3794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

with the home country supervisor for

the foreign bank as appropriate.

(c) Timing. The Board will notify a

foreign bank or company of its

determination under this section within

30 days of the filing of the election

unless the Board determines that it does

not have sufficient information on

which to base a finding.

§ 225.93 What are the consequences of a

foreign bank failing to continue to meet

applicable capital and management

requirements?

(a) Notice by the Board. If a foreign

bank or company has made an effective

election to be treated as a financial

holding company under this subpart

and the Board finds that the foreign

bank ceases to be well capitalized or

well managed, the Board will notify the

foreign bank or company in writing that

it is not in compliance with the

applicable requirement(s) for a financial

holding company and identify the areas

of noncompliance.

(b) Notification by a financial holding

company required. Promptly upon

becoming aware that it has ceased to be

well capitalized or well managed, the

foreign bank, or any company that

controls such foreign bank, must notify

the Board and identify the area of

noncompliance.

(c) Execution of agreement acceptable

to the Board— (1) Agreement required;

time period. Within 45 days after

receiving a notice under paragraph (a) of

this section, the foreign bank or

company must execute an agreement

acceptable to the Board to comply with

all applicable capital and management

requirements.

(2) Extension of time for executing

agreement. Upon request by a company,

the Board may extend the 45-day period

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section if

the Board determines that granting

additional time is appropriate under the

circumstances. A request by a company

for additional time must include an

explanation of why an extension is

necessary.

(3) Agreement requirements. An

agreement required by paragraph (c)(1)

of this section to correct a capital or

management deficiency must:

(i) Explain the specific actions that

the foreign bank or company will take

to correct all areas of noncompliance;

(ii) Provide a schedule within which

each action will be taken;

(iii) Provide any other information

that the Board may require; and

(iv) Be acceptable to the Board.

(d) Limitations during period of

noncompliance. Until the Board

determines that a company has

corrected the conditions described in a

notice under paragraph (a) of this

section:

(1) The Board may impose any

limitations or conditions on the conduct

or the U.S. activities of the foreign bank

or company or any of its affiliates as the

Board finds to be appropriate and

consistent with the purposes of the

Bank Holding Company Act; and

(2) The company and its affiliates may

not engage in any new activity in the

United States or acquire control or

shares of any company under section

4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act

without prior approval from the Board.

(e) Consequences of failure to correct

conditions within 180 days—(1)

Termination of offices and divestiture. If

a foreign bank or company does not

correct the conditions described in a

notice under paragraph (a) of this

section within 180 days of receipt of the

notice or such additional time as the

Board may permit, the Board may order

the foreign bank or company to

terminate the foreign bank’s U.S.

branches and agencies and divest any

commercial lending companies owned

or controlled by the foreign bank or

company. Such divestiture must be

done in accordance with the terms and

conditions established by the Board.

(2) Alternative method of complying

with a divestiture order. A foreign bank

or company may comply with an order

issued under paragraph (e)(1) of this

section by ceasing to engage (both

directly and through any subsidiary) in

all activities that are not permissible for

a foreign bank to conduct under sections

2(h) and 4(c) of the Bank Holding

Company Act. The termination of

activities must be done within the time

period referred to in paragraph (e)(1) of

this section and subject to terms and

conditions acceptable to the Board.

(f) Consultation with other agencies.

In taking any action under this section,

the Board will consult with the relevant

Federal and state regulatory authorities.

§ 225.94 What are the consequences of an

insured branch failing to maintain a

satisfactory or better rating under the

Community Reinvestment Act?

(a) Insured branch as an ‘‘insured

depository institution.’’ A U.S. branch of

a foreign bank that is insured by the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

shall be treated as an ‘‘insured

depository institution’’ for purposes of

§ 225.84.

(b) Applicability. The provisions of

§ 225.84, with the modifications

contained in this section, shall apply to

a foreign bank that operates an insured

branch referred to in paragraph (a) of

this section, and any company that

owns or controls such a foreign bank,

that has made an effective election

under § 225.92 in the same manner and

to the same extent as they apply to a

financial holding company.

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, January 18, 2000.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–1646 Filed 1–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–309–AD; Amendment

39–11518; AD 2000–02–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 series airplanes,

that requires detailed visual and eddy

current inspections of the lower wing

skin at the 3 outboard fasteners of the

stringer 64 end fitting to detect cracks;

and corrective actions, if necessary. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

fatigue cracks found in the lower wing

skin initiating from the outboard

fasteners of the stringer 64 end fitting.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such fatigue

cracking, which could reduce structural

integrity and loss of fail-safe capability

of the airplane.

DATES: Effective February 29, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February

29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). This information

may be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3795

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

DiLibero, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5231; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–8 series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on October 27, 1999 (64 FR 57806). That

action proposed to require detailed

visual and eddy current inspections of

the lower wing skin at the 3 outboard

fasteners of the stringer 64 end fitting to

detect cracks; and corrective actions, if

necessary.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

single comment received.

The commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comment noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 294

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

251 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $60,240, or

$240 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

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. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–02–01 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–11518. Docket 98-NM–

309–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–8 series airplanes,

as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC8–57–100, Revision 01, dated

August 26, 1998; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking of the lower

wing skin, which could reduce structural

integrity and loss of fail-safe capability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Note 2: This AD will affect Principal

Structural Elements (PSE) 57.08.037,

57.08.038, 57.08.021, and 57.08.022 of the

DC–8 Supplemental Inspection Document

(SID).

Inspection, Repair, and Modification

(a) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, perform detailed visual and

eddy current inspections to detect cracks in

the lower wing skin fastener holes in the area

surrounding 3 outboard fasteners of the

stringer 64 end fitting, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8–

57–100, Revision 01, dated August 26, 1998.

Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(1) If any crack is detected in the skin

fastener holes and it is less than 3.1 inches

long, prior to further flight, repair in

accordance with the service bulletin. Within

14,100 landings after accomplishment of the

repair, inspect the lower wing skin to detect

cracks, in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(2) If any crack is detected in the skin

fastener holes and it is greater than or equal

to 3.1 inches long, prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(3) If no crack is found, within 24 months

after the effective date of this AD, accomplish

the preventative modification (including

stress or split sleeve coining the three

fastener holes in the skin, and installing new

pins), in accordance with the service

bulletin. Accomplishment of this action

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

Note 4: This AD does not terminate the

inspection requirements for PSE’s 57.08.037,

57.08.038, 57.08.021, and 57.08.022 of the

DC–8 SID in accordance with AD 93–01–15,

amendment 39–6330.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

3796 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) Except as provided by paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) of this AD, the actions shall be

done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin DC8–57–100, Revision 01,

dated August 26, 1998. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be

obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846,

Attention: Technical Publications Business

Administration, Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

February 29, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

13, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1368 Filed 1–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–74–AD; Amendment

39–11517; AD 2000–01–19]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

Deutschland GMBH Model EC 135 P1

and EC 135 T1 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD)

applicable to Eurocopter Deutschland

GMBH (ECD) Model EC 135 P1 and EC

135 T1 helicopters. This action requires

inspecting main rotor expansion bolt

safety wires, bolt heads, and bolt nuts;

replacing any unairworthy expansion

bolt with a hexagon bolt; and, as

necessary, replacing any bolt nut before

further flight. This AD also requires

replacing each expansion bolt,

regardless of condition, no later than

January 31, 2000. This amendment is

prompted by reports of main rotor blade

expansion bolt nuts becoming loose.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in severe vibration during flight

and subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Effective February 4, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February 4,

2000.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

March 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–74–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from American

Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum

Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053–4005,

telephone (972) 641–3460, fax (972)

641–3527. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Monschke, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth,

Texas 76193–0110, telephone (817)

222–5116, fax (817) 222–5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LuftfahrtBundesamt (LBA), the airworthiness

authority for the Federal Republic of

Germany, notified the FAA that an

unsafe condition may exist on Model EC

135 P1 and EC 135 T1 helicopters. The

LBA advises that severe vibrations

occurred during a helicopter flight due

to an expansion bolt nut becoming

loose.

ECD has issued Alert Service Bulletin

EC135–62A–005, Revision 1, dated

November 16, 1999 (ASB). The ASB

specifies inspecting the safety wire, bolt

head, and bolt nut for the extent of

thread protrusion of the expansion bolt

through the end of the nut; replacing the

expansion bolt by a hexagon bolt as

necessary; and replacing the nut as

necessary. In addition, all hexagon bolts

must replace all expansion bolts no later

than January 31, 2000. The LBA

classified this ASB as mandatory and

issued AD 1999–264, dated July 2, 1999,

to ensure the continued airworthiness of

these helicopters in the Federal

Republic of Germany.

These helicopter models are

manufactured in the Federal Republic of

Germany and are type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the LBA has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the LBA,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other ECD Model EC 135 P1

and EC 135 T1 helicopters of the same

type designs registered in the United

States, this AD is being issued to

prevent a main rotor blade expansion

bolt from becoming loose, severe

vibration during flight, and subsequent

loss of control of the helicopter. This

AD requires, before further flight and at

intervals not to exceed 15 hours time-inservice (TIS), inspecting the main rotor

blade expansion bolt safety wire, bolt

head, and bolt nut for the extent of

thread protrusion of the expansion bolt

through the end of the nut; replacing

any unairworthy expansion bolt with a

hexagon bolt; and replacing the nut as

necessary. The AD also requires

replacing all expansion bolts, part

number (P/N) L621M1010 223, with

hexagon bolts, P/N L621M1010 222,

before further flight after January 31,

2000. The actions are required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

ASB described previously. The short

compliance time involved is required

because the previously described

critical unsafe condition can adversely

affect the structural integrity of the

helicopter. Therefore, inspecting the

main rotor blade expansion bolt safety

wire, bolt head, and bolt nut; replacing

any unairworthy expansion bolt with a

hexagon bolt; and replacing the nut as

necessary is required before further

flight and this AD must be issued

immediately.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA estimates that 14 helicopters

will be affected by this AD, that it will

take approximately 10 work hours to