to 

a de novo national bank charter 

proposal.

II. Description of the Proposal 

Approval requirements. This proposal 

would add a new § 5.53 to subpart D of 

12 CFR part 5. Proposed § 5.53(c) 

requires that a national bank obtain the 

OCC’s prior written approval before 

changing the composition of all, or 

substantially all, of its assets through (1) 

sales or other disposition or, (2) after 

having sold or disposed of all or 

substantially all of its assets, through 

purchases or other acquisitions. A bank 

that has disposed of all or substantially 

all of its assets before the effective date 

of this regulation must comply with the 

prior approval requirement if it 

purchases or otherwise acquires or takes 

on new assets after the regulation takes 

effect. Proposed § 5.53(d) specifies that 

this approval requirement does not 

apply to a change in composition of all, 

or substantially all, of a bank’s assets 

that the bank undertakes in response to 

direction from the OCC (e.g., in an 

enforcement action pursuant to 12 

U.S.C. 1818) or pursuant to a statute or 

regulation that requires OCC review or 

approval (e.g., a voluntary liquidation 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 181 and 12 CFR 

5.48). 

We note that the acquisition of 

deposits by a dormant bank raises the 

presumption that the bank intends to 

use the deposits to fund an increase in 

assets, which would trigger this 

proposal’s application requirement. A 

dormant bank should not gather 

deposits to fund its asset acquisition 

without first seeking the approval of the 

OCC pursuant to this proposal. 

In reviewing applications filed under 

§ 5.53, we will consider the purpose of 

the transaction, its impact on the safety 

and soundness of the bank, and any 

effect on the bank’s customers. Relevant 

to our consideration of an application to 

dispose of all or substantially all of the 

bank’s assets will be the reasons for the 

proposed decrease in asset size and 

future plans for the bank charter 

(including any plans for liquidation), 

future asset growth, future plans to 

market or sell the charter, and future 

business plans, as applicable. 

Depending on the circumstances 

presented in the bank’s application, our 

approval of the bank’s disposition of all 

or substantially all of its assets will 

address how long the dormant charter 

may continue, and could include a 

requirement that the bank submit a plan 

of liquidation. 

In reviewing an application in 

connection with an increase in the 

assets of a stripped charter, we will 

consider the bank’s future business plan 

and whether this plan involves 

activities that significantly deviate from 

894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

the bank’s original business plan or 

operations prior to its stripped status. 

We also will consider the applicant’s 

staffing plans, plans for oversight of the 

activity within the bank, and 

accountability to the board of directors, 

along with the applicant’s plans to 

acquire, develop, or modify internal 

control systems adequate to monitor the 

new activity. 

This proposal also provides that, 

where a national bank has sold or 

otherwise disposed of its assets in a 

transaction requiring approval pursuant 

this new § 5.53, our review of any 

subsequent growth in assets pursuant to 

this proposal will include, among other 

things, the factors governing the 

organization of a de novo bank under 12 

CFR 5.20. In evaluating an application 

to establish a de novo bank, we consider 

whether the proposed bank: (1) Has 

organizers who are familiar with 

national banking laws and regulations; 

(2) has competent management, 

including a board of directors, with 

ability and experience relevant to the 

types of services to be provided; (3) Has 

capital that is sufficient to support the 

projected volume and type of business; 

(4) Can reasonably be expected to 

achieve and maintain profitability; and 

(5) Will be operated in a safe and sound 

manner. In addition, § 5.20(f) provides 

that we also may consider additional 

factors listed in section 6 of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1816, 

including the risk to the Federal deposit 

insurance fund, and whether the 

proposed bank’s corporate powers are 

consistent with the purposes of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the 

National Bank Act. 

Reference to ‘‘business plan.’’ This 

proposal makes a conforming change to 

§ 5.20 to provide that any use of the 

term ‘‘operating plan’’ or ‘‘operating 

plans’’ will be changed to ‘‘business 

plan or operating plan’’ or ‘‘business 

plans or operating plans,’’ as 

appropriate. Currently, § 5.20 only uses 

the term ‘‘operating plan’’ when 

referring to the document that describes 

a national bank’s management goals, 

earnings objectives, and lines of 

business. However, the banking 

industry, as well as the OCC and the 

other Federal financial institution 

agencies in policy statements, 

applications, and internal documents, 

more commonly use the term ‘‘business 

plan.’’ The OCC has made this change 

to avoid any confusion about whether a 

substantive difference between the two 

terms is intended. Thus, the OCC 

intends that both terms may be used 

interchangeably. 

III. Comment Solicitation 

The OCC requests comment on all 

aspects of this proposal, including the 

specific issues that follow. 

Community Bank Comment Request 

The OCC seeks comment on the 

impact of this proposal on community 

banks. The OCC recognizes that 

community banks operate with more 

limited resources than larger 

institutions and may present a different 

risk profile. Thus, the OCC specifically 

requests comment on the impact of the 

proposal on community banks’ current 

resources and available personnel with 

the requisite expertise, and whether the 

goals of the proposal could be achieved, 

for community banks, through an 

alternative approach.

Solicitation of Comments on Use of 

Plain Language 

Section 722 of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act, Public Law 106–102, section 

722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 

1999), requires the Federal banking 

agencies to use plain language in all 

proposed and final rules published after 

January 1, 2000. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand. For example: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit your needs? If not, how could this 

material be better organized? 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulation clearly stated? If 

not, how could the regulation be more 

clearly stated? 

• Does the proposed regulation 

contain language or jargon that is not 

clear? If so, which language requires 

clarification? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the regulation 

easier to understand? If so, what 

changes to the format would make the 

regulation easier to understand? 

• What else could we do to make the 

regulation easier to understand? 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 

Comptroller of the Currency certifies 

that this proposal will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates Act) 

requires that an agency prepare a 

budgetary impact statement before 

promulgating a rule that includes a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. If a budgetary impact 

statement is required, section 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Act also requires 

an agency to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives before promulgating a rule. 

The OCC has determined that this 

proposal will not result in expenditures 

by State, local, or tribal governments or 

by the private sector of $100 million or 

more. Accordingly, the OCC has not 

prepared a budgetary impact statement 

or specifically addressed the regulatory 

alternatives considered. 

C. Executive Order 12866 

The Comptroller of the Currency has 

determined that this rule does not 

constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ for the purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a respondent is not required to 

respond to, an information collection 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The information 

collection requirements contained in 

this notice of proposed rulemaking have 

been submitted to OMB for review and 

approval under OMB Control Number 

1557–0014. 

This proposal is expected to increase 

annual paperwork burden for 

respondents by adding certain 

application requirements. The 

information collection requirements are 

contained in § 5.53. Section 5.53 

requires a national bank to submit an 

application to the OCC before changing 

the composition of all, or substantially 

all, of its assets through sales or other 

dispositions or, having sold or disposed 

of all or substantially all of its assets, 

through subsequent purchases or other 

acquisitions. The time per response to 

complete an application is estimated to 

be five hours and the number of 

respondents is estimated to be five 

national banks. The likely respondents 

are national banks.

Estimated number of respondents: 5. 

Estimated number of responses: 5. 

Estimated total burden hours per 

response: 5 hours. 

Estimated total annual burden hours:

25 hours. 

The OCC invites comments on: (1) 

Whether the collection of information 

contained in the proposed rulemaking is 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 895

necessary for the proper performance of 

the OCC’s functions, including whether 

the information has practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of the OCC’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the information collection on 

respondents; including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and 

(5) Estimates of capital or start-up 

costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Comments should be sent to: John 

Ference, Clearance Officer, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, Legislative 

and Regulatory Activities Division, 

Attention: 1557–0194, 250 E Street, 

SW., Mailstop 8–4, Washington, DC 

20219. Due to delays in paper mail in 

the Washington area, commenters are 

encouraged to submit their comments 

by fax to (202) 874–4889 or by e-mail to 

camille.dixon@occ.treas.gov. Joseph F. 

Lackey, Jr., Desk Officer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: 1557–0014, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503. Comments may 

also be sent by e-mail to 

jlackeyj@omb.eop.gov.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 5 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, National banks, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Issuance 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

the OCC proposes to amend part 5 of 

chapter I of title 12 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 5—RULES, POLICIES, AND 

PROCEDURES FOR CORPORATE 

ACTIVITIES 

1. The authority citation for part 5 is 

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 24a, 

24(Seventh), 93a, 1818, and 3101 et seq.

2. In § 5.20, revise all references to 

‘‘operating plan’’ or ‘‘operating plans’’ to 

read ‘‘business plan or operating plan’’

or ‘‘business plans or operating plans,’’

as appropriate. 

3. In Subpart D—Other Changes in 

Activities and Operations, a new § 5.53 

is added to read as follows:

§ 5.53 Change in asset composition. 

(a) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1818. 

(b) Scope. This section requires a 

national bank to obtain the approval of 

the OCC before changing the 

composition of all, or substantially all, 

of its assets through sales or other 

dispositions or, having sold or disposed 

of all or substantially all of its assets, 

through subsequent purchases or other 

acquisitions. 

(c) Approval requirement. (1) A 

national bank must file an application 

and obtain the prior written approval of 

the OCC before changing the 

composition of all, or substantially all, 

of its assets (i) through sales or other 

dispositions or, (ii) having sold or 

disposed of all or substantially all of its 

assets, through subsequent purchases or 

other acquisitions. 

(2) In determining whether to approve 

an application under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, the OCC will consider the 

purpose of the transaction, its impact on 

the safety and soundness of the bank, 

and any effect on the bank’s customers, 

and may deny the application if the 

transaction would have a negative effect 

in any such respect. Where a national 

bank has sold or otherwise disposed of 

all or substantially all of its assets in a 

transaction requiring approval under 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, the 

OCC’s review of any subsequent change 

in asset composition through purchase 

or other acquisition will include, in 

addition to the foregoing factors, the 

factors governing the organization of a 

bank under § 5.20. 

(d) Exception. This section does not 

apply to a change in composition of all, 

or substantially all, of a bank’s assets 

that the bank undertakes in response to 

direction from the OCC (e.g., in an 

enforcement action pursuant to 12 

U.S.C. 1818) or pursuant to a statute or 

regulation that requires OCC review or 

approval (e.g., a voluntary liquidation 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 181 and 12 CFR 

5.48).

Dated: December 30, 2003. 

John D. Hawke, Jr., 

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 04–247 Filed 1–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–236–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream 

Aerospace LP Model Astra SPX and 

1125 Westwind Astra Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes the 

adoption of a new airworthiness 

directive (AD) that is applicable to 

certain Model Astra SPX and 1125 

Westwind Astra series airplanes. This 

proposal would require detailed 

inspections and resistance 

measurements of the starter generator 

electrical cables of both engines to 

detect damage, and replacement of the 

electrical cable and cable support if any 

damage is found. This proposal would 

also require eventual replacement of the 

cable support. This action is necessary 

to prevent chafing of the starter 

generator cable, which could result in 

electrical arcing in the vicinity of a fuel 

line, and possible fire or explosion. This 

action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–

236–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Comments may be inspected at this 

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Comments may be submitted 

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments 

may also be sent via the Internet using 

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent 

via fax or the Internet must contain 

‘‘Docket No. 2002–NM–236–AD’’ in the 

subject line and need not be submitted 

in triplicate. Comments sent via the 

Internet as attached electronic files must 

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 

2000 or ASCII text. 

The service information referenced in 

the proposed rule may be obtained from 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. 

Box 2206, Mail Station D25, Savannah, 

Georgia 31402. This information may be 

examined at the FAA, Transport