75198 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

terms as used in the RFA. As previously

noted, a national bank would be

assessed a fee for the examination or

investigation of its service provider only

when the examination or investigation

is warranted by the high risk or unusual

or novel nature of the activities

conducted by the service provider for

the bank or when the OCC believes that

the bank has insufficient systems,

controls, or personnel to adequately

monitor, measure, and control the risks

associated with the activity. As a result,

the OCC believes that the fees will not

be imposed on a substantial number of

small entities. Commenters are invited

to provide the OCC with any

information they may have about the

likely quantitative effects of the

proposal.

III. Executive Order 12866

The OCC has determined that this

proposal is not a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866.

IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L.

104–4 (2 U.S.C. 1532) (Unfunded

Mandates Act), requires that an agency

prepare a budgetary impact statement

before promulgating any rule likely to

result in a Federal mandate that may

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector of $100 million

or more in any one year. If a budgetary

impact statement is required, section

205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also

requires an agency to identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule. The OCC has

determined that the proposed rule will

not result in expenditures by State,

local, and tribal governments, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Accordingly, this

rulemaking is not subject to section 202

of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 8

National banks.

Authority and Issuance

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

the OCC proposes to amend part 8 of

Chapter I of title 12 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 8—ASSESSMENT OF FEES

1. The authority citation for part 8 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 481, 482, 1867,

3102, and 3108; 15 U.S.C. 78c and 78l; and

26 D.C. Code 102.

2. The title of part 8 is revised to read

as set forth above.

3. Section 8.6 is amended by revising

the section heading and paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 8.6 Fees for special examinations and

investigations.

(a) Fees. Pursuant to the authority

contained in 12 U.S.C. 481 and 482, the

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency assesses a fee for:

(1) Examining the fiduciary activities

of national and District of Columbia

banks and related entities;

(2) Conducting special examinations

and investigations of national banks,

District of Columbia banks, and Federal

branches or Federal agencies of foreign

banks;

(3) Conducting special examinations

and investigations of any entity subject

to regulation and examination by the

OCC pursuant to the Bank Service

Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1867(c));

(4) Conducting special examinations

and investigations of affiliates of

national banks, District of Columbia

banks, and Federal branches or Federal

agencies of foreign banks; and

(5) Conducting examinations and

investigations made pursuant to 12 CFR

Part 5, Rules, Policies, and Procedures

for Corporate Activities.

* * * * *

Dated: October 18, 2000.

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 00–30600 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–SW–13–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

France Model SA.315B, SA.316B,

SA.316C, SE.3160, and SA.319B

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) for Eurocopter France

(ECF) Model SA.315B, SA.316B,

SA.316C, SE.3160, and SA.319B

helicopters. That AD requires initial and

recurring inspections of the main rotor

blade (blade) spar for cracks. This action

would require initial and recurring dye

penetrant or eddy current inspections

for a cracked blade spar at 100-hour

time-in-service (TIS) intervals or 600

cycles, whichever occurs first, rather

than the 25-hour TIS intervals currently

required. This proposal is prompted by

an accident in which a Model SA.315B

helicopter blade failed due to fatigue

cracking. The proposed actions are

intended to prevent separation of a

blade and subsequent loss of control of

the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–SW–

13–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may

also send comments electronically to

the Rules Docket at the following

address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.

Comments may be inspected at the

Office of the Regional Counsel between

9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA,

Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations

Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111,

telephone (817) 222–5490, fax (817)

222–5961.

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

should 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 action 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 mailed

comments submitted in response to this

action must submit a self-addressed,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75199

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2000–SW–

13–AD.’’ The postcard will be date

stamped and returned to the

commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

You may obtain a copy of this NPRM

by submitting a request to the FAA,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–SW–13–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On August 21, 1998, the FAA issued

AD 98–10–09, Amendment 39–10725

(63 FR 46160, August 31, 1998), to

require inspecting the blade spar for

cracks at 25-hour TIS intervals. That

action was prompted by an accident in

which a Model SA.315B helicopter

blade spar failed due to fatigue cracking.

That condition, if not corrected, could

result in blade separation and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, we

have determined that the initial and

recurring inspections for a cracked

blade spar should be accomplished by a

dye penetrant or eddy current

inspection at intervals of 100 hours TIS

or 600 cycles, whichever occurs first.

Eddy current and dye penetrant

inspections are more reliable than visual

inspections especially on the lower

surface of the rotor blade where the

blade’s weight may close the crack. ECF

has issued Service Bulletins (SB) SA

315 No. 05.39 and SA 316/319 No.

05.98, both dated November 12, 1999,

specifying a check of the main rotor

blade root spar for cracks. ECF has also

issued SB 65.137R1, dated November

17, 1993, specifying running a sealant

bead around the spar-to-fitting junction

and inspecting for corrosion. After

investigating a main rotor blade failure

at the first cuff-to-spar assembly bolt,

ECF redefined the interval for crack

inspections on the spar and added

another criterion (sudden occurrence of

vibrations) that makes this inspection

necessary. A sudden occurrence of a

one-per-rev vibration could indicate a

cracked blade.

We have identified an unsafe

condition that is likely to exist or

develop on other ECF Model SA.315B,

SA.316B, SA.316C, SE.3160, and

SA.319B helicopters of these same type

designs. The proposed AD would

supersede the current AD and redefine

the recurring inspection interval. The

proposed AD will require, within 25

hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 100 hours TIS or 600 cycles,

whichever occurs first, inspecting each

blade spar for a crack, using dye

penetrant or eddy current, and

inspecting each blade cuff to ensure an

adequate sealant bead. A ‘‘cycle’’ is any

landing, regardless of whether the main

rotor rotation is continued or stopped,

or any completion of an external load

operation; e.g. load release. If a crack is

found, the proposed AD would require

replacing the blade with an airworthy

blade before further flight.

The FAA estimates that 93 helicopters

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 4 hours to inspect and 4

hours to replace a blade, if necessary,

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

$66,960, assuming three inspections per

year and no blade replacement.

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.

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:

The Proposed Amendment

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

removing Amendment 39–10725 (63 FR

46160), and by adding a new

airworthiness directive (AD), to read as

follows:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. 2000–SW–

13–AD. Supersedes AD 98–10–09,

Amendment 39–10725, Docket No. 98–

SW–23–AD.

Applicability: Model SA.315B, SA.316B,

SA.316C, SE.3160, and SA.319B helicopters

with a main rotor blade (blade), with any of

the following part numbers (P/N): 3160S11–

10000 all dash numbers, 3160S11–30000 all

dash numbers, 3160S11–35000 all dash

numbers, 3160S11–40000 all dash numbers,

3160S11–45000 all dash numbers, 3160S11–

50000 all dash numbers, or 3160S11–55000

all dash numbers, installed, certificated in

any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For helicopters 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 (b) 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 blade separation and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or

before the next flight following the onset of

any one-per-rev vibration, whichever occurs

first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

100 hours TIS or 600 ‘‘cycles’’ (a ‘‘cycle’’ is

any landing, regardless of whether the main

rotor rotation is continued or stopped, or any

completion of an external load operation; e.g.

load release), whichever occurs first,

(1) Inspect each blade spar for a crack.

(i) Without removing the blade from the

helicopter, clean each blade root area using

‘‘Teepol’’ or an equivalent product.

(ii) Support the blade tip to eliminate blade

droop while inspecting the lower blade

surface.

(iii) By either a dye penetrant or eddy

current method, inspect each blade along the

hatched area indicated in Figure 1, beginning

on the blade lower surface, then on the flat

section of the trailing edge (B), on the blade

upper surface, and then on the flat section of

the leading edge (A).

Note 2: Eurocopter France Service

Bulletins (SB) SA 315 No. 05.39 and SA 316/

319 No. 05.98, dated November 12, 1999,

pertain to the subject of this AD.

(iv) If a crack is found, replace the blade

with an airworthy blade before further flight.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

75200 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(2) Ensure that there is a sealant bead (1)

around the edge of each blade cuff. If no

sealant bead exists or if a sealant bead shows

excessive wear, before further flight, apply a

sealant bead in accordance with paragraph

2.2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of

Eurocopter France SB 65.137R1, dated

November 17, 1993.

(b) 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, Regulations

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Regulations Group.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75201

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Regulations Group.

(c) Special flight permits will not be

issued.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Direction Generale De L’Aviation Civile

(France) AD 1998–171–039(A)R2 and 1998–

170–056(A)R2, both dated January 12, 2000.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November

14, 2000.

Michele M. Owsley,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30653 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 16

[AAG/A Order No. 210–2000]

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice

proposes to exempt a Privacy Act

system of records from subsections (c)

(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(4)(G)

and (H), (e)(5), (f), and (g) of the Privacy

Act, 552 U.S.C. 552a. The system of

records is: the ‘‘United States Attorneys’

Office, Giglio Information Files,

JUSTICE/USA–018.’’

The ‘‘United States Attorneys’ Office,

Giglio Information Files, JUSTICE/USA–

018’’ enables United States Attorneys’

offices to maintain and disclose records

of potential impeachment information

received from the Department’s

investigative agencies, in accordance

with Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.

150 (1972). It permits the United States

Attorneys’ offices to obtain from federal

and state agencies and to maintain and

disclose for law enforcement purposes

records of impeachment information

that is material to the defense. The

exemptions are necessary as explained

in the accompanying rule.

DATES: Submit any comments by

January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to

Mary Cahill, Management Analyst,

Management and Planning Staff, Justice

Management Division, Department of

Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room

1400, National Place Building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Cahill—202–307–1823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

notice section of today’s Federal

Register, the Department of Justice

provides a description of the ‘‘Giglio

Information Files, JUSTICE/USA–018.’’

This order relates to individuals rather

than small business entities.

Nevertheless, pursuant to the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, it is

hereby stated that the order will not

have ‘‘a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.’’

List of Subjects in Part 16

Administrative Practices and

Procedures, Courts, Freedom of

Information Act, Government in the

Sunshine Act, and the Privacy Act.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Stephen R. Colgate,

Assistant Attorney General for

Administration.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and

delegated to me by Attorney General

Order No. 793–78, it is proposed to

amend part 16 of Title 28 of the Code

of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 16—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for part 16 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g),

553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510,

534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701.

2. It is proposed to amend § 16.81 by

redesignating current paragraph (g) as (i)

and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to

read as follows:

§ 16.81 Exemption of the United States

Attorneys Systems-limited access.

* * * * *

(g) The Giglio Information Files

(JUSTICE/USA–018) system of records

is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a

subsections (c)(4), (e)(2), (e)(5), and (g)

of the Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

552a (j)(2), and exempt from subsections

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

(f), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) and

(k)(2). These exemptions apply to the

extent that information in this system is

subject to exemption pursuant to 5

U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2).

(h) Exemptions from the particular

subsections are justified for the

following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3); because an

exemption is being claimed for

subsection (d), this subsection will not

be applicable.

(2) From subsection (c)(4); because an

exemption is being claimed for

subsection (d), this subsection will not

be applicable.

(3) From subsection (d); because

access to the records contained in these

systems is not necessary or may impede

an ongoing investigation. Most

information in the records is derivative

from the subject’s employing agency

files, and individual access will be

through the employing agency’s files.

Additionally, other information in the

records may be related to allegations

against an agent or witness that are

currently being investigated. Providing

access to this information would

impede the ongoing investigation.

(4) From subsection (e)(1); because in

the interests of effective law

enforcement and criminal prosecution,

Giglio records will be retained because

they could later be relevant in a

different case; however, this relevance

cannot be determined in advance.

(5) From subsection (e)(2); because the

nature of the records in this system,

which are used to impeach or

demonstrate bias of a witness, requires

that the information be collected from

others.

(6) From subsections (e)(4) (G) and

(H); because this system of records is

exempt from individual access pursuant

to subsections (j) and (k) of the Privacy

Act of 1974.

(7) From subsection (e)(5); because the

information in these records is not being

used to make a determination about the

subject of the records. According to

constitutional principles of fairness

articulated by the Supreme Court in

United States v. Giglio, the records are

required to be disclosed to criminal

defendants to ensure fairness of

criminal proceedings.

(8) From subsection (f); because

records in this system have been

exempted from the access provisions of

subsection (d).

(9) From subsection (g); because

records in this system are compiled for

law enforcement purposes and have

been exempted from the access

provisions of subsections (d) and (f).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–30610 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–07–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 97

[USCG 2000–7080]

RIN 2115–AF97

Cargo Securing on Vessels Operating

in U.S. Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

regulations to implement cargo securing

standards for U.S. and foreign vessels,