61262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

VI. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

OTS had determined that the final

rule will not result in expenditures by

state, local, or tribal governments or by

the private sector of $100 million or

more. Accordingly, this rulemaking is

not subject to section 202 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 509

Administrative practice and

procedure, Penalties.

12 CFR Part 510

Administrative practice and

procedure.

Accordingly, OTS amends chapter V,

title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as

set forth below:

PART 509—RULES OF PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE IN ADJUDICATORY

PROCEEDINGS

1. The authority citation for part 509

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504, 554–557; 12

U.S.C. 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1817(j), 1818,

3349, 4717; 15 U.S.C. 78(l), 78o–5, 78u–2; 28

U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 5321; 42 U.S.C.

4012a.

2. In § 509.103, add paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 509.103 Civil money penalties.

* * * * *

(c) Inflation adjustment. Under the

Federal Civil Monetary Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28

U.S.C. 2461 note), OTS must adjust for

inflation the civil monetary penalties in

statutes that it administers. The

following chart displays the adjusted

civil money penalties. The amounts in

this chart apply to violations that occur

after October 17, 2000:

U.S. Code citation CMP description New maximum

amount

12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(4) ........ Reports of Condition—1st Tier .......................................................................................................... $2,200

12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(5) ........ Reports of Condition—2nd Tier ......................................................................................................... 22,000

12 U.S.C. 1464(v)(6) ........ Reports of Condition—3rd Tier .......................................................................................................... 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1467(d) ............. Refusal to Cooperate in Exam ........................................................................................................... 5,500

12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(2) ....... Holding Company Act Violation ......................................................................................................... 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1467a(i)(3) ....... Holding Company Act Violation ......................................................................................................... 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(1) ....... Late/Inaccurate Reports—1st Tier ..................................................................................................... 2,200

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(2) ....... Late/Inaccurate Reports—2nd Tier .................................................................................................... 22,000

12 U.S.C. 1467a(r)(3) ....... Late/Inaccurate Reports—3rd Tier ..................................................................................................... 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(A) ... Change in Control—1st Tier .............................................................................................................. 5,500

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(B) ... Change in Control—2nd Tier ............................................................................................................. 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(C) .. Change in Control—3rd Tier .............................................................................................................. 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(A) ..... Violation of Law or Unsafe or Unsound Practice—1st Tier ............................................................... 5,500

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(B) ..... Violation of Law or Unsafe or Unsound Practice—2nd Tier ............................................................. 27,500

12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(C) .... Violation of Law or Unsafe or Unsound Practice—3rd Tier .............................................................. 1,175,000

12 U.S.C. 1884 ................. Violation of Security Rules ................................................................................................................. 110

12 U.S.C. 3349(b) ............. Appraisals Violation—1st Tier ............................................................................................................ 5,500

12 U.S.C. 3349(b) ............. Appraisals Violation—2nd Tier ........................................................................................................... 27,500

12 U.S.C. 3349(b) ............. Appraisals Violation—3rd Tier ........................................................................................................... 1,175,000

42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) ............ Flood Insurance ................................................................................................................................. 350/115,000

PART 510—MISCELLANEOUS

ORGANIZATIONAL REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 510

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464;

Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890; Pub. L. 104–

134, 110 Stat. 1321–358.

§ 510.6 [Removed]

4. Section 510.6 is removed.

Dated: October 4, 2000.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Ellen Seidman,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–26336 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–01–AD; Amendment

39–11923; AD 2000–20–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerotechnik

s.r.o. Model L 13 SEH VIVAT Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to all Aerotechnik s.r.o.

(Aerotechnik) Model L 13 SEH VIVAT

sailplanes. This AD requires you to

inspect the tail-fuselage hinge for

strength requirements and damage, and

also requires you to replace any hinge

with damage or that does not meet

strength requirements. This AD is the

result of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI)

issued by the airworthiness authority for

the Czech Republic. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

detect and correct any tail-fuselage

hinge that is damaged or has inadequate

material characteristics. Any tailfuselage hinge with damage or

inadequate material characteristics

could fail and result in loss of

controlled flight.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

November 27, 2000.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulations as of November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

Aerotechnik s.r.o., 686 04 Kunovic,

Czech Republic; telephone: +420 632

537 111; facsimile: +420 632 537 900.

You may examine this information at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–CE–01–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 61263

Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC

20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 329–4144; facsimile:

(816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What events have caused this AD?

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the Czech Republic, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on all Aerotechnik Model L 13

SEH VIVAT sailplanes. The CAA

reports an incident involving one of the

affected sailplanes where the tailfuselage attachment fitting was

damaged. Further analysis reveals that

the material characteristics of the tailfuselage attachment fitting were

inadequate.

What are the consequences if the

condition is not corrected? The tailfuselage attachment fitting is a primary

structural element within the

empennage. Failure of this part, if not

detected and corrected, could result in

loss of controlled flight.

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? We issued a proposal to amend

part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include

an AD that would apply to all

Aerotechnik Model L 13 SEH VIVAT

sailplanes. This proposal was published

in the Federal Register as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

August 9, 2000 (65 FR 48646). The

NPRM proposed to require you to

inspect the tail-fuselage hinge for

strength requirements and damage, and

would require you to replace any hinge

with damage or that does not meet

strength requirements.

Was the public invited to comment?

Interested persons were afforded an

opportunity to participate in the making

of this amendment. No comments were

received on the proposed rule or the

FAA’s determination of the cost to the

public.

The FAA’s Determination

What is FAA’s Final Determination on

this Issue? After careful review of all

available information related to the

subject presented above, we have

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. We determined

that these minor corrections:

• Will not change the meaning of the

AD; and

• Will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Cost Impact

How many sailplanes does this AD

impact? We estimate that this AD affects

20 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the

inspection for the affected sailplanes on

the U.S. Register? We estimate that it

will take approximately 4 workhours

per sailplane to accomplish the

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 an hour. Based on the cost factors

presented above, we estimate the total

cost impact of the inspection on U.S.

operators to be $4,800, or $240 per

sailplane.

What is the cost impact of the

replacement for the affected sailplanes

on the U.S. Register? We estimate that

it will take approximately 16 workhours

per sailplane to accomplish the

replacement (as necessary), at an

average labor rate of $60 an hour. The

manufacturer will provide the

replacement attachment fittings at no

cost. Based on the cost factors presented

above, we estimate the total labor cost

impact of the replacement on U.S.

operators to be $960 per sailplane.

Regulatory Impact

Does this AD impact various entities?

The regulations adopted herein will not

have a substantial direct effect on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule

or regulatory action? For the reasons

discussed above, I certify that this

action (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866;

(2) is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the final

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, Incorporation by Reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority

delegated to me by the Administrator,

the Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. FAA amends Section 39.13 by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

2000–20–12 Aerotechnik S.R.O.:

Amendment 39–11923; Docket No.

2000–CE–01–AD.

(a) What sailplanes are affected by this

AD? This AD applies to Model L 13 SEH

VIVAT sailplanes, all serial numbers,

certificated in any category.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above sailplanes on the U.S. Register must

comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to prevent the tail-fuselage hinge failing and

consequent loss of controlled flight.

(d) What must I do to address this

problem? To address this problem, you must

accomplish the following actions:

Actions Compliance times Procedures

(1) Inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting,

part number (P/N) A 102 021N, for damage

and material hardness.

Within the next 60 days after November 27,

2000 (the effective date of this AD).

Follow the procedures in the Aerotechnik

Service Bulletin SEH 13–005a, dated November 18, 1999.

(2) If the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in the service

bulletin, you must replace the tail-fuselage

attachment fitting.

Before further flight after the inspection ........... You must notify Aerotechnik and request they

send the replacement part with installation

instructions.

61264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Actions Compliance times Procedures

(3) Do not install, on any sailplane, a P/N A

102 021N attachment fitting that has not

passed the inspection requirements specified

in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD.

As of November 27, 2000 (the effective date

of this AD.

Inspect any attachment fitting in accordance

with the previously referenced service bulletin.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate approves your alternative. Submit

your request through an FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For sailplanes 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 you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Mike Kiesov, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4144; facsimile:

(816) 329–4090.

(g) What if I need to fly the sailplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your sailplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) Are any service bulletins incorporated

into this AD by reference? Actions required

by this AD must be done in accordance with

Aerotechnik CZ Service Bulletin SEH 13–

005a, dated November 18, 1999. The Director

of the Federal Register approved this

incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get copies

from Aerotechnikcz s.r.o., 686 04 Kunovic,

Czech Republic; telephone: +420 632 537

111; facsimile: +420 632 537 900. You can

look at copies at the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust,

Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC 20001.

(i) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on November 27, 2000.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Czech Republic AD Number CAA–AD–T–

112/1999, dated November 18, 1999.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

September 28, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25553 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 000524152–0274–02; I.D.

030100C]

RIN 0648–AM34

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Vessel Monitoring

System (VMS)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; VMS component

notice of approval.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule

requiring vessels participating in the

directed fishery for Atka mackerel in the

Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area to

carry and use a Vessel Monitoring

System (VMS) transmitter, and revising

regulations governing Atka mackerel

harvest in the Community Development

Quota (CDQ) fisheries. Additionally,

NMFS issues notification of the

approval of VMS components for use off

Alaska. These actions are necessary to

enhance monitoring of fishery activities

within critical habitat areas. They are

intended to further the conservation

goals and objectives of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area (FMP).

DATES: Effective November 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory

Impact Review/Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA)

prepared for this action may be obtained

from Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668,

Attn: Lori Gravel, or by calling the

Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907–586–7228.

Send comments on any ambiguity or

unnecessary complexity arising from the

language used in this final rule to the

Regional Administrator at the same

address. Send comments on collectionof-information requirements to the same

address and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget (OMB),

Washington DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA

Desk Officer).

For ArgoNet Mar GE information,

contact NACLS Inc., 9200 Basil Court,

Suite 306, Largo, MD 20774; phone 301–

341–1814.

To obtain copies of the list of

approved VMS components, VMS

installation instructions, or to apply to

have a VMS component approved for

use off Alaska, contact Guy Holt,

Enforcement Division, Alaska Region,

NMFS, P.O. Box 21767, Juneau, AK

99802–1668; phone (907)–586-9353.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Kinsolving, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NMFS notes as an initial point that as

a result of a U.S. District Court Order,

NMFS has closed waters within critical

habitat to all trawling. An interim rule

implementing this closure was

published on August 15, 2000 (65 FR

49766). While this closure is in effect,

no trawling for Atka mackerel may

occur inside critical habitat and no Atka

mackerel catch should accrue against

the inside critical habitat portion of the

quota, unless it is harvested by nontrawl gear. This rule does not affect that

closure.

In 1997, NMFS listed the western

stock of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias

jubatus) as an endangered species. A

statutory requirement of the Endangered

Species Act is that Federal actions taken

within the critical habitat of a listed

species must not jeopardize the

continued existence of the populations

of those species or adversely affect or

modify their critical habitat. Because

Atka mackerel are an important prey

species for Steller sea lions, the Atka

mackerel fishery must be managed to

avoid potential jeopardy to Steller sea

lions.