10494 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

($19,111 per airplane) and $23,768,064

($20,632 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 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.

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 96–NM–203–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–10, -20, -30,

-40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC–9–81

(MD–81), -82 (MD–82), -83 (MD–83), and -87

(MD–87) series airplanes; Model MD–88

airplanes; and C–9 (military) series airplanes;

as listed in McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 53–235, dated September 15, 1993;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

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 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 (f) 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 fatigue cracks in the skin and

longerons of the fuselage, which could result

in loss of the structural integrity of the

fuselage and, consequently, lead to rapid

depressurization of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total

landings, or within 8,000 landings after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, perform a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC) inspection of the external areas of the

fuselage to detect cracks of the skin and/or

longeron between stations Y=160.000 and

Y=218.000, in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–235, dated

September 15, 1993.

(b) Condition 1 (No Cracks). If no crack is

detected during any inspection required by

this AD, accomplish either paragraph (b)(1)

or (b)(2) of this AD, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

53–235, dated September 15, 1993.

(1) Condition 1, Option I (Repetitive

Inspection). Repeat the HFEC inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD, and the

aided visual inspection specified in

paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin, at

intervals not to exceed 10,000 landings.

(2) Condition 1, Option II (Terminating

Action Modification). Accomplish the

preventative modification installation of

clips and doublers between stations

Y=160.000 and Y=218.000, in accordance

with the service bulletin. Accomplishment of

the modification constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of this AD.

(c) Condition 2 (Skin Cracks). If any skin

crack is detected during any inspection

required by this AD, prior to further flight,

repair it in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 53–235, dated

September 15, 1993. After repair, accomplish

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD.

(d) Condition 3 (Longeron Cracks). If any

longeron crack is detected during any

inspection required by this AD, prior to

further flight, repair it in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

53–235, dated September 15, 1993. After

repair, accomplish either paragraph (b)(1) or

(b)(2) of this AD.

(e) Prior to the accumulation of 100,000

total landings, or within 4 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later, accomplish the preventative

modification specified in paragraph 2.J. of

the Accomplishment Instructions of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

53–235, dated September 15, 1993.

Accomplishment of the modification

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of this AD.

(f) 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 Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

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 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(g) 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

28, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–5572 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

RIN 1076–AD14

25 CFR Part 290

Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Extension of

Comment Period; Correction.

SUMMARY: This notice corrects a

discrepancy in the notice published on

February 20, 1997, that extended the

comment period for the proposed rule.

The proposed rule would establish

procedures for submission, review, and

approval of tribal plans for distributing

revenues from gaming activities.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to George

Skibine, Director, Indian Gaming

Management Staff Office, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW, MS

2070–MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10495

Comments may be hand delivered to the

same address from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00

p.m. Monday through Friday or sent by

facsimile to 202–273–3153.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Pierskalla, Management Analyst,

Indian Gaming Management Staff

Office, at 202–219–4068.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday,

June 7, 1996, the Bureau of Indian

Affairs published a proposed rule, 61 FR

29044, concerning Tribal Revenue

Allocation Plans. The deadline for

receipt of comments was August 6,

1996. On Thursday, February 20, 1997,

the Bureau published a notice at 62 FR

7742 to extend the comment period

until March 24, 1997. The notice

published on February 20 incorrectly

stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble

that the deadline for receipt of

comments was March 7, 1997.

Accordingly, on page 7742, in the first

and second column, the final sentence

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is corrected to read: ‘‘The

comment period is reopened to allow

consideration of the comments received

after August 6, 1996, and additional

comments received on or before March

24, 1997.’’

Dated: March 3, 1997.

George Skibine,

Director, Indian Gaming Management Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–5588 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 16

[AAG/A Order No. 130–97]

Exemption of Records Systems Under

the Privacy Act

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), (2), (3), (5) and

(8); and (g) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.

552a. This system of records is

maintained by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) and is

entitled ‘‘Office of Internal Audit

Investigations Index and Records,

JUSTICE/INS–002.’’ Information in this

system relates to official Federal

investigations and law enforcement

matters of the Office of Internal Audit of

the INS, pursuant to the Inspector

General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App., as

amended by the Inspector General Act

amendments of 1988. The exemptions

are necessary to avoid interference with

certain internal law enforcement

functions of the INS for which records

falling within the scope of subsections

(j)(2) and (k)(2) may be generated.

Specifically, the exemptions are

necessary to prevent subjects of

investigations from frustrating the

investigatory process; to preclude the

disclosure of investigative techniques;

to protect the identities and physical

safety of confidential informants and of

law enforcement personnel; to ensure

OIA’s ability to obtain information from

information sources; and to protect the

privacy of third parties.

DATES: Submit any comments by April

7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to

Patricia E. Neely, Program Analyst,

Information Management and Security

Staff, Justice Management Division,

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

20530 (Room 850, WCTR Building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia E. Neeley 202–616–0178.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

notice section of today’s Federal

Register, the Department of Justice

provides a description of the ‘‘Office of

Internal Audit Investigations Index and

Records, JUSTICE/INS–002.’’

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.

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 set forth

below.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Stephen R. Colgate,

Assistant Attorney General for

Administration.

1. The authority for part 16 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 401, 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 28 CFR

16.99 by adding paragraphs (g) and (h)

to read as follows:

§ 16.99 Exemption of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service Systems-limited

access.

* * * * *

(g) The Office of Internal Audit

Investigations Index and Records

(Justice/INS–002) system of records is

exempt under the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

552a(j)(2) from subsections (c) (3) and

(4); (d); (e) (1), (2), (3), (5) and (8); and

(g), but only to the extent that this

system contains records within the

scope of subsection (j)(2), and to the

extent that records in the system are

subject to exemption therefrom. In

addition, this system of records is also

exempt under the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

552a(k)(2) from subsections (c)(3); (d);

and (e)(1), but only to the extent that

this system contains records within the

scope of subsection (k)(2), and to the

extent that records in the system are

subject to exemption therefrom.

(h) The following justifications apply

to the exemptions from particular

subsections:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) because the

release of the disclosure accounting for

disclosure could permit the subject of

an actual or potential criminal or civil

investigation to obtain valuable

information concerning the existence

and nature of the investigation, the fact

that individuals are subjects of the

investigation, and present a serious

impediment to law enforcement.

(2) From subsection (c)(4) to the

extent that the exemption from

subsection (d) is applicable. Subsection

(c)(4) will not be applicable to the extent

that records in the system are properly

withholdable under subsection (d).

(3) From the access and amendment

provisions of subsection (d) because

access to the records contained in this

system of records could inform the

subject of a criminal or civil

investigation of the existence of that

investigation; of the nature and scope of

the information and evidence obtained

as to their activities; of the identity of

confidential sources, witnesses and law

enforcement personnel; and of

information that may enable the subject

to avoid detection or apprehension.

Such disclosures would present a

serious impediment to effective law

enforcement where they prevent the

successful completion of the

investigation; endanger the physical

safety of confidential sources, witnesses,

and law enforcement personnel; and/or

lead to the improper influencing of

witnesses, the destruction of evidence,

or the fabrication of testimony. In

addition, granting access to these

records could result in a disclosure that

would constitute an unwarranted

invasion of the privacy of third parties.