Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31189

8 12 CFR part 564.

9 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

4. Appraisals

Written appraisals must support

certain loans.8 Does the requirement for

written appraisals impair or impede

online lending operations? If so, what

modifications to the existing regulation

would facilitate the use of appraisals in

electronic form? What types of controls

would be appropriate to assure record

authenticity and integrity in connection

with the filing of electronic appraisals

(e.g., authentication of an electronic

appraisal, certification of the appraiser)?

5. Electronic Signatures

The Electronic Signatures in Global

and National Commerce Act (E-Sign

Act) 9 provides that certain contracts

and signatures may not be denied

validity solely because they are in

electronic form. The E-Sign Act also

provides that certain records may be

maintained in electronic form, subject to

certain requirements. OTS recognizes

that the enactment of the E-Sign Act has

resolved several important legal and

regulatory issues regarding the uses of

electronic media in commercial

transactions. Nevertheless, the E-Sign

Act has left some legal issues

unresolved and, indeed, may have

created new ones, particularly for online

banking.

What issues are savings associations

facing as a result of the E-Sign Act?

Would it facilitate implementation of

the E-Sign Act if OTS were to issue

regulations or other supervisory

guidance? If so, which aspects of the ESign Act should OTS address? Are there

any written forms or notices required by

OTS’s regulations or other supervisory

policies that could be obtained or

transmitted over the Internet in a

manner that would facilitate the online

delivery of financial products or

services? How do particular provisions

of the E-Sign Act, or any other law,

affect financial institutions and their

customers’ ability to use (or ease of

using) new technologies?

6. Differing Legal Requirements

OTS recognizes that a variety of

federal, state, and foreign laws regulate

the use of electronic technologies. Are

there areas where conducting electronic

banking activities could particularly

benefit from a single set of standards

that can be applied uniformly on a

nationwide basis? Are there any

inconsistencies between Federal and

State laws or regulations that impede

the electronic provision or use of

financial products or services? Do

certain provisions of Federal law that

apply to online banking and lending

practices make compliance with

provisions of State law (or laws

enforced by foreign states) more costly?

Dated: June 4, 2001.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Ellen Seidman,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01–14562 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–34–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

France Model SA–365N1, AS–365N2,

and SA–366G1 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes

revising an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) for Eurocopter France

(ECF) Model SA–365N1, AS–365N2,

and SA–366G1 helicopters. That AD

currently requires inspecting each tail

rotor blade for bonding separation,

measuring the clearance between the tip

of each tail rotor blade and the

circumference of the air duct, and

replacing the blade if necessary. This

action would contain the same

requirements but would allow the pilot

to perform the daily visual check and

would contain a damage allowance for

certain blades. This proposal is

prompted by FAA determination that

the pilot can check for a cracked,

blistered, or wrinkled blade and that

some debonding of the blade is

acceptable. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to allow a

pilot check, to prevent unacceptable

damage to a tail rotor blade, and to

prevent loss of tail rotor control and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 10. 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–34–

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:

Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer,

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations

Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111,

telephone (817) 222–5122, 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 will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this document 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 in the Rules

Docket for examination by interested

persons. A report summarizing each

FAA-public contact concerned with the

substance of this document will be filed

in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their mailed

comments submitted in response to this

proposal must submit a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–SW–34–

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, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 99–SW–34–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On May 9, 2000, the FAA issued AD

2000–10–08, Amendment No. 39–11732

(65 FR 31256) to require inspecting each

tail rotor blade for bonding separation,

measuring the clearance between the tip

of each tail rotor blade and the

circumference of the air duct, and

replacing a blade if necessary. That

action was prompted by an inflight

incident in which the tail rotor blades

were significantly damaged due to

bonding separation. That condition, if

31190 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules

not corrected, could result in loss of tail

rotor control and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has reevaluated the requirements

due to reports from operators that the

AD has placed an unnecessary burden

on them and that a pilot should be

allowed to perform the check. ECF has

issued Service Bulletins 05.09 and

05.00.17, both dated December 18, 1998;

and based on these service bulletins, the

Direction Generale De L’Aviation Civile

(DGAC) (France) has issued AD’s 88–

152–010(A)R5 and 88–153–023(A)R5,

both dated December 30, 1998. The FAA

has reviewed these documents and

determined that the pilot may perform

the check and that some debonding is

acceptable.

These helicopter models are

manufactured in France and are type

certificated for operation in the United

States under the provisions of 14 CFR

21.29 and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above. The

FAA has examined the findings of the

DGAC, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

An owner/operator (pilot) may

perform the visual check required by

this AD and enter compliance with the

visual check provisions in paragraph (a)

of this AD in accordance with 14 CFR

43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v). This AD

allows a pilot to perform the check

because it involves only a visual check

of the tail rotor blades for a crack,

wrinkling, or a blister and can be

performed equally well by a pilot or a

mechanic.

Since we have identified an unsafe

condition that is likely to exist or

develop on other ECF Model SA–365N1,

AS–365N2, and SA–366G1 helicopters

of the same type design, the proposed

AD would contain the same

requirements as the existing AD.

However, the proposed AD would revise

AD 2000–10–08 to allow a ‘‘visual’’

check of each tail rotor blade for a crack,

wrinkling, or a blister within 10 hours

time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter

before the first flight of each day. The

proposed AD would also allow some

debonding in blades, part number

365A12–0020–02 and 365A12–0020–03.

The FAA estimates that 136

helicopters of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD. If a

tapping inspection is required, it would

take approximately 1 work hour per

helicopter to conduct, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

If necessary, replacing a blade would

take approximately 4 hours and

required parts would cost

approximately $1,000 per helicopter.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $176,800, assuming a

blade must be replaced on each affected

helicopter.

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 proposed rule

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed 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) if

promulgated, would 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 has been

prepared for this action is contained in

the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be

obtained from the Rules Docket at the

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham

Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.

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

removing Amendment 39–11732 (65 FR

31256) and by adding a new

airworthiness directive to read as

follows:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. 99–SW–34–

AD. Revises AD 2000–10–08,

Amendment 39–11732, Docket No. 99–

SW–34–AD.

Applicability: Model SA–365N1, AS–

365N2, and SA–366G1 helicopters, with a

tail rotor blade, part number (P/N) 365A33–

2131, 365A12–0010, or 365A12–0020, 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 (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 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 damage to a tail rotor blade

(blade), loss of tail rotor control, and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter:

(a) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS)

and thereafter before the first flight of each

day, visually check each blade (see Figure 1)

for a crack, blister, or wrinkling. An owner/

operator (pilot), holding at least a private

pilot certificate, may perform the visual

check and must enter compliance into the

aircraft maintenance records in accordance

with 14 CFR sections 43.11 and

91.417(a)(2)(v)).

(b) If a crack, blister, or wrinkling is found

as a result of the visual check, accomplish

the following before further flight (see Figure

1):

(1) Zone A: If a blister is detected on the

blade suction face, conduct a tapping test

inspection on the whole blade for bonding

separation.

(i) For blades, P/N 365A33–2131-all dash

numbers, 365A12–0010-all dash numbers,

and 365A12–0020–00, and –01, if bonding

separation or a crack is found, replace the

blade with an airworthy blade before further

flight.

(ii) For blades, P/N 365A12–0020–02, and

–03, if bonding separation exceeds 900 mm2

in a 30 x 30 mm square or if there is a crack,

replace the blade with an airworthy blade

before further flight.

(2) Zone B: If a crack, wrinkling, or a blister

is found, replace the blade with an airworthy

blade before further flight.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31191

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

31192 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(c) Within 10 hours TIS, conduct a tapping

test inspection on each blade. If there is

bonding separation that exceeds the criteria

in paragraph b(1) of this AD, replace the

blade with an airworthy blade before further

flight.

Note 2: Revisions 5 of Eurocopter France

Service Bulletins 05.09 and 05.00.17, both

dated December 18, 1998, pertain to the

subject of this AD.

(1) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 25

hours TIS or every 50 cycles (each takeoff

and landing equals 1 cycle), whichever

occurs first, conduct a tapping test inspection

for bonding separation on all blades with a

serial number (S/N) less than 18912, and

blades, P/N 365A12–0020–00 or 365A12–

0020–01, with a S/N equal to or greater than

18912. If bonding separation or a crack is

found, replace the blade with an airworthy

blade before further flight.

(2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed

100 hours TIS or 200 cycles, whichever

occurs first, conduct a tapping test inspection

for bonding separation on blades, P/N

365A12–0020–02 or 365A12–0020–03. For

Zone A, if bonding separation exceeds the

criteria specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of

this AD or if a crack is found, replace the

blade with an airworthy blade before further

flight. For Zone B, if a crack, wrinkling, or

a blister is found, replace the blade with an

airworthy blade before further flight.

(d) Within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 200

cycles, whichever occurs first, measure the

blade-to-air duct clearance. If the clearance is

less than 3 mm, replace the blade with an

airworthy blade before further flight.

(e) 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.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Regulations Group.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199

to operate the helicopter to a location where

the requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Direction Generale De L’Aviation Civile

AD’s 88–152–010(A)R5 and 88–153–

023(A)R5, both dated December 30, 1998.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 31,

2001.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14536 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–298–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker

Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and

4000 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Fokker Model F.28 Mark 1000, 2000,

3000, and 4000 series airplanes. This

proposal would require a one-time

inspection to detect the presence of

filler plates of the engine support

fittings, and corrective action, if

necessary. This action is necessary to

detect and correct fatigue and stress

corrosion in the U-shaped upper and

lower legs of the engine support fittings,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the engine support structure.

This action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

298–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 be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9–

anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments

sent via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–298–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231,

2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the

Netherlands. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;

fax (425) 227–1149.

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 action 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 action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 2000–NM–298–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

2000–NM–298–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD),

which is the airworthiness authority for

the Netherlands, notified the FAA that

an unsafe condition may exist on all