64340 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

submit information on the regulatory

and informational impacts of this action

on small businesses.

This action imposes no additional

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

on either small or large California

kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal

marketing order programs, reports and

forms are periodically reviewed to

reduce information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

An interim final rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on August 14, 2000 (65 FR

49472). Copies of that rule were also

mailed or sent via facsimile to all

kiwifruit handlers. Finally, the interim

final rule was made available through

the Internet by the Office of the Federal

Register. A 60-day comment period was

provided for interested persons to

respond to the interim final rule. The

comment period ended on October 13,

2000. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is amended as

follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 920 which was

published at 65 FR 49472 on August 14,

2000, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: October 23, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–27618 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–03–AD; Amendment

39–11946; AD 2000–21–14]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–12 and PC–12/

45 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.

(Pilatus) Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes. This AD requires you to

perform a one-time inspection for

abrasion damage, distortion, and proper

clearance of the torque oil-pressure

tubes and py pressure pipe, and if

necessary, adjust and replace these

components. This AD is the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Switzerland.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to correct abrasive damage

from rubbing pipes and consequent loss

of engine oil.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

December 15, 2000.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulations as of December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; facsimile:

+41 41 619 6224. You may examine this

information at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–

03–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC

20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What events have caused this AD?

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation

(FOCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland, recently

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Pilatus

Model PC–12 and PC–12/45 airplanes.

The FOCA reports that 3 airplanes had

rubbing pipes, 2 with consequent

leakage of engine oil. Inadequate

clearance caused these components to

touch and rub.

What are the consequences if you do

not correct the condition? This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in loss of propulsion during 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 certain

Pilatus Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes. This proposal was published

in the Federal Register as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

August 18, 2000 (65 FR 50466). The

NPRM proposed to require a one-time

inspection of the torque oil-pressure

tubes and py pressure pipe; and adjust

and replace, if necessary, the torque oilpressure tubes and py pressure pipe.

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 airplanes does this AD

impact? We estimate that this AD affects

108 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on

owners/operators of the affected

airplanes? We estimate the following

costs to accomplish the inspection:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64341

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. airplane

operators

1 workhour × $60 per hour = $60 ................................ No part required for the ......

inspection

$60 per airplane ................. $60 × 108 = $6,480.

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the adjustment and replacement:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. airplane

operators

2 workhours × $60 per hour = $120 ............................. The manufacturer will provide replacement parts at

no charge to the owner/

operator of the affected

airplanes.

$120 per airplane ............... $120 × 108 = $12,960.

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:

2000–21–14 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.:

Amendment 39–11946; Docket No.

2000–CE–03–AD.

(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD?

This AD affects Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN) 101 through MSN 301, that:

(1) Are certificated in any category; and

(2) Are equipped with any of the following

Pilatus torque oil-pressure tubes and py

pressure pipe assemblies:

(i) Pilatus part number (P/N) 577.11.12.105

(or FAA-approved equivalent part number);

(ii) Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) P/N

3119969 (or FAA-approved equivalent part

number); and

(iii) Pilatus P/N 577.11.12.104 (or FAAapproved equivalent part number).

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to correct chafing damage and consequent

loss of engine oil caused by rubbing pipes.

Such damage could result in loss of

propulsion during critical phases of flight.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following

actions:

Actions Compliance times Procedures

(1) Inspect the torque oil-pressure tubes and the py

pressure pipe assemblies for abrasion damage and

distortion.

Within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after December 15, 2000 (the effective date of the AD).

Accomplish in accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS—

AIRCRAFT paragraph of Pilatus Service

Bulletin No. 71–004, dated December

22, 1999.

(2) If there is any abrasion damage or distortion, accomplish the following.Before further flight after the inspection ..... As specified in the above-referenced service information.

(i) Replace the pipes and tubes with the damage or

distortion; and

(ii) Make sure there is a clearance distance of not less

than 0.12 inches (3.0 millimeters), and make any

appropriate adjustments.

(3) If no abrasion damage or distortion is found, make

sure there is a clearance distance of not less than

0.12 inches (3.0 millimeters), and make any appropriate adjustments.

Before further flight after the inspection ..... As specified in the above-referenced service information.

(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.

64342 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

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 airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if 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 Roman T. Gabrys,

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

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

Pilatus Service Bulletin No. 71–004, dated

December 22, 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 Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager,

CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland. 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.

(i) When does this amendment become

effective? This amendment becomes effective

on December 15, 2000.

Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Swiss AD Number HB 2000–007, dated

January 17, 2000.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

October 17, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27222 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT

CORPORATION

22 CFR Part 706

RIN 3420–ZA00

Freedom of Information; Final Rule

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment

Corporation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the

Overseas Private Investment

Corporation’s (‘‘OPIC,’’ or ‘‘the

Corporation’’) Freedom of Information

Act (‘‘FOIA’’) regulations by making

substantive and administrative changes.

These revisions supersede OPIC’s

current FOIA regulations, located at this

Part. The final rule incorporates the

FOIA revisions contained in the

Electronic Freedom of Information Act

Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–231)

(‘‘EFOIA’’), conforms OPIC’s regulations

to current OPIC FOIA practices, and

converts the regulations to a plain

English format. The final rule also

reflects the disclosure principles

established by President Clinton and

Attorney General Reno in their FOIA

Policy Memorandum of October 4, 1993,

and reiterated in Attorney General

Reno’s September 3, 1999 FOIA

Memorandum to the heads of federal

departments and agencies. Finally, the

final rule adds a notice to OPIC’s

business submitters concerning access

to OPIC records that have been

transferred to the legal custody and

control of the National Archives of the

United States (‘‘National Archives’’).

DATES: This rule is effective November

15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura A. Naide, FOIA Director, (202)

336–8426, or Eli H. Landy, FOIA

Counsel, (202) 336–8418.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

revision of part 706 incorporates

changes to the language and structure of

the regulations and adds new provisions

to implement the EFOIA. New

provisions implementing the

amendments are found at § 706.12

(defining ‘‘search’’ to include electronic

searches), § 706.21 (electronic reading

room), § 706.31 (format of disclosure),

§ 706.32 (timing of responses and

expedited processing), and § 706.33

(material withheld). OPIC is already

complying with these statutory

requirements; this final rule serves as

OPIC’s formal codification of the

applicable law and its practice.

Under the EFOIA, an agency may

provide by regulation for multiple

‘‘tracks’’ in responding to FOIA requests

depending upon the amount of time and

work involved in responding to

different kinds of requests (‘‘multitrack

processing’’). OPIC will not implement

multitrack processing. Because OPIC

receives a limited number of FOIA

requests each year and is able to

respond to the great majority of them on

a timely basis, OPIC does not need to

provide separate processing tracks for

more complicated versus simpler FOIA

requests.

Revisions to OPIC’s fee schedule can

be found at § 706.34. The duplication

charge will remain fifteen cents per

page, while the document search and

review charges will increase to $16 and

$35 per hour, respectively. The amount

at or below which OPIC will not charge

a fee is set at $15.

This revision also notifies OPIC’s

business submitters of the requirement

that OPIC transfer legal custody and

control of certain records to the National

Archives pursuant to applicable federal

records schedules.

OPIC published a proposed rule at 65

FR 30369, May 11, 2000, and invited

interested parties to submit comments.

OPIC received one set of comments and

made several changes to its proposed

rule based on the commentator’s

suggestions.

OPIC adopted the following

suggestions. First, OPIC revised

§ 706.31(b)(1) to describe more clearly

how the Corporation handles FOIA

requests that do not reasonably describe

the records sought. The commentator

stated that OPIC’s proposed regulation

did not ‘‘adequately guarantee that

requesters whose requests need to be

clarified will be contacted in a timely

and effective manner so that their

requests can be processed quickly.’’ The

final rule specifies in more detail OPIC’s

procedures for treatment of ambiguous

requests.

Second, OPIC modified § 706.34(e)

concerning special service charges to

clarify that requesters will be provided

advance notice of the actual cost of any

requested service(s) that OPIC has

agreed to provide. OPIC provides

special services such as certification of

documents and rapid delivery methods

as a convenience to its FOIA requesters.

FOIA requesters are not required to use

special services and may withdraw a

request for special services if they do

not wish to pay the stated cost.

OPIC considered, but did not adopt

the following suggestions. First, OPIC

did not adopt the suggestion that the

Corporation include in its regulations a

provision granting expedited processing

to records that are subject to multiple

(i.e., five or more) pending FOIA

requests. OPIC could establish this

discretionary category of ‘‘expedited

processing’’ under FOIA subsection 5

U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(E)(i)(II), but the

Corporation does not believe it would

serve a useful purpose to do so. OPIC’s

FOIA program is flexible enough to

accommodate multiple requests and

respond to them in a timely manner

without giving such requests expedited

status.

The commentator was concerned that

OPIC’s response to multiple requests for