Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8591

2Since this summary supplements the

independent public accountant’s attestation on the

Designated Laws, the FDIC has determined that the

summary is exempt from public disclosure

consistent with the guidance in Guideline 18 in

Appendix A to this part 363.

compare management’s calculations to the

amount of any dividend declared to

determine whether it exceeded the amount.

6. Dividends Declared by Banks.

a. Information. Obtain the computations by

the management of each national and state

member bank concerning the bank’s

compliance with 12 U.S.C. 56, ‘‘Capital

Limitation Test’’, 12 U.S.C. 60, ‘‘The Earnings

Limitation Test’’, and transfers from surplus

to undivided profits after declaration of the

dividends referenced in paragraph 4.a. of this

section. In a state with substantially similar

laws, obtain the corresponding computations

by the management of each state nonmember

bank.

b. Procedures. Recalculate management’s

computations (for mathematical accuracy)

and compare management’s calculations to

the standards defined in the tests set forth in

paragraph 6.a. of this section to ascertain

whether the dividends declared fall within

the permissible levels under these standards.

If dividends are not permissible in the

amounts declared under such standards,

ascertain whether the dividends were

declared with the approval of the appropriate

federal banking agency or under any other

exception to the standards. If not, report the

findings.

7. Dividends Declared by Savings

Associations.

a. Information. Obtain management’s

documentation of the OTS determination

whether the institution is a Tier 1, Tier 2, or

Tier 3 savings association and management’s

computations of its capital ratio after

declarations of dividends under the Tier

determined by the OTS. For dividends

declared, obtain copies of the savings

association’s notifications to the OTS to

ascertain whether notifications were made at

least 30 days before payment of any

dividends.

b. Procedures: Recalculate management’s

computations (for mathematical accuracy)

and trace amounts used by management in its

calculations to the institution’s TFRs.

Section II—Procedures for the Independent

Public Accountant

If the internal auditor has performed the

procedures set forth in section I for either or

both Designated Laws, the following

procedures may be performed by the

independent public accountant for the

appropriate designated law(s) if neither the

FDIC nor the appropriate federal banking

agency has objected in writing. The report of

procedures performed and list of exceptions

found by the internal auditor, identifying the

institution with respect to which any

exception was found, should be submitted to

the audit committee of the board of directors.

Management should file a summary of the

internal auditor’s significant findings and

management’s response to those findings

with the FDIC at the same time as the

independent public accountant’s attestation

report is filed.2

A. Review of Designated Laws. Read either

or both of the Designated Insider Laws and

Designated Dividend Laws applicable to the

institution, as appropriate to the engagement.

B. Information and Procedures. Perform

the procedures indicated as follows:

1. Designated Laws. Read Section I of this

schedule. Obtain management’s assessment

contained in its management report on the

institution’s or holding company’s

compliance with the Designated Laws for the

fiscal year.

2. Internal Auditor’s Workpapers.

a. Information. If an internal auditor

performed the procedures in Section I, obtain

the internal auditor’s workpapers

documenting the performance of those

procedures on the institution and the chief

internal auditor’s written representation that:

(1) The internal auditor or audit staff, if

applicable, performed the procedures listed

in section I on the institution;

(2) The internal auditor tested a sufficient

number of transactions governed by the

Designated Laws so that the testing was

representative of the institution’s volume of

transactions;

(3) The workpapers accurately reflect the

work performed by the internal auditor and,

if applicable, the internal audit staff;

(4) The workpapers obtained are complete;

and

(5) The internal auditor’s report, which

describes the procedures performed for the

fiscal year as well as the internal auditor’s

findings and exceptions noted, has been

presented to the institution’s audit

committee.

b. Procedures.

(1) Compare the workpapers to the

procedures that are required to be performed

under section I. Report as an exception any

procedures not documented and any

procedures for which the sample size is not

sufficient.

(2) Compare the exceptions and errors

listed by the internal auditor in its report to

the audit committee to those found in the

workpapers, and report as an exception any

exception or error found in the internal

auditor’s workpapers and not listed in the

internal auditor’s list of exceptions.

3. Testing. a. The independent public

accountant should perform the procedures

listed in Section I on representative samples

of the insiders and/or transactions of the

institution to which the Designated Law

applies. If the institution’s internal auditor is

performing the procedures in Section I, the

samples tested by the independent public

accountant should be at least 30 percent of

the size of the samples tested by the internal

auditor although samples selected by the

accountant should be from the population at

large. However, if there are so few

transactions in any area that the internal

auditor cannot use sampling, but must test all

transactions, the independent public

accountant should also test all transactions.

b. If the testing is being performed on a

holding company with more than one

subsidiary institution that is subject to this

part 363 (covered subsidiary), the samples

tested should include a combination of

insiders and transactions from each covered

subsidiary with total assets (after deductions

of intercompany amounts that would be

eliminated in consolidation) in excess of 25

percent of the holding company’s total assets

every fiscal year. Samples should be tested

for each smaller covered subsidiary at least

every other fiscal year unless the holding

company has more than eight covered

subsidiaries, in which case the samples to be

tested for each Designated Law should be

drawn from each smaller covered subsidiary

at least every third fiscal year.

4. Reports Concerning Holding Companies.

Only one report of any exceptions noted from

application of the procedures in section II

performed by the independent public

accountant should be filed as required by

guideline 3 in Appendix A to this part 363,

but the report should identify, for each

exception or error noted, the identity of the

covered subsidiary to which it relates.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, D.C. this 31st day of

January, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3176 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6174–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–251–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–400 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

Boeing Model 747–400 series airplanes,

that currently requires a revision to the

input wiring for the flap control unit.

This action would require a new

systems test for the wiring of the trailing

edge flap. The proposal would also

expand the applicability of the existing

AD to include additional airplanes. This

proposal is prompted by a report

indicating that a wiring error was not

detected by the system test required by

the existing AD. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent the possibility of an all-flaps-up

landing due to the loss of control of all

flap operations.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,
8592 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

251–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. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristin Larson, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (206) 227–1760; 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–251–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–251–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On July 1, 1994, the FAA issued AD

94–14–21, amendment 39–8970 (59 FR

35240, July 11, 1994), applicable to

certain Boeing Model 747–400 series

airplanes, to require a revision to the

input wiring for the flap control unit

(FCU). That action was prompted by

reports of disconnection of the Landing

Gear Module electrical connectors,

which can result in the loss of the

primary, secondary, and alternate

control of the flaps. The requirements of

that AD are intended to prevent the

possibility of an all-flaps-up landing

due to the loss of control of all flap

operations.

Since issuance of that AD, an operator

has reported a wiring error of the

Landing Gear Module that was not

detected by the system test (Work

Package I) required by AD 94–14–21,

and described in Boeing Service

Bulletin 747–27A2346, Revision 1,

dated May 19, 1994. This wiring error

could allow the connectors to become

disconnected, and all FCU modes of flap

operation (primary, secondary, and

alternate control of flaps) could be lost.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in all-flaps-up landing due to the

loss of control of all flap operations.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–27A2346,

Revision 2, dated January 12, 1995,

which provides procedures for a

systems test (Work Package II) of the

trailing edge flap to detect incorrect

wiring. It also expands the effectivity

listing to include additional affected

airplanes.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 94–14–21 to continue to

require revision of the input wiring for

the flap control unit, but would include

the addition of a new systems test for

the wiring of the trailing edge flap. The

proposed AD also would expand the

applicability of the existing AD to

include additional airplanes. The

actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this requirement.

There are approximately 310 Model

747–400 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 36 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately .5 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,080, or $30 per

airplane.

The total 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8593

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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–8970 (59 FR

35240, July 11, 1994), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 94–NM–251–AD. Supersedes

AD 94–14–21, Amendment 39–8970.

Applicability: Model 747–400 series

airplanes having line numbers 696 through

1036 inclusive; 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 (d) 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.

Note 2: Paragraph (a) of this AD merely

restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of

AD 94–14–21, amendment 39–8970. As

allowed by the phrase, ‘‘unless accomplished

previously,’’ if those requirements of AD 94–

14–21 have already been accomplished, this

AD does not require that those actions be

repeated.

To prevent the possibility of an all-flapsup landing due to the loss of control of flap

operations, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes having serial numbers 696

through 1019 inclusive, and 1021 through

1026 inclusive: Within 30 days after August

10, 1994 (the effective date of AD 94–14–21,

amendment 39–8970), revise the input wiring

for the flap control unit (FCU) in accordance

with Boeing Service Bulletin 747–27A2346,

Revision 1, dated May 19, 1994, or Revision

2, dated January 12, 1995.

(b) For airplanes having serial numbers

1020, and 1027 through 1036 inclusive:

Within 30 days after the effective date of this

AD, revise the input wiring for the FCU in

accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin

747–27A2346, Revision 2, dated January 12,

1995.

(c) For airplanes having serial numbers 696

through 1036 inclusive: Within 120 days

after the effective date of this AD, perform

the additional systems test for the wiring of

the trailing edge flap in accordance with

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–27A2346,

Revision 2, dated January 12, 1995.

(d) 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 Aircraft 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 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(e) 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 February 9, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3752 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–218–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream

Aircraft Limited Model 4101 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to all

Jetstream Model 4101 airplanes, that

currently requires modification of the

mounting structure of the elevator

controls on the rear pressure bulkhead.

That proposal was prompted by results

of a structural analysis which indicate

that certain structure in the elevator

control system may be subject to

deformation when maximum load is

exerted by the pilot(s) in the event of a

jam in the elevator control cables. This

action would limit the applicability of

the rule. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

reduced controllability of the airplane

due to structural deformation in the

elevator control system.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

218–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

Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 16029,

Dulles International Airport,

Washington, DC 20041–6029. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

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–218–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.