21154 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

17 12 CFR part 618, subpart G.

18We note that the financial privacy protections

of the recently enacted Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,

Pub. L. 106–102 (Nov. 12, 1999), protect only

financial institution customers that are

‘‘consumers’’—that is, individuals.

19See 63 FR 36541 (July 7, 1998).

B. Disclosure of Names of OFIs

The FCA’s regulations on releasing

information 17 currently prohibit System

institutions from disclosing information

about borrowers and stockholders. Also,

the FCA has routinely kept confidential

the names of borrowers that we have

obtained during examinations.

However, we have never interpreted

these prohibitions as preventing release

of the names of PCAs (or other System

associations) that, like OFIs, borrow

from a System bank but are not retail

borrowers. In fact, this information is

widely known because each System

bank issues publicly available financial

statements identifying its PCAs and

other affiliated associations.

The reasons for protecting the identity

of retail borrowers, who are mostly

individual consumers such as farmers

and ranchers or rural homeowners, may

not be present for OFIs.18 Keeping the

identities of retail borrowers

confidential shields them from

unwanted marketing solicitations or

publicity involving their personal

financial business. It is unlikely that

publicly identifying OFIs would have

these effects. On the contrary, disclosing

the names of lenders with OFI

relationships could benefit OFIs because

it could make prospective retail

borrowers aware of these added sources

of credit.

In this light, we are considering a

requirement to disclose the names of

entities that have OFI relationships with

System banks. We are interested in

receiving your comments and

recommendations on the conditions

under which to release the information.

We note that we are not considering the

release of any information about OFIs

except the name of the business and

other identifying information such as

the type of agricultural credit the OFI

offers.

C. Cross-District Lending

In July 1998, we amended the

regulations to authorize a System bank

to lend to an OFI whose headquarters

are outside of the bank’s territory or a

majority of whose loan volume is

outside of the bank’s territory.19 The

final OFI regulations specifically revised

§ 614.4550 to allow:

(1) FCBs and ACBs to provide funding

to any OFI applicant that maintains its

headquarters in the funding bank’s

chartered territory, or has more than 50

percent of its outstanding eligible loan

volume in the funding bank’s chartered

territory; and

(2) OFIs to apply to any other FCB or

ACB if the original FCB or ACB denies

or otherwise fails to approve an OFI’s

funding request within 60 days of

receipt of a ‘‘completed application’’ as

defined by 12 CFR 202.2(f).

In addition, an FCB or ACB may grant

its consent for an OFI to seek financing

from another System bank. The

regulation also provides that no OFI will

be required to terminate its existing

funding or discount relationship with

an FCB or ACB if, at a subsequent time,

an OFI relocates its headquarters to the

chartered territory of another System

bank or the loan volume in the relevant

territory falls below 50 percent.

The 1998 amendments gave new

flexibility to OFIs for choosing a System

bank for establishing a funding

relationship. But we retained some

restrictions because, at the time, System

associations were restricted in their

ability to seek financing from other

System banks. However, the Board’s

subsequent Philosophy Statement

supports broader funding access for

borrowers and lending institutions.

Therefore, given our continued interest

to explore different alternatives that

provide greater access to System

funding, we are seeking comment on

possible ways to provide greater

flexibility to OFIs setting up funding

relationships with System banks in

different districts.

IV. Questions

In this ANPRM, we seek your

comments on the following:

1. If we lower the risk weighting of

capital to be held by System banks for

all types of loans to OFIs, what riskweighting category would be

appropriate? Please provide your

analysis of the level of risk weighting

that you recommend.

2. How should we address the variety

of possible OFI types and OFI

relationships:

a. Would it be more appropriate to

lower the risk weighting on OFI loans

on a case-by-case basis, based on

underwriting criteria for various risk

categories? Why or why not? What

underwriting criteria should we require

System banks to establish for the

various levels of risk weighting?

b. Should we consider the use of risk

mitigation techniques (such as a pledge

of added security), or differentiate

between direct retail credit risk

exposure and wholesale credit risk

exposure? Why or why not? Please

recommend how we should address risk

mitigation techniques in our

regulations.

c. What is the appropriate level of risk

weighting on loans to OFIs that meet

risk mitigation criteria? Please provide

your recommendations and analysis.

3. Should we allow or require System

banks to release the names of OFIs on

request? Are there any drawbacks for

the System bank, the OFI, or the OFI’s

customers, if the identities of OFIs are

released? Do you believe any limits on

the release of such information are

necessary? Please provide your

recommendations and associated

explanation.

4. Should new regulations continue

the territorial limits for OFIs’ funding

access to System banks as addressed in

existing § 614.4550? If not, what if any

factors should limit an OFI’s choice of

System bank? Please provide your

recommendations and explanation.

5. Are there other regulatory changes

we could make or alternatives not

addressed above that we should

consider to improve a System bank’s

ability to serve an OFI and its

agricultural customers? Please provide

your recommendations and explanation

for such alternatives.

Dated: April 13, 2000.

Vivian L. Portis,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 00–9849 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–240–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie Model A300, A300–600, and

A310 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Airbus Model A300, A300–600, and

A310 series airplanes, that currently

requires inspections to detect cracks in

the lower spar axis of the nacelle pylon

between ribs 9 and 10, and repair, if

necessary. The existing AD also

provides for optional modification of

the pylon, which terminates the

inspections for Model A300 and A310

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21155

series airplanes and increases the

threshold and repetitive interval of the

inspections for Model A300–600 series

airplanes. This action would reduce the

inspection threshold and require

repetitive inspections following

accomplishment of the optional

modification for Model A310 series

airplanes. This proposal is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent fatigue cracking,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the lower spar of the pylon.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

240–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.

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.

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:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 99–NM–240–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–NM–240–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On April 28, 1995, the FAA issued

AD 95–10–03, amendment 39–9220 (60

FR 25604, May 12, 1995), applicable to

certain Airbus Industrie Model A300,

A300–600, and A310 series airplanes, to

require inspections to detect cracks in

the lower spar axis of the nacelle pylon

between ribs 9 and 10, and repair, if

necessary. The existing AD also

provides for optional modification of

the pylon, which terminates the

inspections for Model A300 and A310

series airplanes and increases the

threshold and repetitive interval of the

inspections for Model A300–600 series

airplanes. That action was prompted by

reports that fatigue cracks have been

found between ribs 9 and 10 on the

lower spar of the pylon, initiating at the

center stiffener beyond the flat area. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent such fatigue cracking, which

could result in reduced structural

integrity of the lower spar of the pylon.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since issuance of AD 95–10–03, the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for France, has advised the

FAA that additional cracks have been

found in the lower spar axis of the

nacelle pylon between ribs 9 and 10 on

Model A310 series airplanes at a lower

total number of flight cycles than had

been earlier reported. Based on these

findings, the FAA has determined that,

for Airbus Model A310 series airplanes,

it is necessary to reduce the inspection

threshold and, for airplanes on which

the optional modification has been

accomplished, to require that the

inspections be repetitively performed.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A310–54–2016, Revision 02, dated June

11, 1999 (for Model A310 series

airplanes). The actions described in

Revision 02 of this service bulletin are

identical to those described in the

original version and Revision 01 (which

were cited as appropriate service

information for accomplishment of the

inspections). Revision 02 was issued to

reduce the initial inspection threshold

and, for airplanes modified in

accordance with Service Bulletin A310–

54–2022, Revision 1, dated March 16,

1999, to specify that the inspection be

repetitively performed.

The DGAC classified Service Bulletin

A310–54–2016 as mandatory and issued

French airworthiness directive 1999–

237–285(B), dated June 2, 1999, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in France. French

airworthiness directive 1992–049–

130(B) R4 was issued to remove Model

A310 series airplanes from its

applicability and to advise of the

issuance of airworthiness directive

1999–237–285(B).

FAA’s Conclusions

These airplane models are

manufactured in France 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 DGAC has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DGAC,

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.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 95–10–03 to continue to

require inspections to detect cracks in

the lower spar axis of the nacelle pylon

between ribs 9 and 10, and repair, if

necessary. The proposed AD would

continue to provide for optional

modification of the pylon; for Model

A300 series airplanes, accomplishment

of the modification would terminate the

inspections; for Model A300–600 and

A310 series airplanes, such

21156 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

modification would increase the

threshold and repetitive interval of the

inspections.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletins

Operators should note that, although

the service bulletins specify that the

manufacturer may be contacted for

disposition of certain repair conditions,

this proposal would require the repair of

those conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

either the FAA, or the DGAC (or its

delegated agent). In light of the type of

repair that would be required to address

the identified unsafe condition, and in

consonance with existing bilateral

airworthiness agreements, the FAA has

determined that, for this proposed AD,

a repair approved by either the FAA or

the DGAC would be acceptable for

compliance with this proposed AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 140 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD.

It will take approximately 4 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

inspection that was previously required

by AD 95–10–03, and retained in this

AD, at an average labor rate of $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the inspection on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $240 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The total 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.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the proposed optional

modification, it would take

approximately 104 work hours (52 work

hours per pylon) to accomplish it, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

The cost of required parts would be

approximately $1,200 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the optional modification is

estimated to be $7,440 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

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. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that 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) if

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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

removing amendment 39–9220 (60 FR

25604, May 12, 1995), and by adding the

following new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 99–NM–240–AD.

Supersedes AD 95–10–03, Amendment

39–9220.

Applicability: The following airplanes,

certificated in any category:

• Model A300 series airplanes, as listed in

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–54–071,

Revision 1, dated October 15, 1993

• Model A300–600 series airplanes, as listed

in Airbus Service Bulletin A300–54–6011,

Revision 1, dated October 15, 1993

• Model A310 series airplanes, as listed in

Airbus Service Bulletin A310–54–2016,

Revision 02, dated June 11, 1999

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 (e) 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, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of the

lower spar of the pylon, accomplish the

following:

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD

95–10–03

Model A300 Series Airplanes

(a) For Model A300 B4–2C, B2K–3C, B2–

203, B4–103, and B4–203 series airplanes:

Prior to the accumulation of 9,000 total

landings, or within 500 landings after June

12, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95–10–03,

amendment 39–9220), whichever occurs

later, perform an internal eddy current

inspection to detect cracks in the lower spar

axis of the pylon between ribs 9 and 10, in

accordance with Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin A300–54–071, dated November 12,

1991; or Revision 1, dated October 15, 1993.

(1) If no crack is found, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 2,500 landings.

(2) If any crack is found that is less than

or equal to 30 mm: Perform subsequent

inspections and repair in accordance with

the methods and times specified in the

service bulletin.

(3) If any crack is found that is greater than

30 mm, but less than 100 mm: Prior to the

accumulation of 250 landings after crack

discovery, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate; or the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC) (or its delegated agent).

(4) If any crack is found that is greater than

or equal to 100 mm: Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116; or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).

(5) Accomplishment of the modification

specified in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin

A300–54–0079, dated October 15, 1993,

constitutes terminating action for the

inspections required by paragraph (a) of this

AD.

Model A300–600 Series Airplanes

(b) For Model A300–600 B4–620, C4–620,

B4–622R, and B4–622 series airplanes:

Except as provided by paragraph (b)(5) of this

AD, prior to the accumulation of 4,000 total

landings, or within 500 landings after June

12, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95–10–03),

whichever occurs later, perform an internal

eddy current inspection to detect cracks in

the lower spar axis of the pylon between ribs

9 and 10, in accordance with Airbus

Industrie Service Bulletin A300–54–6011,

dated November 12, 1991, as amended by

Service Bulletin Change Notice O.A., dated

July 10, 1992; or Revision 1, dated October

15, 1993.

(1) If no crack is found, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 2,500 landings.

(2) If any crack is found that is less than

or equal to 30 mm: Perform subsequent

inspections and repair in accordance with

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21157

the methods and times specified in the

service bulletin.

(3) If any crack is found that is greater than

30 mm, but less than 100 mm: Prior to the

accumulation of 250 landings after crack

discovery, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116; or the

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile

(DGAC) (or its delegated agent).

(4) If any crack is found that is greater than

or equal to 100 mm: Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116; or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).

(5) Accomplishment of the modification

specified in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin

A300–54–6019, dated October 15, 1993,

increases the threshold and repetitive

interval of the inspections required by

paragraph (b) of this AD to the threshold and

interval specified in paragraph 2.D. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus

Industrie Service Bulletin A300–54–6011,

Revision 1, dated October 15, 1993.

New Requirements of This AD

Model A310 Series Airplanes

(c) For Model A310–221, –222, –322, –324,

and –325 series airplanes: Perform an

internal eddy current inspection to detect

cracks in the lower spar axis of the pylon

between ribs 9 and 10, in accordance with

Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A310–54–

2016, dated November 12, 1991; or Revision

1, dated October 15, 1993; or Revision 2,

dated June 11, 1999; at the time specified in

paragraph (d) of this AD.

(1) If no crack is found, repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 2,500 landings.

(2) If any crack is found that is less than

or equal to 30 mm: Perform subsequent

inspections and repair in accordance with

the methods and times specified in the

service bulletin.

(3) If any crack is found that is greater than

30 mm, but less than 100 mm: Prior to the

accumulation of 250 landings after crack

discovery, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116; or the

DGAC (or its delegated agent).

(4) If any crack is found that is greater than

or equal to 100 mm: Prior to further flight,

repair in accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–

116; or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).

(5) Accomplishment of the modification

specified in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin

A310–54–2022, dated October 15, 1993; or

Revision 1, dated March 16, 1999; increases

the threshold and repetitive interval of the

inspections required by paragraph (c) of this

AD to the threshold and interval specified in

paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Airbus Industrie Service

Bulletin A310–54–2016, Revision 02, dated

June 11, 1999.

(d) Perform the initial inspection required

by paragraph (c) of this AD at the earlier of

the times specified by paragraphs (d)(1) and

(d)(2) of this AD.

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000

total landings, or within 500 landings after

June 12, 1995, whichever occurs later.

(2) At the applicable time specified by

paragraph (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), or (d)(2)(iii) of

this AD.

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated

fewer than 10,000 landings as of the effective

date of this AD: Perform the inspection prior

to the accumulation of 3,800 total landings,

or within 1,500 landings after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated

10,000 total landings or more, but fewer than

20,000 total landings, as of the effective date

of this AD: Perform the inspection within

1,000 landings after the effective date of this

AD.

(iii) For airplanes that have accumulated

20,000 total landings or more as of the

effective date of this AD: Perform the

inspection within 500 landings after the

effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(f) 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 1999–237–

285(B), dated June 2, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14,

2000.

Charles D. Huber,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9898 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–164–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300–600 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Airbus Model A300–600 series

airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive ultrasonic inspections to

detect cracks in the bolt holes inboard

and outboard of rib 9 on the bottom

booms of the front and rear wing spars,

and repair, if necessary. This action

would revise the compliance thresholds

for the inspection and would require

that the inspections be repeated at

reduced intervals. This proposal is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent fatigue

cracks in the bolt holes of the wing

spars, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of a wing spar.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

164–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule 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.

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:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained