Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12415

engines of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

200 engines installed on aircraft of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD. The

required reduction in service life will

cost $41,400 per engine based on the

cost of a new disk prorated over the

reduced service life as compared to the

current service life. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$8,280,000.

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.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this 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)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it 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:

95–03–15 Textron Lycoming: Amendment

39–9151. Docket 92–ANE–11.

Applicability: Textron Lycoming ALF502R

series turbofan engines installed on but not

limited to British Aerospace BAe-146 aircraft.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent No. 2 stage turbine disk, and

No. 1 and No. 3 through No. 7 stage

compressor rotor disk, failure resulting in

possible uncontained engine failure,

accomplish the following:

(a) Remove from service No. 2 stage turbine

disks, P/Ns 2–121–058–18, 2–121–058–20,

and 2–121–058–R24, in accordance with the

schedule defined in paragraph B(1) of Table

1 of Textron Lycoming Service Bulletin (SB)

ALF502R 72–281, dated February 7, 1992,

and replace with a disk with cycle

accumulation no greater than the reduced

service life limit of 10,000 cycles.

(b) Remove from service No. 1 stage

compressor rotor disks, P/N 2–101–331–04,

in accordance with paragraph A(1) of Table

1 of Textron Lycoming SB No. ALF502R 72–

281, dated February 7, 1992, and replace

with a disk with cycle accumulation no

greater than the reduced service life limit of

12,500 cycles.

(c) Remove from service No. 3 stage

compressor rotor disks, P/Ns 2–101–263–02,

2–101–263–05, 2–101–263–06, 2–101–263–

09, and 2–101–263–R10, in accordance with

paragraph A(2) of Table 1 of Textron

Lycoming SB No. ALF502R 72–281, dated

February 7, 1992, and replace with a disk

with cycle accumulation no greater than the

reduced service life limit of 11,800 cycles.

(d) Remove from service No. 4 stage

compressor rotor disks, P/Ns 2–100–042–03,

2–100–042–07, 2–100–042–09, and 2–100–

042–R08, in accordance with paragraph A(3)

of Table 1 of Textron Lycoming SB No.

ALF502R 72–281, dated February 7, 1992,

and replace with a disk with cycle

accumulation no greater than the reduced

service life limit of 9,000 cycles.

(e) Remove from service No. 5 stage

compressor rotor disks, P/Ns 2–100–043–01,

2–100–043–07, 2–100–043–09, and 2–100–

043–R08, in accordance with paragraph A(4)

of Table 1 of Textron Lycoming SB No.

ALF502R 72–281, dated February 7, 1992,

and replace with a disk with cycle

accumulation no greater than the reduced

service life limit of 12,300 cycles.

(f) Remove from service No. 6 stage

compressor rotor disks, P/Ns 2–100–044–01,

2–100–044–05, 2–100–044–07, and 2–100–

044–R06, in accordance with paragraph A(5)

of Table 1 of Textron Lycoming SB No.

ALF502R 72–281, dated February 7, 1992,

and replace with a disk with cycle

accumulation no greater than the reduced

service life limit of 12,500 cycles.

(g) Remove from service No. 7 stage

compressor rotor disks, P/Ns 2–100–045–01,

2–100–045–05, 2–100–045–07, and 2–100–

045–R06, in accordance with paragraph A(6)

of Table 1 of Textron Lycoming SB No.

ALF502R 72–281, dated February 7, 1992,

and replace with a disk with cycle

accumulation no greater than the reduced

service life limit of 9,200 cycles.

(h) 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.

(i) The actions required by this AD shall be

done in accordance with the following

Textron Lycoming service bulletin:

Document No. Pages Date

ALF502R 72–281 1–5 Feb. 7, 1992.

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 Textron Lycoming, 550 Main Street,

Stratford, CT 06497. 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 becomes effective on

May 8, 1995.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 8, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4125 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8581]

RIN 1545–AQ87

Certain Cash or Deferred

Arrangements and Employee and

Matching Contributions Under

Employee Plans; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

SUMMARY: The final regulations (TD

8581), which are the subject of these

corrections were published in the

Federal Register for Friday, December

23, 1994 (59 FR 66165). The final

regulations govern certain cash or

deferred arrangements and employee

and matching contributions under

employee plans.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 1994.
12416 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Livingston Fernandez at (202)

622–4606 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are the

subject of these corrections are under

sections 401(a)(30), 401(k), 401(m),

402(a)(8), 402(g), 411(d)(6), 415(c), 416

and 4979 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, TD 8581 contains

typographical errors that are in need of

correction.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of the

final regulations which is the subject of

FR Doc. 94–31427, is corrected as

follows:

1. On page 66165, column 2, in the

preamble following the paragraph

heading ‘‘1. Coordination With

Regulations Under Sections 401(a)(4),

401(a)(17), 410(b), and 414(s)’’,

paragraph 2, line 10, the section

‘‘410(k)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘401(k)’’.

§ 1.401(k)–1 [Corrected]

2. On page 66173, column 2,

§ 1.401(k)–1, paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(C), line

11, the regulations section ‘‘§ 410(b)–

7(c)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘§ 1.410(b)–

7(c)’’.

§ 1.401(m)–1 [Corrected]

3. On page 66178, column 1,

§ 1.401(m)–1, paragraph (e)(6), Example

3., third line from the bottom of the

paragraph, the language ‘‘in

compensation). Since Plan X satisfies

the’’ is corrected to read ‘‘in

compensation. Since Plan X satisfies

the’’.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief

Counsel (Corporate).

[FR Doc. 95–5552 Filed 3–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

North Carolina State Plan; Suspension

of Limited Concurrent Federal

Enforcement

AGENCY: Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of suspension

of concurrent Federal enforcement.

SUMMARY: This document announces

OSHA’s suspension of its exercise of

concurrent Federal enforcement

authority in North Carolina. Federal

enforcement authority will be exercised

only with regard to those issues not

covered by the State plan and in specific

areas defined in this document under

‘‘Level of Federal Enforcement.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 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 N3647, 200 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,

(202) 219–8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 667,

provides that States which wish to

assume responsibility for developing

and enforcing their own occupational

safety and health standards, may do so

by submitting, and obtaining Federal

approval of, a State plan. State plan

approval occurs in stages which include

initial approval under section 18(b) of

the Act and, ultimately, final approval

under section 18(e). In the interim,

between initial approval and final

approval, there is a period of concurrent

Federal/State jurisdiction within a State

operating an approved plan. See 29 CFR

1954.3 for guidelines and procedures.

The North Carolina Occupational

Safety and Health Plan was approved

under section 18(c) of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.

667(c)) (hereinafter referred to as the

Act) and part 1902 of this chapter on

January 26, 1973 (38 FR 3041), and

certified by OSHA as having completed

all of its developmental steps on

October 5, 1976 (41 FR 43896). On

February 20, 1975, OSHA and the State

of North Carolina entered into an

Operational Status Agreement which

suspended the exercise of Federal

concurrent enforcement authority in all

except specifically identified areas. (See

40 FR 16843).

On September 3, 1991, a tragic fire

occurred at the Imperial Food Products

chicken processing plant in Hamlet,

North Carolina, which resulted in the

deaths of 25 workers. In response to that

event OSHA understood a

comprehensive reevaluation of the

performance of the North Carolina State

Plan and a special evaluation of all

other State Plans. On October 24, 1991

(56 FR 55192) OSHA reasserted

concurrent Federal enforcement

jurisdiction in North Carolina with

respect to all currently pending and new

complaints of discrimination filed either

with OSHA or the State; all complaints

of unsafe or unhealthful working

conditions brought to OSHA’s attention

on or after October 24, 1991 by

employees or referred by others; and

referrals from the North Carolina

Governor’s 800 ‘‘Safety Line’’. This

action was responsive to the State’s

request for assistance. Upon further

request, on March 31, 1992, (57 FR

10820) OSHA extended its jurisdiction

to include all as yet uninvestigated

workplace complaints filed with the

State as of March 20, 1992.

Congressional oversight hearings were

held on the Hamlet fire and the AFL–

CIO, on September 11, 1991, petitioned

the Assistant Secretary to withdraw

approval of the North Carolina State

Plan. (See September 30, 1991, 56 FR

49444, Request for Public Comment and

January 16, 1992, 57 FR 1889, extension

of the comment period and

announcement of the availability of a

Special Evaluation report on North

Carolina.) On January 7, 1992, OSHA

issued a Special Evaluation report on

North Carolina finding significant

deficiencies and giving the State 90 days

to take corrective action. On April 23,

1992, OSHA determined that the State’s

response to the Special Evaluation

findings was insufficient and gave North

Carolina 45 days to show cause why

plan withdrawal action should not be

initiated. Fully satisfactory assurances

the necessary corrective action would be

undertaken were received in June 1992.

Since that date, North Carolina has

made substantive and significant

modifications to its program. Major

modifications were made to the State’s

occupational safety and health program

enabling legislation; State funding and

staffing were increased. The State now

has the inspection resources necessary

to provide effective worker protection in

the State and has addressed all of the

deficiencies identified as a result of

OSHA’s 1991 Special Evaluation Report.

The State increased its allocated

enforcement staff to 115 (64 safety and

51 health) and trained its new

compliance officers in accord with the

schedule outlined in the State’s June

1992 corrective action commitments.

(On-board compliance staffing totals

104—61 safety and 43 health as of

February 1, 1995.) North Carolina

resumed responsibility for all

discrimination complaints effective July

1, 1992, as a result of enactment of

legislation creating the Workplace

Retaliatory Discrimination (WORD)

Division, selection and training of

dedicated staff, and revision of its

discrimination manual to be comparable