Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 63465

Subpart B—Reports and Public

Disclosure

§ 31.4 Authority.

This subpart is issued by the

Comptroller of the Currency pursuant to

12 U.S.C. 1817(k) and 12 U.S.C.

1972(2)(G)(ii), as amended.

§ 31.5 Definitions.

The definitions set forth in 12 CFR

215.21 apply to this subpart, except that

‘‘capital and surplus’’ has the same

meaning as ‘‘capital and surplus’’ as

defined in 12 CFR 32.2(b), and, for

purposes of § 31.5(a)(1), ‘‘bank’’ means

an insured national bank.

§ 31.6 Disclosure of insider indebtedness.

(a) Upon receipt of a written request,

a national bank shall disclose the name

of each of its executive officers and

principal shareholders whose aggregate

indebtedness (including indebtedness of

related interests of such persons) from

either—

(1) The insider’s bank as of the latest

calendar quarter, or

(2) The bank’s correspondent banks at

any time during the previous calendar

year, equals or exceeds the lesser of 5

percent of the bank’s capital and surplus

or $500,000. This requirement applies

only if the insider’s (and his or her

related interest’s) aggregate

indebtedness described in paragraphs

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section exceeds

$25,000.

(b) A national bank need not disclose

additional information concerning

indebtedness of its executive officers

and principal shareholders. The bank

may base its disclosure under paragraph

(a)(1) of this section on the bank’s most

recent Consolidated Report of Condition

and Income. The bank may base its

disclosure under paragraph (a)(2) of this

section on information contained in the

reports referred to in § 31.6.

(c) A national bank shall maintain

records of any requests for information

under paragraph (a) of this section and

records of the disposition of these

requests for two years from the date of

the request.

§ 31.7 Reports by executive officers and

principal shareholders.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(i),

each executive officer and principal

shareholder of a national bank shall

report annually to the bank’s board of

directors his or her indebtedness, and

the indebtedness of his or her related

interests, from correspondent banks of

the insider’s bank. For purposes of this

section, the requirements stated in 12

CFR 215.22 (which implements the

insider reporting requirements imposed

by 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(G)(i)) apply.

Interpretations

§ 31.100 Loans secured by stock or

obligations of an affiliate.

If a loan to an affiliate is otherwise

adequately secured in compliance with

12 U.S.C. 371c(c), a national bank may

take a security interest in the securities

of an affiliate as additional collateral

without the loan being considered a

covered transaction for purposes of the

limits on transactions with affiliates in

12 U.S.C. 371c(a)(1) (A) and (B).

§ 31.101 Federal funds transactions

between affiliates.

The limitations contained in 12 U.S.C.

371c apply to the sale of federal funds

by a national bank to an affiliate of the

bank.

§ 31.102 Deposits between affiliated

banks.

(a) General rule. The OCC considers a

deposit made by a bank in an affiliated

bank to be a loan or extension of credit

to the affiliate under 12 U.S.C. 371c.

These deposits must be secured in

accordance with 12 U.S.C. 371c(c).

However, a national bank may not

pledge assets to secure private deposits

unless otherwise permitted by law (see,

e.g., 12 U.S.C. 90 (permitting

collateralization of deposits of public

funds); 12 U.S.C. 92a (trust funds); and

25 U.S.C. 156 and 162a (Native

American funds)). Thus, unless one of

the exceptions to 12 U.S.C. 371c noted

in paragraph (b), of this section, applies

or unless another exception applies that

enables a bank to meet the collateral

requirements of 12 U.S.C. 371c(c), a

national bank may not:

(1) Make a deposit in an affiliated

national bank;

(2) Make a deposit in an affiliated

State-chartered bank unless the

affiliated State-chartered bank can

legally offer collateral for the deposit in

conformance with applicable State law

and 12 U.S.C. 371c; or

(3) Receive deposits from an affiliated

bank.

(b) Exceptions. The restrictions of 12

U.S.C. 371c (other than 12 U.S.C.

371c(a)(4), which requires affiliate

transactions to be consistent with safe

and sound banking practices) do not

apply to deposits:

(1) Made in the ordinary course of

correspondent business; or

(2) Made in an affiliate that qualifies

as a ‘‘sister bank’’ under 12 U.S.C.

371c(d)(1).

Dated: November 28, 1995.

Eugene A. Ludwig,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 95–30028 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–226–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document revises an

earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to certain Boeing

Model 747 series airplanes, that would

have required modification of the left

and right inboard elevator servo

assemblies and the hydraulic routing of

the right inboard elevator power control

package (PCP). That proposal was

prompted by a report of an

uncommanded right elevator deflection

after takeoff and reports of elevator/

control column bumps during landing

gear retraction on these airplanes. This

action revises the proposed rule by

revising the applicability of the

proposed AD to add additional

airplanes and additional part numbers

of the elevator PCP’s, and by including

additional service information. The

actions specified by this proposed AD

are intended to prevent uncommanded

elevator deflection, which could result

in structural damage and reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

226–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207; and Parker Hannifin

Corporation, Customer Support

Operations, 16666 Von Karman Avenue,

Irvine, California 92714. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathi N. Ishimaru, Aerospace Engineer,
63466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2674; fax (206) 227–1181.

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 94–NM–226–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–NM–226–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to add an airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, was

published as a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on March 3, 1995 (60 FR

11942). That NPRM would have

required modification of the left and

right inboard elevator servo assemblies

and re-routing the hydraulic tubing of

the inboard elevator power control

package (PCP). That NPRM was

prompted by a report of an

uncommanded right elevator deflection

after takeoff and reports of elevator/

control column bumps during landing

gear retraction on these airplanes. That

condition, if not corrected, could result

in structural damage and reduced

controllability of the airplane.

Due consideration has been given to

the comments received in response to

the NPRM.

One commenter requests that

paragraph (a) of the proposal be revised

to cite the latest revision of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–27A2348 when

referring to the applicability of that

paragraph. This commenter states that

Revision 1 of the service bulletin

includes additional airplanes that are

also subject to the proposed AD. The

FAA concurs. The FAA inadvertently

cited the original version, dated

November 17, 1994, of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–27A2348 in

paragraph (a) of the proposal when

referring to the applicable airplanes for

that paragraph. Since that revision level

is incorrect, the FAA has removed it and

referenced Revision 1, dated January 26,

1995, in its place in paragraph (a) of the

supplemental NPRM.

One commenter states that Model

747SP series airplanes should be subject

to paragraph (b) of the proposal. The

FAA acknowledges that Model 747SP

series airplanes were inadvertently

omitted from the applicability of the

proposal. The FAA’s intent was that the

proposed rule be applicable to all Model

747 series airplanes (i.e., Model 747–

100, –200B, –200F, –200C, 747SR,

747SP, 747–100B, –300, –100B SUD,

–400, –400D, and –400F series

airplanes). Therefore, the FAA has

revised the applicability statement of

the supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Since these changes expand the scope

of the originally proposed rule, the FAA

has determined that it is necessary to

reopen the comment period to provide

additional opportunity for public

comment.

In addition, due consideration has

been given to the following additional

comments, which do not change the

scope of the originally proposed rule,

received in response to the NPRM.

Three commenters request that the

compliance time for paragraph (a) of the

proposal be extended from the proposed

1 year. One of these commenters states

that such an extension will allow

operators to accomplish the

modification during a regularly

scheduled heavy maintenance visit. The

FAA does not concur. In developing an

appropriate compliance time for this

action, the FAA considered not only the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition,

but the availability of required parts and

the practical aspects of installing the

required modification within an interval

of time that parallels normal scheduled

maintenance for the majority of affected

operators. The manufacturer has

advised that an ample number of

required parts should be available for

modification of the U.S. fleet within the

proposed compliance period. Further,

the FAA has determined that a heavy

maintenance visit is not required to

accomplish the modification.

Several commenters state that

paragraph (b) of the proposed rule is

unjustified because there have been no

reports of actuator jamming on the

classic Model 747 (747–100, –100B

SUD, –200, –300, SR, SP) series

airplanes after accumulating 87 million

flight hours. One of these commenters

states that the safety concern

surrounding the configuration of the

servo valve assembly of the inboard

elevator PCP is theoretical at best.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ suggestion that paragraph

(b) of the proposed rule is unjustified.

The FAA finds that the lack of reported

jams and subsequent uncommanded

elevator motion may be attributed, in

part, to the small percentage of airplanes

that recorded the elevator position

while accumulating the 87 million flight

hours. Paragraph (c)(10) of section

121.343, ‘‘Flight recorders’’, of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14

CFR 121.343) requires that operators

record either the control column or

pitch control surface position (i.e., the

position of the elevator and the

stabilizer) of the airplane. Operators

may comply with section 121.343 by

electing to record the control column

position, which is not a positive

indicator of the elevator position.

Consequently, incidents of

uncommanded elevator motion due to

actuator jamming may have occurred,

but were not reported due to the

flightcrew’s inability to confirm the

anomaly. Furthermore, the FAA finds

that uncommanded elevator motion may

occur on all Boeing Model 747 series

airplanes if the servo valve secondary

slide moves to the valve’s internal stop.

Therefore, the FAA finds that this AD

action is warranted since an unsafe

condition exists, which is identified as

reduced controllability or structural

damage to the airplane due to

asymmetric elevator.

One commenter states that only

Model 747–400 series airplanes have

experienced actuator jamming with

uncommanded elevator deflection. The

commenter also states that the

uncommanded elevator deflection

problem has been directly attributed to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 63467

the fact that Model 747–400 series

airplanes have the hydraulic system

number 4 connected to the pressure

sensitive side of the servo valve of the

right inboard elevator PCP. The

commenter contends that rerouting the

hydraulic tubing, as required by

paragraph (a) of the proposal (which

references Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

747–27A2348, Revision 1, dated January

26, 1995, as the appropriate source of

service information) will alleviate this

problem. The commenter notes that

Model 747–100, –200, –300, and SP

series airplanes, which do not have the

hydraulic system number 4 connected

to the pressure sensitive side of the

servo valve of the right inboard elevator

PCP, have not experienced the

uncommanded elevator deflection

problem.

From this comment, the FAA infers

that the commenter is requesting that

paragraph (b) of the proposal be deleted.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA has

reviewed the pressure survey data for

the number 3 and number 4 systems

that was submitted by another

commenter. The FAA finds that

pressure fluctuations, which contribute

to uncommanded elevator deflection,

occur in hydraulic system number 3, as

well as hydraulic system number 4.

Therefore, the FAA finds that these data

do not substantiate the commenter’s

suggestion that routing the hydraulic

system number 3 to the sensitive side of

the servo valve would preclude

uncommanded elevator deflection.

One commenter states that paragraph

(b) of the proposal, which is applicable

to certain Model 747–100, –200, –300,

and –400 series airplanes, references

Parker Service Bulletin 327400–27–171

as the appropriate source of service

information. The commenter further

states that this service bulletin is not

applicable to certain Model 747–100,

–100B SUD, –200, –300, SR, and SP

series airplanes, since the elevator

power control packages specified in

Parker Service Bulletin 327400–27–171

are not installed on these airplanes. The

FAA’s intent was to reference a service

bulletin that addressed a modification

for all affected airplane models. The

FAA has reviewed and approved Parker

Service Bulletin 93600–27–173, dated

May 17, 1995. The modification

procedures described in this service

bulletin are identical to those described

in Parker Service Bulletin 327400–27–

171. The effectivity listing of Parker

Service Bulletin 93600–27–173 contains

elevator PCP’s having part numbers

(P/N) 93600–5005 through –5051

inclusive, which are installed on certain

Model 747–100, –100B SUD, –200,

–300, SR, and SP series airplanes. The

FAA has revised the applicability

statement of the supplemental NPRM to

include these additional P/N’s.

Additionally, the FAA has revised

paragraph (b) of the supplemental

NPRM to include this service bulletin as

an additional source of service

information.

One commenter requests that

applicability of paragraph (b) of the

proposal be limited to Model 747–100,

–100B SUD, –200, –300, SR, and SP

series airplanes (‘‘classic’’) having

cumulative line (C/L) 696 and

subsequent and that the compliance

time be extended from 3 years to 5 years

for those airplanes. The commenter

contends that the aft fuselage limit load

can be exceeded if the residual pressure

at the actuator pistons exceeds 800

pounds per square inch (psi)/cylinder.

The commenter further contends that

the probability of exceeding this is less

than 1 × 10e–5. This pressure assumes

the valve jammed at the most adverse

position achievable from pilot inputs.

The commenter states that the aft

fuselage limit load can be exceeded for

classic airplanes having C/L 001

through 695 inclusive, if the residual

pressure at the actuator pistons exceeds

1,700 psi/cylinder. The commenter also

states that the probability of exceeding

the structural limit is less than 1 × 10e–

9.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to limit the

applicability and extend the compliance

time of paragraph (b) of the proposal.

Following a review of the commenter’s

probability analysis, the FAA has

determined that the commenter has

based its analysis on a sampling that

was much too small from which

accurate statistical conclusions that

would be representative of the fleet

could be drawn. Further, the FAA finds

that the flow rate and differential

pressures used by this commenter were

not substantiated to be the worst case

scenario. Therefore, based on this

flawed probability analysis, no change

to the supplemental NPRM is

warranted.

One commenter requests that Boeing

Model 747–400 series airplanes be

removed from the applicability of

paragraph (b) of the proposal. The

commenter states that if the valve jams,

the resultant asymmetric elevator will

not result in structural damage on these

airplanes. The FAA does not concur.

The FAA has determined that, although

the asymmetric elevator may not

damage Model 747–400 series airplanes,

an unsafe condition (i.e., reduced

controllability) still exists.

Two commenters request that the

compliance time for paragraph (b) of the

proposal be extended from the proposed

3 years to 5 years. One commenter states

that it does not have enough seed units

to accomplish the modification at their

own facilities within the proposed

compliance time. The FAA does not

concur. As stated above, the FAA

considered the availability of required

parts and the practical aspects of

installing the required modification. In

addition, the FAA finds that other

maintenance facilities are available to

operators that are unable to accomplish

the modification at their own facilities.

However, under paragraph (c) of the

proposed rule, the FAA may approve

requests for adjustments to the

compliance time if data are submitted to

substantiate that such an adjustment

would provide an acceptable level of

safety.

One commenter questions the FAA’s

estimate of the cost of required

replacement parts for classic Model 747

series airplanes. The commenter states

that the $3,720 per airplane figure,

presented in the cost impact

information in the preamble to the

notice, is too low. This commenter

suggests that parts costs will be

approximately $7,440 per airplane (2

elevator power control packages at

$3,720 each). After considering the data

presented by the commenter, the FAA

concurs that the cost of required parts

per airplane is higher than previously

estimated; the economic impact

information, below, has been revised to

indicate this higher amount.

There are approximately 672 Model

747–100, –100B SUD, –200, –300, SR,

and SP series airplanes, and 357 Model

747–400 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet, a total of

1,029 airplanes.

The FAA estimates that 114 Model

747–100, –100B SUD, –200, –300, SR,

and SP series airplanes of U.S. registry

would be affected by this proposed AD,

that it would take approximately 73

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the proposed actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $7,440 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,347,480, or $11,820

per airplane.

The FAA estimates that 65 Model

747–400 series airplanes of U.S. registry

would be affected by this proposed AD,

that it would take approximately 111

work hours per airplane to accomplish

the proposed actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $12,269 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact
63468 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,230,385, or $18,929

per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Boeing: Docket 94–NM–226–AD.

Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes,

equipped with Parker inboard elevator power

control packages (PCP) having part numbers

(P/N) 93600–5005 through –5051 inclusive,

or P/N’s 327400–1001, –1003, –1005, and

–1007; 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) of this AD to

request approval from the FAA. This

approval may address either no action, if the

current configuration eliminates the unsafe

condition; or different actions necessary to

address the unsafe condition described in

this AD. Such a request should include an

assessment of the effect of the changed

configuration on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. In no case does the

presence of any modification, alteration, or

repair remove any airplane from the

applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent uncommanded elevator

deflection, which could result in structural

damage and reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) For Model 747–400 series airplanes, as

listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–

27A2348, Revision 1, dated January 26, 1995:

Within 1 year after the effective date of this

AD, modify the hydraulic tubing of the right

inboard elevator PCP, in accordance with

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2348,

Revision 1, dated January 26, 1995.

(b) For all airplanes: Within 3 years after

the effective date of this AD, modify the left

and right servo assemblies of the inboard

elevator PCP, in accordance with Parker

Service Bulletin 327400–27–171, Revision 1,

dated April 14, 1995, or Parker Service

Bulletin 93600–27–173, dated May 17, 1995,

as applicable.

(c) 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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 5, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–30074 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–99–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F28 Mark 0100 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 Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100

series airplanes. This proposal would

require inspections to verify the correct

operation of the main landing gear

(MLG) downlock actuators, and

replacement of any discrepant unit with

a serviceable unit. The proposed AD

also would require eventual

replacement of the MLG downlock

actuators with improved units. This

proposal is prompted by reports of

improper operation of the MLG

downlock actuator due to jamming. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent such jamming of

the downlock actuator, which could

result in failure of the MLG downlock

system, and a potential gear-up landing.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

99–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

Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North

Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia

22314, and Dowty Aerospace, Customer

Support Center, P.O. Box 49, Sterling,

VA 20166. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2141; fax (206) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such