Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7447

Highway Administration, the Federal

Railroad Administration, the Research

and Special Programs Administration,

and the Saint Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation of the U.S.

Department of Transportation who are

assigned to perform or assist in

performing investigative, inspection or

law enforcement functions; and (5) U.S.

Trustees and Assistant U.S. Trustees,

and bankruptcy analysts and other

officers and employees of the U.S.

Trustee System who have contact with

creditors and debtors, perform audit

functions, or perform other investigative

or enforcement functions in

administering the bankruptcy laws. No

public comments were received.

Administrative law judges (ALJs)

perform law enforcement functions

under various federal laws. In recent

years ALJs have been recipients of an

increasing number of threats, often by

litigants in proceedings before ALJs who

have considerable property interests at

stake. Presently, there are over 1000

ALJs in nearly 30 federal agencies. Some

of the ALJs in the Social Security

Administration and the Securities and

Exchange Commission are currently

covered by § 64.2 (x) and (w),

respectively. While these ALJs comprise

nearly 70% of all federal ALJs, there is

no valid reason for not covering the

others who experience similar risks.

Accordingly, all administrative law

judges have been added by paragraph

(aa) of § 64.2.

The Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs (OWCP) of the Department of

Labor administers three workers’

compensation laws: the Federal

Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA);

the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act (LHWCA) and its

extension; and the Black Lung Benefits

Act (BLBA). OWCP employees

adjudicate and administer claims which

result in the payment (or denial) of

benefits under these respective laws. As

part of this process, the employees

conduct informal conferences and

(under FECA) face-to-face hearings. The

individual claims examiner’s identity is

well known to claimants, as are the

supervisors and managers involved at

all levels of the program. These

employees’ jobs involve a substantial

risk of physical danger from some

claimants and other members of the

public who seek to influence the

outcome of the claim or who are

dissatisfied with the decisions rendered.

In recent years, an increased number of

threats and acts of violence have been

directed against OWCP employees.

There have been instances in which

individuals have appeared in OWCP

offices with vicious dogs, with

purported explosives strapped to them,

and with firearms and other dangerous

weapons. Accordingly, these OWCP

employees have been added by

paragraph (bb) of § 64.2.

Because of new paragraph (aa),

reference to ‘‘administrative judges’’ in

paragraph (w) has been deleted. Also,

because section 6 of Pub. L. 102–365,

106 Stat. 975, September 3, 1992, added

to section 1114 of title 18, U.S.C., ‘‘any

officer or employee of the Federal

Railroad Administration assigned to

perform investigative inspection or law

enforcement functions,’’ reference to the

Federal Railroad Administration has

been deleted from paragraph (z).

On May 18, 1994, an interim rule with

request for comments was published in

the Federal Register amending part 64

of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations.

Attorney General Order No. 1874–94, 59

FR 25815. One favorable comment was

received. The Department has

determined to issue the rule in final

form without revision to the interim

rule.

The Department of Justice has

determined that this is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of Executive Order 12866 and,

accordingly, this rule has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget. This order will not have a

substantial impact on a significant

number of small entities, thus a

regulatory flexibility analysis has not

been prepared pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,

et seq. Finally, this order does not have

Federalism implications warranting the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment

in accordance with E.O. 12612.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 28 CFR part 64 which was

published at 59 FR 25815 on May 18,

1994, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: January 31, 1995.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 95–3058 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S–048]

Logging Operations

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA).

ACTION: Final rule; partial stay of

enforcement.

SUMMARY: On October 12, 1994, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) issued a new

standard for logging operations (59 FR

51672). This notice stays enforcement of

the following paragraphs of § 1910.266

until August 9, 1995: (d)(1)(v) insofar as

it requires foot protection to be chainsaw resistant; (d)(1)(vii) insofar as it

requires face protection; (d)(2)(iii) for

first-aid kits that contain all the items

listed in Appendix A; (f)(2)(iv); (f)(2)(xi);

(f)(3)(ii); (f)(3)(vii); (f)(3)(viii); (f)(7)(ii)

insofar as it requires that parking brakes

be able to stop the machine; (g)(1) and

(g)(2) insofar as they require inspection

and maintenance of employee-owned

vehicles; and (h)(2)(vii) insofar as it

precludes backcuts at the level of the

horizontal cut of the undercut when the

Humboldt cutting method is used.

DATES: Effective on February 9, 1995.

The partial stay will expires on August

9, 1995. The remaining requirements of

§ 1910.266 are unaffected by this

document and will go into effect as

scheduled on February 9, 1995, or as

otherwise provided in the Final Rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Anne Cyr, Office of Information and

Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, Room N–

3637, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20210, (202) 219–8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 12, 1994, OSHA issued a final

rule governing worker safety in logging

operations. Among other things, this

rule included requirements for: personal

protective equipment; first aid kits at

logging work sites; machine stability

and slope limitations; discharge of

hydraulic and pneumatic storage

devices on forestry machines; protective

structures on machines; machine

braking systems; vehicle inspection and

maintenance; and tree harvesting.

Several parties have raised questions

about certain aspects of these

requirements. After considering their

questions, the Agency has determined

that a six-month delay in the effective

date of some of the provisions is

appropriate in order to allow time for it

to clarify language in the regulatory text

so that it most adequately expresses its

intent with respect to some of these

provisions, and to provide additional

information on other provisions.

Stay of Enforcement of Certain

Provisions of § 1910.266

Paragraph (d)(1)(v)—Foot protection.

The final logging standard requires
7448 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

employees to wear foot protection, such

as heavy-duty logging boots, that among

other things, protect against

‘‘penetration by chain saws.’’ Some

interested persons have misinterpreted

this provision to require steel-toed

boots, although the preamble to the final

rule explained that the rule does not

require steel-toed boots.

OSHA has decided to grant a sixmonth delay in the effective date of the

portion of this provision that requires

that foot protection be chain-saw

resistant. (The remaining requirements

of the foot protection provision will go

into effect as scheduled on February 9.)

This delay will enable OSHA to review

the logging community requirements on

available foot protection, including

many types of heavy-duty leather

logging boots currently used, kevlar

boots, and foot coverings that provide

adequate chain saw resistance. Finally,

this delay will allow greater availability

of new products that manufacturers are

developing in response to the standard.

Paragraph (d)(1)(vii)—Eye and face

protection. The logging standard

requires loggers to wear eye and face

protection meeting the requirements of

OSHA’s general personal protection

equipment (PPE) standards when there

is a potential for injury due to falling or

flying objects. Some interested persons

have interpreted this provision to

require both eye and face protection in

all cases.

OSHA has decided to grant a sixmonth delay in the effective date of this

provision to the extent that it requires

face protection. (The current effective

date of February 9 will continue to

apply to the eye protection

requirement.) The delay will allow

OSHA to clarify what the standard

requires, and to better inform employers

about available face protection that does

not limit worker vision.

Paragraph (d)(2)(iii)—Annual

approval of first-aid kits by a health

care provider. Paragraph (d)(2) states

that employers mut provide and

maintain adequate first-aid kits at each

worksite, and that the number and

contents of the kits must be reviewed

annually by a health care provider.

Some interested persons have

interpreted the standard to require that

a doctor inspect each kit annually.

OSHA has decided to grant a sixmonth delay in the effective date of the

provision requiring annual health care

provider review. The requirement that

first-aid kits contain at least the items

listed in Appendix A (paragraph

(d)(2)(ii)) will go into effect as

scheduled on February 9, 1995. During

this period, OSHA will revise the

statutory language to clarify its original

intent.

Paragraph (f)(2)(iv)—Slope limitations

on machine operation. This rule states

that logging machines shall not be

operated on any slope greater than the

maximum slope recommended by the

manufacturer. Some parties have

interpreted this provision to require

manufacturers to specify maximum

slopes that would be applicable in all

field situations. OSHA is granting a sixmonth stay of this provision to clarify

this point.

Paragraph (f)(2)(xi)—Discharge of

stored energy from machine hydraulic

and pneumatic storage devices. This

provision requires that pressure or

stored energy from hydraulic and

pneumatic storage devices be

discharged after the machine engine is

shut down. Some parties have

interpreted this provision to require

discharge of air and water from all

machine components, even when the

presence of air or water pressure will

not create a hazard for any employee.

OSHA is granting a six-month delay in

order to clarify this point.

Paragraph (f)(3)(ii)—Machine rollover

protective structures. The final rule

requires that all rollover protective

structures (ROPS) be installed, tested

and maintained in accordance with the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)

J1040, April 1988, performance criteria

for rollover protective structures

(ROPS). OSHA has learned that some

logging equipment currently in

production has not yet been designed to

meet the 1988 SAE criteria document.

OSHA has decided to delay the effective

date of this requirement for six-months

in order to determine whether any

additional extension may be

appropriate.

Paragraph (f)(3) (vii) and (viii)—

Machine operator cab protective

structures. These provisions require that

the lower portion of the operator’s cab

be enclosed with ‘‘solid’’ material that

will prevent objects from entering the

cab. Some parties have interpreted this

provision to encourage the use of

materials like steel plating that may

restrict the operator’s field of vision.

OSHA is granting a six-month delay in

the effective date of this provision in

order to clarify this requirement.

Paragraph (f)(7)(ii)—Machine braking

systems. This provision requires that

each machine be equipped with ‘‘a

secondary braking system, such as an

emergency brake or a parking brake,

which shall be effective in stopping the

machine and maintaining parking

performance.’’ OSHA has since learned

that the terminology used in this

provision is inconsistent with that used

by some manufacturers. These

manufacturers consider a secondary

braking system to be a subsystem of the

service brake system and that each

subsystem should be capable of

stopping the machine even though the

other subsystem fails. The parking brake

system is not designed to stop the

vehicle in motion but rather to restrain

it once movement has stopped; thus it

is not considered a secondary system.

OSHA is granting a six-month delay

in this provision only to the extent that

it requires that parking brakes be able to

stop the machine. During this period,

employers must still assure that each

machine has a service brake system that

is capable of stopping the machine and

a parking brake system that can hold the

machine and its maximum load on any

slope that the machine is operated.

OSHA will revise the terminology in

this provision to clarify its intent.

Paragraph (g) (1) and (2)—Inspection

and maintenance of employee-owned

vehicles. These provisions require that

any vehicle used off public roads at

logging work sites or to perform any

logging operation, including employeeowned vehicles, be maintained in a

serviceable condition. Some parties

have interpreted this provision to

require logging employers to inspect

and maintain all vehicles, including

those employee-owned vehicles that

they allow on their logging sites.

OSHA is granting a six-month delay

in the effective date of these provisions

insofar as they apply to employeeowned vehicles. The additional time

will enable OSHA to reexamine the

record on this issue and clarify its intent

of the standard.

Paragraph (h)(2)(vii)—Backcuts. This

rule requires that backcuts be above the

horizontal line of the undercut. OSHA

is aware that when loggers use the

Humboldt cutting method, in which the

diagonal cut is below the horizontal cut

of the undercut, the backcut is at the

level of the horizontal cut. The Agency

is granting a six-month delay in the

effective date of this provision only to

the extent that the rule does not permit

loggers using the Humboldt method to

place the backcut at the level of the

horizontal cut. (OSHA emphasizes that

backcuts may never be made below the

horizontal cut.) OSHA will reexamine

the record on this issue.

III. Authority

This document was prepared under

the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7449

The actions in this document are

taken pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act

of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 1–90 (55

FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC., this 2nd day of

February, 1995.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

For the reasons set forth above, 29

CFR part 1910 is hereby amended as

follows:

PART 1910—[AMENDED]

1. The Authority citation for subpart

R of 29 CFR part 1910 continues to read

as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,

655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–

71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83

(48 FR 35736), or 1–90 (55 FR 9033), as

applicable.

Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265,

1910.266, 1910.267, 1910.268, 1910.272,

1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 29

CFR part 1911.

Section 1910.272 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 553.

2. A note is added at the end of

§ 1910.266, to read as follows:

§ 1910.266 Logging operations.

* * * * *

Note: In the Federal Register of February

8, 1995, OSHA stayed the following

paragraphs of § 1910.266 from February 9,

1995 until August 9, 1995:

1. (d)(1)(v) insofar as it requires foot

protection to be chain-saw resistant.

2. (d)(1)(vii) insofar as it requires face

protection.

3. (d)(2)(iii).

4. (f)(2)(iv).

5. (f)(2)(xi).

6. (f)(3)(ii).

7. (f)(3)(vii).

8. (f)(3)(viii).

9. (f)(7)(ii) insofar as it requires that

parking brakes be able to stop the machine.

10. (g)(1) and (g)(2) insofar as they require

inspection and maintenance of employeeowned vehicles.

11. (h)(2)(vii) insofar as it precludes

backcuts at the level of the horizontal cut of

the undercut when the Humboldt cutting

method is used.

[FR Doc. 95–3041 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 93

[FRL–5149–8]

Transportation Conformity Rule

Amendments: Transition to the Control

Strategy Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: This action aligns the timing

of certain transportation conformity

consequences with the imposition of

Clean Air Act highway sanctions for a

six-month period. For ozone

nonattainment areas with an incomplete

15% emissions-reduction state

implementation plan with a protective

finding; incomplete ozone attainment/

3% rate-of-progress plan; or finding of

failure to submit an ozone attainment/

3% rate-of-progress plan, and areas

whose control strategy implementation

plan for ozone, carbon monoxide,

particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide is

disapproved with a protective finding,

the conformity status of the

transportation plan and program will

not lapse as a result of such failure until

highway sanctions for such failure are

effective under other Clean Air Act

sections.

This action delays the lapse in

conformity status, which would

otherwise prevent approval of new

highway and transit projects, and allows

States more time to prevent the lapse by

submitting complete control strategy

implementation plans. EPA is issuing

this interim final rule, effective for a sixmonth period, without prior proposal in

order to prevent previously

unforeseeable delays in State ozone

implementation plan development from

causing widespread conformity lapsing.

In a parallel action in this Federal

Register, EPA is requesting comment on

this interim final rule and on similar but

permanent rule changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This interim final rule

is effective on February 8, 1995 until

August 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking are contained in Docket No.

A–95–02. The docket is located in room

M–1500 Waterside Mall (ground floor)

at the Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460. The docket may be inspected

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, including all non-government

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Sargeant, Emission Control

Strategies Branch, Emission Planning

and Strategies Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2565

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

(313) 668–4441.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Transportation Conformity Rule

The final transportation conformity

rule, ‘‘Criteria and Procedures for

Determining Conformity to State or

Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit

Act,’’ was published November 24, 1993

(58 FR 62188) and amended 40 CFR

parts 51 and 93. The Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking was published on January

11, 1993 (58 FR 3768).

Required under section 176(c) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, the

transportation conformity rule

established the criteria and procedures

by which the Federal Highway

Administration, the Federal Transit

Administration, and metropolitan

planning organizations determine the

conformity of federally funded or

approved highway and transit plans,

programs, and projects to state

implementation plans (SIPs). According

to the Clean Air Act, federally

supported activities must conform to the

implementation plan’s purpose of

attaining and maintaining the national

ambient air quality standards.

The final transportation conformity

rule requires that conformity

determinations use the motor vehicle

emissions budget(s) in a submitted

‘‘control strategy’’ SIP (defined below),

and the rule includes special provisions

to address failures in control strategy

SIP development. These failures include

failure to submit a control strategy SIP,

submission of an incomplete control

strategy SIP, or disapproval of a control

strategy SIP. Specifically, according to

40 CFR 51.448 (and 40 CFR 93.128),

following these SIP development

failures, no new or amended

transportation plans or transportation

improvement programs (TIPs) may be

found to conform to the SIP after a

certain grace period (i.e., the existing

transportation plan and TIP are

‘‘frozen’’), and eventually, the

conformity status of the existing

transportation plan and TIP lapses.

When the conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP lapses, no

new project-level conformity

determinations may be made, and the

only federal highway and transit

projects which may proceed are exempt

or grandfathered projects. Non-federal