Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20189

nonbank subsidiaries. These comments

argue that section 106, by its terms, only

applies to banks and the Board’s

extension of these restrictions places

bank holding companies and their

nonbank subsidiaries at a competitive

disadvantage. These commenters

emphasize that, even without these

restrictions, bank holding companies

and their nonbank subsidiaries remain

subject to the antitrust laws. The Board

has this matter under consideration and

has asked staff to analyze whether

additional steps should be taken.

Paperwork Reduction Act

No collections of information

pursuant to section 3504(h) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) are contained in the final

rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 225

Administrative practice and

procedure, Banks, banking, Federal

Reserve System, Holding companies,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Securities.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR

Part 225 as set forth below:

PART 225—BANK HOLDING

COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK

CONTROL (REGULATION Y)

1. The authority citation for 12 CFR

part 225 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818,

1831i, 1831p–1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(1),

3106, 3108, 3310, 3331–3351, 3907, and

3909.

2. In section 225.7, a new paragraph

(b)(4) is added to read as follows:

§ 225.7 Tying restrictions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Safe harbor for combined-balance

discounts. A bank holding company or

any bank or nonbank subsidiary thereof

may vary the consideration for any

product or package of products based on

a customer’s maintaining a combined

minimum balance in certain products

specified by the company varying the

consideration (eligible products), if:

(i) That company (if it is a bank) or

a bank affiliate of that company (if it is

not a bank ) offers deposits, and all such

deposits are eligible products; and

(ii) Balances in deposits count at least

as much as non-deposit products toward

the minimum balance.

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Governors of

the Federal Reserve System, April 19,

1995.

William W. Wiles,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–10120 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–ANE–38; Amendment 39–

9206, AD 95–09–02]

Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal

Engines (Formerly Textron Lycoming)

LTS101 Series Turboshaft and LTP101

Series Turboprop Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to AlliedSignal Engines

(formerly Textron Lycoming) LTS101

series turboshaft and LTP101 series

turboprop engines. This action

supersedes priority letter AD 94–19–01

that currently requires initial and

repetitive inspections for wear of the

engine fuel pump internal drive splines,

and replacement of engine fuel pumps

that exhibit wear beyond specified

limits. This action clarifies the original

requirements of the current AD by

providing additional information to

emphasize that the AD only applies to

engines installed on single-engine

aircraft and to emphasize that removed

fuel pumps must be returned to the

manufacturer for inspection. In

addition, this action defines a

serviceable part. This amendment is

prompted by requests to clarify

interpretations of the current priority

letter AD. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent engine fuel

pump failure, which can result in total

engine power loss and possible loss of

the aircraft.

DATES: Effective May 10, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 10,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–ANE–38, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from

AlliedSignal Engines, 550 Main Street,

Stratford, CT 06497; telephone (203)

385–2000. This information may be

examined at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene Triozzi, Aerospace Engineer,

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299; telephone (617) 238–7148,

fax (617) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 2, 1994, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) issued priority

letter airworthiness directive (AD) 94–

19–01, applicable to Textron Lycoming

LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101

series turboprop engines, which

requires initial and repetitive

inspections for wear of the engine fuel

pump internal drive splines, and

replacement of engine fuel pumps that

exhibit wear beyond the limits specified

in Textron Lycoming Service Bulletin

(SB) No. LT101–73–20–0165, dated

September 1, 1994, with a serviceable

part. Fuel pumps removed in

accordance with that AD must be

returned to Chandler Evans (CECO) for

disassembly, inspection and repair. That

action was prompted by a report of a

helicopter accident that resulted in a

total loss of engine power and

subsequent autorotation of a helicopter

powered by a Textron Lycoming Model

LTS101–600A–3 turboshaft engine.

Investigation of that accident and other

recent engine failures found that CECO

Model MFP261 engine fuel pump

internal drive spline teeth were worn

away and failed to engage, resulting in

loss of fuel delivery to the engine. The

wear progressed to failure prior to the

specified overhaul interval of 2,400

hours time in service (TIS). The FAA

has determined that the present engine

fuel pump overhaul interval is

insufficient to prevent excessive wear of

internal drive splines during service.

That condition, if not corrected, could

result in engine fuel pump failure,

which can result in total engine power

loss and possible loss of the aircraft.
20190 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Since issuance of that priority letter

AD, on October 28, 1994, AlliedSignal

Inc. purchased the turbine engine

product line of Textron Lycoming. In

addition, the FAA has approved the

technical contents of AlliedSignal

Engines Service Bulletin (SB) No.

LT101–73–20–0165, Revision 1, dated

January 3, 1995, that adds fuel pump

Part Number 4–301–128–09 to the SB’s

effectivity. The FAA has accordingly

revised the applicability of this AD to

include that additional part number.

In addition, the FAA has received

requests to clarify interpretations of the

current priority letter AD. To begin, this

AD is applicable to single-engine

aircraft only. Although other

AlliedSignal Engines LTS101 and

LTP101 engine models, installed on

multi-engine aircraft, use the same fuel

pump internal spline design, the FAA

has not determined that those other

engine models face the same unsafe

condition. Should unsafe conditions

develop in the future on other engine

models that incorporate fuel pumps

with internal spline designs, the FAA

may consider additional AD actions.

This finding has been coordinated with

the Small Aircraft and the Rotorcraft

Directorates.

Second, the FAA has determined that

the removed fuel pumps must be

returned to CECO due to CECO’s

specialized disassembly and inspection

capabilities. The manufacturer must

also obtain data necessary to further

define the fuel pump failure

characteristics, and to develop design

modifications to correct the unsafe

condition.

Finally, for the purpose of this AD, a

serviceable part is defined as a new part,

or a part that has been inspected by

CECO in accordance with AlliedSignal

Engines SB No. LT101–73–20–0165,

Revision 1, dated January 3, 1995, and

that has not yet accumulated 900 hours

time in service (TIS) since new, or since

inspection by CECO.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other engines of this same

type design, this AD supersedes priority

letter AD 94–19–01 to require initial and

repetitive inspections for wear of the

engine fuel pump internal drive splines,

and replacement of engine fuel pumps

that exhibit wear beyond the limits

specified in AlliedSignal Engines SB

No. LT101–73–20–0165, Revision 1,

dated January 3, 1995, with a

serviceable part. Fuel pumps removed

in accordance with this AD must be

returned to CECO for disassembly,

inspection and repair. The actions are

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–ANE–38.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866. It

has been determined further that this

action involves an emergency regulation

under DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,

1979). If it is determined that this

emergency regulation otherwise would

be significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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, pursuant to 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. App. 1354 (a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

95–09–02 AlliedSignal Engines:

Amendment 39–9206. Docket No. 94–

ANE–38.

Applicability: AlliedSignal Engines

(formerly Textron Lycoming) LTS101 series

turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop

engines incorporating Chandler Evans

(CECO) engine fuel pumps, Part Numbers 4–

301–128–01, –02, –03, –04, –05, –06, –07,

–08, –09, and –10. These engines are

installed on but not limited to the following

single-engine aircraft: Eurocopter France

(formerly Aerospatiale) AS350D series

helicopters and Airtractor AT302, PAC Aero

Cresco, and Page (Ayres S–2R) Thrush

airplanes. This AD is not applicable to

engines installed on twin-engine aircraft.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent engine fuel pump failure,

which can result in total engine power loss

and possible loss of the aircraft, remove

CECO engine fuel pumps, return to CECO for

inspection, and replace with a serviceable

part, in accordance with the following

schedule:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20191

(a) Remove from service CECO engine fuel

pumps with greater than 1,300 hours time in

service (TIS) since new or overhaul on the

effective date of this airworthiness directive

(AD), within the next 100 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, in accordance with

AlliedSignal Engines Service Bulletin (SB)

No. LT101–73–20–0165, Revision 1, dated

January 3, 1995, or previous revision.

(b) Remove from service CECO engine fuel

pumps with greater than 850 hours TIS but

less than or equal to 1,300 hours TIS since

new or overhaul on the effective date of this

AD, within the next 150 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, in accordance with

AlliedSignal Engines SB No. LT101–73–20–

0165, Revision 1, dated January 3, 1995, or

previous revision.

(c) Remove from service CECO engine fuel

pumps with less than or equal to 850 hours

TIS since new or overhaul on the effective

date of this AD, within the next 300 hours

TIS after the effective date of this AD, or

prior to accumulating 1,000 hours TIS since

new or overhaul, whichever occurs first, in

accordance with AlliedSignal Engines SB No.

LT101–73–20–0165, Revision 1, dated

January 3, 1995, or previous revision.

(d) Thereafter, remove from service CECO

engine fuel pump at intervals not to exceed

900 hours TIS since the last inspection in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of AlliedSignal Engines SB No.

LT101–73–20–0165, Revision 1, dated

January 3, 1995, or previous revision.

(e) Engine fuel pumps that exhibit wear

beyond the limits specified in AlliedSignal

Engines SB No. LT101–73–20–0165, Revision

1, dated January 3, 1995, or previous

revision, may not be returned to service.

(f) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable

part is defined as a new part, or a part that

has been inspected by CECO in accordance

with AlliedSignal Engines SB No. LT101–73–

20–0165, Revision 1, dated January 3, 1995,

or previous revision, and that has not yet

accumulated 900 hours TIS since new, or

since inspection by CECO.

(g) 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. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Engine Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Engine

Certification Office.

(h) 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 aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(i) The actions required by this AD shall be

done in accordance with the following

service bulletin:

Document No. Revision Pages Date

AlliedSignal Engines SB No. LT101–73–20–0165 ................................................................................... 1 1–3 January 3, 1995.

Total Pages: 3.

Chandler Evans SB No. 73–13 ................................................................................................................ 1 1–5 January 3, 1995.

Total Pages: 5.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from AlliedSignal Engines,

550 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06497;

telephone (203) 385–2000. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(j) This amendment supersedes

priority letter AD 94–19–01, issued

September 2, 1994.

(k) This amendment becomes effective

on May 10, 1995.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

April 17, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10134 Filed 4–21–95; 11:19 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

[Docket No. T–026]

Michigan State Plan: Approval of

Revised Compliance Staffing

Benchmarks

AGENCY: Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA).

ACTION: Final Rule: approval of revised

State compliance staffing benchmarks.

SUMMARY: This document amends

agency regulations to reflect the

Assistant Secretary’s decision to

approve revised compliance staffing

benchmarks for the Michigan State plan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Liblong, Director, Office of

Information and Consumer Affairs,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room N–3637. 200 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210,

(202) 219–8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970 (‘‘the Act,’’ 29

U.S.C. 651 et seq.) provides that States

which desire to assume responsibility

for developing and enforcing

occupational safety and health

standards may be so by submitting, and

obtaining Federal approval of, a State

plan. Section 18(c) of the Act sets forth

the statutory criteria for plan approval,

and among these criteria is the

requirement that the State’s plan

provide satisfactory assurances that the

state agency or agencies responsible for

implementing the plan have ‘‘* * * the

qualified personnel necessary for the

enforcement of * * * standards,’’ 29

U.S.C. 667(c)(4).

A 1978 decision of the U.S. Court of

Appeals and the resultant implementing

order issued by the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia (AFL–CIO v.

Marshall, C.A. No. 74–406) interpreted

this provision of the Act to require

States operating approved State plans to

have sufficient compliance personnel

necessary to assure a ‘‘fully effective’’

enforcement effort. The Assistant

Secretary of Labor for Occupational

Safety and Health (the Assistant

Secretary) was directed to establish

‘‘fully effective’’ compliance staffing

levels, or benchmarks, for each State

plan.

In 1980 OSHA submitted a Report to

the Court containing these benchmarks

and requiring Michigan to allocate 141

safety and 225 health compliance

personnel to conduct inspections under

the plan. Attainment of the 1980

benchmark levels or subsequent