Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76187

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2000–NM–260–

AD.

Applicability: Model DC–9–81, –9–82, –9–

83, and –9–87 series airplanes, and Model

MD–88 airplanes, as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80–

29A067, dated October 21, 1999; and Model

MD–90–30 series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD90–29A018, dated October 21, 1999;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, 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 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 various failures of electric

motors of the auxiliary hydraulic pump and

associated wiring, which could result in fire

at the auxiliary hydraulic pump and

consequent damage to the adjacent electrical

equipment and/or structure, accomplish the

following:

Inspection

(a) Do a detailed inspection of the number

1 and 2 electric motors of the auxiliary

hydraulic pump for electrical resistance,

continuity, mechanical rotation, and

associated wiring resistance/voltage, per

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD80–29A067, dated October 21, 1999 (for

Model DC–9–81, –9–82, –9–83, and –9–87

series airplanes, and Model MD–88

airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin MD90–29A018, dated

October 21, 1999 (for Model MD–90–30

series airplanes); as applicable; at the

applicable time specified in paragraph (a)(1)

or (a)(2) of this AD.

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated

3,000 total flight hours or more as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 12

months after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated

less than 3,000 total flight hours as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 12

months after accumulating 3,000 total flight

hours.

Condition 1, No Failures: Repetitive

Inspections

(b) If no failures are detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD every 5,000 flight

hours.

Condition 2, Failure of Any Pump Motor:

Replacement and Repetitive Inspections

(c) If any pump motor fails during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, before further flight, replace the failed

auxiliary hydraulic pump with a serviceable

pump, per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD80–29A067, dated October 21,

1999 (for Model DC–9–81, –9–82, –9–83, and

–9–87 series airplanes, and Model MD–88

airplanes); or McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin MD90–29A018, dated

October 21, 1999 (for Model MD–90–30

series airplanes); as applicable. Repeat the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD every 5,000 flight hours.

Condition 3, Failure of Any Wiring: Repair

and Repetitive Inspection

(d) If any wiring fails during any

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, before further flight, troubleshoot and

repair the failed wiring, per McDonnell

Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD80–

29A067, dated October 21, 1999 (for Model

DC–9–81, –9–82, –9–83, and –9–87 series

airplanes, and Model MD–88 airplanes); or

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin

MD90–29A018, dated October 21, 1999 (for

Model MD–90–30 series airplanes); as

applicable. Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD every 5,000 flight

hours.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA. 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.

Special Flight Permit

(f) 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

November 30, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31067 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NE–12–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca

S.A. Arrius Models 2B, 2B1, 2F

Turboshaft Engines

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

Turbomeca S.A. Arrius Models 2B, 2B1,

and 2F turboshaft engines. This

proposal would require the replacement

of the right injector half manifold, left

injector half manifold, and privilege

injector pipe with the engine installed

on the helicopter. This proposal is

prompted by reports from the Direction

Generale de L’Aviation Civile (DGAC),

which is the airworthiness authority for

France, of partially or totally blocked

fuel injection manifolds, which were

found during inspections at a repair

workshop. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

engine flameout during rapid

deceleration, or the inability to maintain

the 2.5 minutes one engine inoperative

(OEI) rating. The actions are also

intended to prevent injector air path

cracks, due to blockage of the fuel

injection manifolds.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–NE–12–AD, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299. Comments may also be

sent via the Internet using the following

address: ‘‘9-ane-adcomment@faa.gov’’.

Comments sent via the Internet must

contain the docket number in the

subject line. Comments may be

inspected at this location between 8

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France;

telephone: (33) 05 59 64 40 00; fax: (33)

05 59 64 60 80. This information may

be examined at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA.

76188 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; telephone: (781) 238–7152; fax:

(781) 238–7199.

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 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 comments

submitted in response to this action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NE–12–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–NE–12–AD, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299.

Discussion

The DGAC recently notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2B, 2B1, and 2F

turboshaft engines. The DGAC advises

that during inspections performed at a

repair workshop, some right injector

half manifolds, left injector half

manifolds, and privilege injector pipes

were found totally or partially blocked.

This condition may cause engine

flameout during engine deceleration or

the inability to maintain the 2.5 minutes

OEI rating. This condition may also

cause injector air path cracking.

Manufacturer’s Service Information

Turbomeca has issued alert service

bulletin (ASB) No. A319 73 2012,

Revision 2, dated May 25, 1999, for

Arrius 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines

and ASB No. A319 73 4001, Revision 3,

dated May 25, 1999, for Arrius 2F

turboshaft engines. These ASB’s require

the replacement of the right injector half

manifold, left injector half manifold,

and privilege injector pipes, based on

operating hours and power check

performance. When replacing the

manifolds for the first time, the ASB’s

also require a borescope inspection of

the flame tube and the high pressure

turbine (HPT) area. The DGAC classified

these ASB’s as mandatory and issued

AD 1999–217(A) and AD 1999–233(A)

in order to assure the airworthiness of

these Turbomeca turboshaft engines in

France.

Bilateral Agreement Information

This engine model is manufactured in

France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (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 for this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

Proposed Requirements of this AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require:

• Replacement of the right injector

half manifolds, left injector half

manifolds, and privilege injector pipes

with 200 or more hours time-in-service

(TIS) on the effective date of the

proposed AD within 30 days after the

effective date of the proposed AD.

• Thereafter, the injector manifolds

must be replaced within 200 hours TIS

since last replacement.

Those actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

ASB’s described previously.

Economic Impact

There are about 130 engines of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 22 engines

installed on aircraft of U.S. registry

would be affected by this proposed AD,

that it would take about 2 work hours

per engine to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost about $14,320.00 per engine.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $317,680.00

for initial inspection and parts

replacement. The manufacturer has

advised the DGAC that the operator may

exchange the removed injection

manifolds, at no cost to the operator,

thereby substantially reducing the cost

impact of this proposed rule.

Regulatory Impact

This proposal does not have

federalism implications, as defined in

Executive Order 13132, because it

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.

Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted

with state authorities prior to

publication of this proposal.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76189

1Unless otherwise noted, all references to ‘‘rule

10f–3’’ or any paragraph of the rule will be to 17

CFR 270.10f–3.

2See section 2(a)(29) of the Investment Company

Act [15 U.S.C. 80a–2(a)(29)] (definition of principal

underwriter).

3Section 10(f) [15 U.S.C. 80a–10(f)] prohibits the

purchase if a principal underwriter of the security

is an officer, director, member of an advisory board,

investment adviser, or employee of the fund, or is

a person of which any such officer, director,

member of an advisory board, investment adviser,

or employee is an affiliated person. For purposes of

this Release, a person that falls within one of these

categories is referred to as an ‘‘affiliated

underwriter,’’ even though the Investment

Company Act defines the term ‘‘affiliated person’’

to include a broader set of relationships. See section

2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C.

80a–2(a)(3)]. Similarly, this Release refers to a fund

that is subject to section 10(f) as a result of its

relationship with an ‘‘affiliated underwriter’’ as an

‘‘affiliated fund.’’

4See Investment Trusts and Investment

Companies: Hearings on S. 3580 Before a

Subcomm. of the Senate Comm. on Banking and

Currency, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 35 (1940) (statement

of Commissioner Healy). An underwriter could, for

example, ‘‘dump’’ unmarketable securities on its

controlled fund, either by causing the fund to

purchase the securities from the underwriter itself,

Continued

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Turbomeca: Docket No. 2000–NE–12–AD.

Applicability: This airworthiness directive

(AD) is applicable to Arrius Models 2B, 2B1,

and 2F engines. These engines are installed

on but not limited to Eurocopter France

Model EC120B and Eurocopter Deutschland

EC135 T1 rotorcraft.

Note 1: This AD applies to each engine

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

engines 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 (d) 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

Compliance with the following initial and

repetitive replacement procedures are

required unless already done.

Perform the following actions to prevent

engine flameout and the inability to maintain

the 2.5 minutes one engine inoperative (OEI)

rating due to blockage of the fuel injection

manifolds.

Initial Replacement

(a) Replace injector manifolds and

borescope—inspect the flame tube and the

high pressure turbine area within 30 days

after the effective date of this AD, or prior to

exceeding 200 hours time-in-service (TIS)

since new, whichever is later. Do this in

accordance with 2.A. through 2.C.(3) (except

for recording requirement) of Turbomeca

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. A319 73

2012 for Arrius 2B and 2B1 turboshaft

engines, and ASB No. A319 73 4001 for

Arrius 2F turboshaft engines.

Repetitive Replacements

(b) Thereafter, replace injector manifolds

within 200 hours TIS since last replacement,

or prior to further flight after performing a

flight manual power check if the power

check shows a negative turbine outlet

temperature (TOT) or negative T4 margin.

(c) After the effective date of this AD, do

not install any injector manifold with 200

hours TIS since new or greater onto an

engine.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) 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, Engine

Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall

submit their request through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, ECO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the ECO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

November 30, 2000.

Mark C. Fulmer,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31114 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 270

[Release No. IC–24775; File No. S7–20–00]

RIN 3235–AH57

Exemption for the Acquisition of

Securities During the Existence of an

Underwriting or Selling Syndicate

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing

amendments to the rule under the

Investment Company Act of 1940 that

permits a registered investment

company (‘‘fund’’) that has certain

affiliations with an underwriting

participant to purchase securities during

an offering. The proposed amendments

would expand the exemption provided

by the rule to permit a fund to purchase

government securities in a syndicated

offering. The proposed amendments

also would modify the rule’s

quantitative limit on purchases, to cover

purchases by a fund as well as any

account advised by the fund’s

investment adviser. These amendments

are intended to respond to recent

changes in the method of offering

certain government securities, and to

improve the effectiveness of the

quantitative limit on fund purchases.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 5th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549–0609.

Comments also may be submitted

electronically to the following E-mail

address: rule-comments@sec.gov. All

comment letters should refer to File No.

S7–20–00; this file number should be

included on the subject line if E-mail is

used. Comment letters will be available

for public inspection and copying in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room,

450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549. Electronically submitted

comment letters also will be posted on

the Commission’s Internet web site

(http://www.sec.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Curtis A. Young, Senior Counsel, or C.

Hunter Jones, Assistant Director, at

(202) 942–0690, Office of Regulatory

Policy, Division of Investment

Management, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 5th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549–0506.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission today is requesting public

comment on proposed amendments to

rule 10f–3 [17 CFR 270.10f–3] under the

Investment Company Act of 1940 [15

U.S.C. 80a] (the ‘‘Investment Company

Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’). 1

I. Discussion

A. Background

Section 10(f) of the Investment

Company Act prohibits a fund from

purchasing any security during an

underwriting or selling syndicate if the

fund has certain affiliated relationships

with a principal underwriter 2 for the

security (‘‘affiliated underwriter’’).3 This

provision was designed to protect funds

and their investors from the ‘‘dumping’’

of unmarketable securities on a fund in

order to benefit the fund’s affiliated

underwriter.4 Section 10(f) is a broad