Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 36799

extend the time period established by

the regulations by 10 working days.

* * * * *

7. Amend § 792.57 by revising

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 792.57 Special Procedures: Information

furnished by other agencies; medical

records.

* * * * *

(b) When an individual requests

medical records concerning himself, the

NCUA official responsible for action on

the request may advise the individual

that the records to be released will be

provided first to a physician designated

in writing by the individual. The

physician will provide the records to

the individual.

8. Amend § 792.58 by revising the

fourth sentence of paragraph (a) to read

as follows:

§ 792.58 Requests for correction or

amendment to a record; administrative

review of requests.

* * * * *

(a) * * * An individual who does not

have access to NCUA’s ‘‘Notice of

Systems of Records,’’ and to whom the

appropriate address is otherwise

unavailable, may submit a request to the

Privacy Act Officer, Office of General

Counsel, National Credit Union

Administration, 1775 Duke Street,

Alexandria, Virginia, 22314–3428, in

which case the request will then be

referred to the appropriate NCUA

official.* * *

* * * * *

9. Amend § 792.59 by revising

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 792.59 Appeal of initial determination.

* * * * *

(e) If access is denied because of an

exemption, the individual will be

notified of the right to appeal that

determination to the General Counsel

within 30 days after receipt. Appeals

will be determined within 20 working

days.

10. Amend § 792.65 by revising

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 792.65 Fees.

(a) * * *

(1) For copies of documents provided,

copy fees as stated in NCUA’s current

FOIA fee schedule; and

* * * * *

11. Amend § 792.66 by revising the

first sentence of paragraph (a), and the

first two sentences of paragraph (b)(1),

and the first sentence of paragraph

(b)(2), and adding a new paragraph

(b)(4) as follows:

§ 792.66 Exemptions.

(a) NCUA maintains four systems of

records that are exempted from some

provisions of the Privacy Act. * * *

(b)(1) System NCUA–1, entitled

‘‘Employee Suitability Security

Investigations Containing Adverse

Information,’’ consists of adverse

information about NCUA employees

that had been obtained as a result of

routine U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) security

Investigations. To the extent that NCUA

maintains records in this system

pursuant to OPM guidelines that may

require retrieval of information by use of

individual identifiers, those records are

encompassed by and included in the

OPM Central system of records number

Central-9 entitled, ‘‘Personnel

Investigations Records,’’ and thus are

subject to the exemptions promulgated

by OPM. * * *

(2) System NCUA–8, entitled,

‘‘Investigative Reports Involving Any

Crime or Suspicious Activity Against a

Credit Union, NCUA,’’ consists of

investigatory or enforcement records

about individuals suspected of

involvement in violations of laws or

regulations, whether criminal or

administrative. * * *

* * * * *

(4) System NCUA–13, entitled,

‘‘Litigation Case Files,’’ consists of

investigatory materials compiled for law

enforcement purposes. Records in the

Litigation Case Files system are used in

connection with the execution of

NCUA’s legal and enforcement

responsibilities. Because the system

covers investigatory materials compiled

for law enforcement purposes, it is

eligible for exemption under subsection

(k)(2) of the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C.

552a(k)(2). The Litigation Case Files

system is exempt from subsections

(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I) and (f)

of the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3),

(d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I) and (f).

However, if an individual is denied any

right, privilege, or benefit to which he

would otherwise be entitled by federal

law, or for which he otherwise would be

eligible, as a result of the maintenance

of such records, the records or

information will be made available to

him, provided the identity of a

confidential source is not disclosed.

* * * * *

12. Amend § 792.69 by revising the

first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as

follows:

§ 792.69 Training and employee standards

of conduct with regard to privacy.

(a) The Director of the Office of

Training and Development, with advice

from the General Counsel, is responsible

for training NCUA employees in the

obligations imposed by the Privacy Act

and this subpart.* * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–14784 Filed 6–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–329–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–90–30 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 McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes, that would have required

replacement of certain ground block

screws with new screws; and

retermination of the circuit ground

wires of the electrical power control

unit (EPCU) to separate grounding

points. That proposal was prompted by

reports of complete loss of the primary

electrical power on an airplane during

flight. This new action revises the

proposed rule by expanding the

applicability of the proposed AD to

include additional airplanes. The

actions specified by this new proposed

AD are intended to prevent a loose

electrical ground block of the circuit

ground wires of the EPCU, which could

result in complete loss of the primary

electrical power of an airplane during

flight.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

329–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. Comments may also

be sent via the Internet using the

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

36800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

via the Internet must contain ‘‘Docket

No. 99–NM–329–AD’’ in the subject line

and need not be submitted in triplicate.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule 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 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Mabuni, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5341;

fax (562) 627–5210.

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.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

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–329–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–329–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

McDonnell Douglas Model MD–90–30

series airplanes, was published as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

in the Federal Register on December 7,

1999 (64 FR 68302). That NPRM would

have required replacement of certain

ground block screws with new screws;

and retermination of the circuit ground

wires of the electrical power control

unit (EPCU) to separate grounding

points. That NPRM was prompted by

reports of complete loss of the primary

electrical power on an airplane during

flight. That condition, if not corrected,

could result in a loose electrical ground

block of the circuit ground wires of the

EPCU, which could result in complete

loss of the primary electrical power of

an airplane during flight.

Comments

Due consideration has been given to

the comment received in response to the

NPRM:

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise paragraph (b) of the NPRM to

reference McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD90–24–062, dated February

3, 2000, as the appropriate source of

service information for accomplishing

the proposed retermination rather than

a method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate. The commenter states that

referencing the service bulletin will

eliminate the requirement for the ACO

to approve an alternative method of

compliance (AMOC), and that the

proposed retermination could be

accomplished easily in accordance with

the service bulletin.

The FAA concurs with the

commenter. Since issuance of the

NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and

approved McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD90–24–062, dated February

3, 2000. The service bulletin describes

procedures for relocating the ground

wires of the EPCU system and installing

a new ground stud bracket.

Accomplishment of this modification

will minimize the possibility of

electrical power loss of an airplane

during flight. Therefore, the FAA has

revised paragraph (b) of the

supplemental NPRM to reference the

subject service bulletin as the

appropriate source of service

information for accomplishing the

proposed retermination. In addition, the

FAA has revised the work hour estimate

of the final rule for accomplishing the

retermination to conicide with the

estimates in the subject service bulletin.

Explanation of Changes to the

Applicability of the NPRM

The applicability statement of the

NPRM referenced McDonnell Douglas

Alert Service Bulletin MD90–24A060,

Revision 01, dated September 2, 1999,

as the appropriate source of service

information for determining the affected

airplanes. However, the FAA has

revised the applicability statement of

the supplemental NPRM to also

reference McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD90–24–062, dated February

3, 2000. McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD90–24–062 (described

above) includes additional airplanes

that are subject to the identified unsafe

condition of this AD. As a result of this

change, the FAA also has revised the

applicability of paragraphs (a) and (b)

accordingly.

Conclusion

Since these changes expands 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.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 104 Model

MD–90–30 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

proposed replacement, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would be procured from

the operator’s stock. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the

replacement proposed by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,260,

or $60 per airplane.

It would take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 36801

proposed retermination of the circuit

ground wires of the EPCU, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. The

manufacturer has committed previously

to its customers that it will bear the cost

of replacement parts. As a result, the

cost of those parts is not attributable to

this proposed AD. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the

retermination proposed by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,260,

or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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.

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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 99–NM–329–

AD.

Applicability: Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas

Alert Service Bulletin MD90–24A060,

Revision 01, dated September 2, 1999, and

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90–

24–062, dated Feburary 3, 2000; 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 (c) 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 a loose electrical ground block

of the circuit ground wires of the electrical

power control unit (EPCU), accomplish the

following:

Replacement

(a) For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD90–

24A060, Revision 01, dated September 2,

1999: Within 30 days after the effective of

this AD, replace the electrical ground block

screws with new screws in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD90–24A060, Revision 01, dated

September 2, 1999.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the

replacement of electrical ground block

screws prior to the effective date of this AD

in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin MD90–24A060, dated July

28, 1999, is acceptable for compliance with

the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

Modification of the Electrical Power Control

Unit

(b) For airplanes listed in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin MD90–24–062,

dated February 3, 2000: Within 12 months

after the effective date of this AD, reterminate

the circuit ground wires of the EPCU to

separate grounding points to ensure that a

single point failure does not occur, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin MD90–24–062, dated February 3,

2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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, 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.

Note 3: 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

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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 June 6,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14795 Filed 6–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–104–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 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 and all Model

A300–600 and A310 series airplanes,

that currently requires performing a

pitch trim system test to detect any

continuity defect in the autotrim

function, and follow-on corrective

actions, if necessary. This action would

require repetitive inspections of the

autotrim function to detect such defects,

and corrective actions, if necessary. This

action also would expand the

applicability to include additional

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 a sudden change

in pitch due to an out-of-trim condition

combined with an autopilot disconnect,

which could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 12, 2000.