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
20192 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

revision thereto is a prerequisite for

State plan final approval consideration

under section 18(e) of the Act.

Both the 1978 Court Order and the

1980 Report to the Court explicitly

contemplate subsequent revisions to the

benchmarks in light of more current

data, including State-specific

information, and other relevant

considerations. In August 1983 OSHA,

together with State plan representatives,

initiated a comprehensive review and

revision of the 1980 benchmarks. The

State of Michigan participated in this

benchmark revision process, which

resulted in a methodology whereby a

State could submit data that would

justify revision of its 1980 benchmarks.

In 1992, Michigan proposed to the

Assistant Secretary revised compliance

staffing levels for a ‘‘fully effective’’

program responsive to the occupational

safety and health needs of the State. (A

complete discussion of both the 1980

benchmarks and the present revision

system process is set forth in the

January 16, 1985 Federal Register (50

FR 2491) regarding the Wyoming

occupational safety and health plan.)

Proposed Revision of Benchmarks

In 1980, OSHA submitted a report to

the Court containing the benchmarks

and requiring Michigan to allocate 141

safety compliance officers and 225

industrial hygienists. Pursuant to the

initiative begun in August 1983 by the

State plan designees as a group, and in

accord with the formula and general

principles established by that group for

individual State revision of benchmarks,

Michigan reassessed the compliance

staffing necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’

occupational safety and health program

in the State.

In 1992, the Michigan Department of

Labor (the designated agency or

‘‘designee’’ for safety enforcement in the

State) and the Michigan Department of

Public Health (the designated agency or

‘‘designee’’ for health enforcement in

the State) completed, in conjunction

with OSHA, a review of the compliance

staffing benchmarks approved for

Michigan in 1980. This reassessment

resulted in a proposal to OSHA of

revised compliance staffing benchmarks

of 56 safety and 45 health compliance

officers for the State of Michigan.

History of the Present Proceedings

On March 29, 1994, the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

published notice in the Federal Register

of its proposal to approve revised

compliance staffing benchmarks for

Michigan (59 FR 14586). A detailed

description of the methodology and

State-specific information used to

develop the revised compliance staffing

levels for Michigan was included in the

notice. In addition, OSHA submitted, as

a part of the record, detailed

submissions containing both narrative

explanation and supporting data for

Michigan’s proposed revised

benchmarks (Docket No. T–026). An

informational record was established in

a separate docket (Docket No. T–018)

and contains background information

relevant to the benchmark issue and the

current benchmark revision process.

To assist and encourage public

participation in the benchmark revision

process, a copy of Michigan’s complete

record was maintained in the OSHA

Docket Office in Washington, DC.

Copies of Michigan’s record were also

maintained in the OSHA Region V

Office in Chicago, Illinois, and in the

offices of the Michigan Department of

Labor and the Michigan Department of

Public Health in Lansing, Michigan.

The March 29 proposal invited

interested parties to submit, by May 3,

1994, written comments and views

regarding whether Michigan’s proposed

revised compliance staffing benchmark

levels should be approved. One

comment was received regarding

Michigan’s proposed benchmarks.

Summary and Evaluation of Comments

Received

In response to the March 29 Federal

Register notice for Michigan, OSHA

received one comment from Paul M.

Schubert of Akron, Ohio (Exhibit 4–1).

Douglas J. Kalinowski, Chief of the

Michigan Division of Occupational

Health, responded to the public

comment (Exhibit 4–2).

Mr. Schubert commented that he had

been a health compliance officer with

the Michigan Department of Public

Health from 1975 through 1981, and

that it was his opinion, based on his

experience as a compliance officer, that

the complexity of many of the health

compliance inspections would require

more than the State’s historical average

of 27.8 hours per health compliance

inspection. Mr. Schubert also noted that

during one of his years as a compliance

officer his inspections had averaged 210

hours per inspection.

In his response, Mr. Kalinowski noted

that the annual number of hours

available for compliance activity per

Michigan health compliance officer is

1,462 hours. If each health inspection

required an average of 210 hours, fewer

than seven inspections would be

conducted per compliance officer.

According to Mr. Kalinowski, 31.5

health inspectors conducted a total of

1,766 health inspections in 1980, with

an average of 56 inspections per health

inspector and an average of 26 hours per

inspection. In its 1992 submission

proposing revised compliance staffing

benchmarks, Michigan utilized actual

inspection activity data for Fiscal Years

1990 and 1991 to determine that the

average health inspection required

approximately 27.8 hours. Michigan’s

data was comparable to the national

average number of hours per health

inspection for all 18(b) State plans of 24

in Fiscal Year 1990 and 25 in Fiscal

Year 1991. It is OSHA’s determination

that the State’s use of the average of 27.8

hours per health inspection is

reasonable and acceptable.

Decision

OSHA has carefully reviewed the

record developed during the above

described proceedings. In light of all the

facts presented on the record, including

all comments received thereon, the

Assistant Secretary has determined that

the revised compliance staffing levels

proposed for Michigan meet the

requirements of the 1978 Court Order in

AFL–CIO v. Marshall in providing the

number of safety and health compliance

officers for a ‘‘fully effective’’

enforcement program. Therefore, the

revised compliance staffing levels of 56

safety and 45 health for Michigan are

approved.

Effect of Decision

The approval of the revised staffing

levels for Michigan, set forth elsewhere

in this notice, establishes the

requirement for a sufficient number of

adequately trained and qualified

compliance personnel as set forth in

Section 18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR

1902.37(b)(1). These benchmarks are

established pursuant to the 1978 Court

Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall and

define the compliance staffing levels

necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’ program

in Michigan. The allocation of sufficient

staffing to meet the benchmarks is one

of the conditions necessary for States to

receive an 18(e) determination (final

State plan approval) with its resultant

relinquishment of concurrent Federal

enforcement jurisdiction.

Explanation of Changes to 29 CFR Part

1952

29 CFR 1952 contains, for each State

having an approved occupational safety

and health plan, a subpart generally

describing the plan and setting forth the

Federal approval status of the plan. This

notice makes several changes to Subpart

T to reflect the approval of Michigan’s

revised compliance staffing

benchmarks, as well as to reflect minor

editorial modifications to the structure

of the Subpart.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20193

A new § 1952.393, Compliance

staffing benchmarks, has been added to

Subpart T to reflect the approval of the

revised benchmarks for Michigan.

While most of the existing subparts

have been retained, paragraphs within

the subpart have been rearranged and

renumbered so that the major steps in

the development of the plan (initial

approval, developmental steps and

certification of completion of

developmental steps) are set forth in

chronological order.

Related editorial changes to the

subparts include modification of the

heading of § 1952.260 to clearly identify

the initial plan approval of Michigan.

The addresses of locations where the

Michigan plan may be inspected have

been updated and are found at

§ 1952.266.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

OSHA certifies, pursuant to the

Regulatory Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et

seq.), that this rulemaking will not have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Approval of the revised compliance

staffing benchmarks for Michigan will

not place small employers in the State

under any new or different requirements

nor would any additional burden be

placed upon the State government

beyond the responsibilities already

assumed as part of the approved plan.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952

Intergovernmental relations, Law

enforcement, Occupational safety and

health.

(Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29

CFR Part 1902, Secretary of Labor’s Order No.

1–90 (55 FR 9033))

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of

April 1995.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1952—[AMENDED]

Accordingly, Subpart T of 29 CFR Part

1952 is amended to read as follows:

Subpart T—Michigan

1. The authority citation for Part 1952

continues to read:

Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C.

667); 29 CFR Part 1902, Secretary of Labor’s

Order No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033).

2. Section 1952.260 is amended by

revising the heading to read:

§ 1952.260 Description of the plan as

initially approved.

§ 1952.265 [Redesignated as § 1952.267]

§ 1952.262 [Redesignated as § 1952.265]

3. Section 1952.265 is redesignated as

§ 1952.267, and § 1952.262 is

redesignated as § 1952.265.

§ 1952.264 [Redesignated as § 1952.262]

4. Section 1952.264 is redesignated as

§ 1952.262, and is amended by revising

the heading to read:

§ 1952.262 Completion of developmental

steps and certification.

§ 1952.264 [Reserved]

5. A new § 1952.264 is added and

reserved.

§ 1952.261 [Redesignated as § 1952.266]

6. Section 1952.261 is redesignated as

§ 1952.266 and revised to read as

follows:

§ 1952.266 Where the plan may be

inspected

A copy of the principal documents

comprising the plan may be inspected

and copied during normal business

hours at the following locations: Office

of State Programs, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Third Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room

N3700, Washington, D.C. 20210;

Regional Administrator, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room 3244, 230

South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois

60604; Michigan Department of Labor,

Victor Office Center, 201 North

Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan

48933; and Michigan Department of

Public Health, 3423 North Logan Street,

Lansing, Michigan 48909

§ 1952.261 [Redesignated from § 1952.263]

7. Section 1952.263 is redesignated as

§ 1952.261 and a new § 1952.263 is

added to read as follows:

§ 1952.263 Compliance staffing

benchmarks.

Under the terms of the 1978 Court

Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,

compliance staffing levels

(‘‘benchmarks’’) necessary for a ‘‘fully

effective’’ enforcement program were

required for each State operating an

approved State plan. In 1992, Michigan

completed, in conjunction with OSHA,

a reassessment of the levels initially

established in 1980 and proposed

revised benchmarks of 56 safety and 45

health compliance officers. After

opportunity for public comment and

service on the AFL–CIO, the Assistant

Secretary approved these revised

staffing requirements on April 20, 1995.

8. Newly designated § 1952.261 is

amended by revising the heading to

read:

§ 1952.261 Developmental schedule.

§ 1952.261 [Amended]

9. Newly designated § 1952.261(i) is

further redesignated as § 1952.262(i).

[FR Doc. 95–10138 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 756

Navajo Nation Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation (AMLR) Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed

amendment to the Navajo Nation AMLR

plan (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Navajo plan’’) under the Surface

Mining Control Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). The Navajo Nation proposed

revisions to its AMLR Code of 1987

pertaining to the reclamation of interim

program coal sites. The amendment is

intended to revise the Navajo plan to be

consistent with SMCRA, and to improve

operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas E. Ehmett, telephone: (505)

766–1486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on Title IV of SMCRA

Title IV of SMCRA established an

AMLR program for the purposes of

reclaiming and restoring lands and

waters adversely affected by past

mining. The program is funded by a

reclamation fee levied on the

production of coal. Generally, lands and

waters eligible for reclamation under

Title IV are those that are mined or

affected by mining and abandoned or

inadequately reclaimed prior to August

3, 1977, and for which there is no

continuing reclamation responsibilities

under State, Federal, Tribal, or other

laws. Lands and waters abandoned or

inadequately reclaimed after August 3,

1977, are also eligible for reclamation

under provisions at sections 402(g)(4)

and 404 of SMCRA.

Title IV provides for State or Tribal

submittal to OSM of an AMLR plan. The