Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7985

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 7, 1997, and reply

comments on or before April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Victor A. Michael

Jr., President, Mountain Tower

Broadcasting, c/o Magic City Media,

1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 300,

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–61, adopted February 7, 1997, and

released February 14, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the

Commission’s Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC. 20037, (202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–4290 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. PS–94; Notice 6]

RIN 2137–AB38

Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

first meeting of an advisory committee

to conduct a negotiated rulemaking to

develop a proposed rule on

qualifications of pipeline employees

performing certain safety-related

functions on pipelines subject to the

pipeline safety regulations. The

advisory committee is composed of

persons who represent the interests that

would be affected by the rule, such as

gas pipeline operators, hazardous liquid

and carbon dioxide pipeline operators,

representatives of state and federal

governments, and other interested

parties.

DATES: The advisory committee’s first

meeting will be held from 8:30 am to 5

pm on April 23–24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The advisory committee

meeting will be held in Room 3200–

3204 at the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 7th

Street SW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366–0918,

regarding the subject matter of this

Notice; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366–

4453, for copies of this document or

other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Congressional Mandates

Under sections 106 and 205 of the

Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. No.

102–508; October 24, 1992), 49 U.S.C.

60102, Congress mandated DOT to

require that ‘‘all individuals responsible

for the operation and maintenance of

pipeline facilities be tested for

qualifications and certified to perform

such functions.’’ Section 4 of the

Accountable Pipeline Safety and

Partnership Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No.

104–304; October 12, 1996), amended

that mandate to require that ‘‘all

individuals who operate and maintain

pipeline facilities shall be qualified to

operate and maintain the pipeline

facilities.’’ The new mandate retains the

requirement that ‘‘qualifications

applicable to an individual who

operates and maintains a pipeline

facility shall address the ability to

recognize and react appropriately to

abnormal operating conditions that may

indicate a dangerous situation or a

condition exceeding design limits. The

operator of a pipeline facility shall

ensure that employees who operate and

maintain the facility are qualified to

operate and maintain the pipeline

facilities.’’

Notice of Intent To Form a Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee

On July 2, 1996, RSPA issued a Notice

of Intent (NOI) (61 FR 34410) to inform

the public of RSPA’s intent to form a

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to

develop a proposed rule on the

qualification of pipeline personnel who

are engaged in pipeline operations,

maintenance, and emergency-response

functions. Concurrently with the

issuance of the NOI, RSPA issued a

Notice (61 FR 34413) withdrawing a

previous Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in Docket No. PS–94 titled

‘‘Qualification of Pipeline Personnel’’

(59 FR 39506). The NOI listed interests

that could be affected by a qualification

rule and tentatively identified various

organizations that could represent those

interests. The NOI also invited

comments on the issues to be

negotiated, and invited interested

parties to apply for appointment to the

committee if they could demonstrate

that their interests could not be

adequately represented by the proposed

committee members.

RSPA received over 20 comments to

the NOI, all of which supported the

negotiated rulemaking initiative. A few

comments focused on the ‘‘Key Issues

for Negotiation’’ in the NOI. These

commenters requested a more general

approach to the pipeline qualification

issue, and urged RSPA to avoid

involvement with specific pipelinerelated functions. Further, a gas trade

association said that it would be

premature to discuss the ‘‘key issues,’’

and suggested a number of basic

‘‘guiding principals’’ for discussions

during the negotiation.

RSPA did not intend to limit the

Committee’s discussion to the ‘‘key

issues’’ described in the NOI. RSPA is

willing to address the comments to the

NOI directly, or allow the

representatives of these organizations to

bring their concerns to the negotiating

table. The meeting’s agenda and

processes will be left to the Committee’s

discretion, with the help of the

facilitator. These procedural issues will

be resolved at this initial meeting.
7986 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Members of the RSPA Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee

As noted in the NOI, the Federal

Mediation and Conciliation Service

(FMCS) served as the convener of this

negotiated rulemaking, and will be

serving as the facilitator for the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.

RSPA representatives met with FMCS

on several occasions to discuss the

issues that needed to be addressed and

the interests that needed to be

represented on a negotiated rulemaking

committee. FMCS contacted

organizations that might be able to

represent various interests, reviewed

additional applications for

representation, and drafted a tentative

membership list. Each organization will

be allowed one seat at the negotiating

table. Subsequently, the following

organizations were approved by the

Secretary for membership on the

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee:

1. American Gas Association (AGA)

The AGA represents a large number of

gas distribution and a few transmission

companies in the pipeline industry.

AGA members consist of both large and

small operators.

2. American Petroleum Institute (API)

API represents the interests of the

hazardous liquid pipeline companies.

API is the major trade association in the

petroleum industry.

3. Interstate Natural Gas Association of

America (INGAA)

INGAA consists mainly of the larger

interstate gas transmission pipelines.

INGAA represents the larger interstate

gas transmission pipeline companies in

the natural gas transportation industry.

4. American Public Gas Association

(APGA)

APGA is a trade association of

publicly-owned and municipal gas

companies. APGA represents the

interests of these municipalities, and

although these public companies are

generally small, they operate a large

number of the distribution pipelines in

American cities and suburbs.

5. National Propane Gas Association

(NPGA)

NPGA consists of many companies

that deal with transportation of propane

gas. Members of NPGA are usually

smaller operators, but the interests of

the larger propane transportation

companies are also represented.

6. Association of Texas Intrastate

Natural Gas Pipelines

This association represents the

interests of intrastate natural gas

transmission pipelines. The

Association’s work with industry

training organizations may contribute to

development of the qualifications rule.

7. Midwest Gas Association (MGA)

MGA is a non-profit organization

consisting of over 100 investor-owned

utilities, municipal utilities, contractors,

and manufacturers. Working with others

in the gas pipeline transportation

industry, MGA has developed many

training programs, including those

involving pipeline transportation.

8. National Association of Corrosion

Engineers (NACE)

NACE is an organization of corrosion

experts. Corrosion is the second most

common source of pipeline failures, and

NACE works primarily on issues of

corrosion and corrosion control systems.

9. National Association of Pipeline

Safety Representatives (NAPSR)

NAPSR is an organization of state

pipeline safety programs. This

organization represents the state

pipeline safety program managers, most

of whom would incorporate the Federal

final rule on operator personnel

qualifications into their state’s pipeline

safety program.

10. National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

NARUC represents the interests of the

state utility commissioners, who

regulate gas rates and terms of service in

most of the fifty states. The qualification

rulemaking could have an impact on the

costs of gas service incorporated in gas

service rates.

11. National Association of Fire

Marshals

This is a national organization

consisting of state fire officials who

have expertise on the issue of

qualification for emergency response.

12. International Union of Operating

Engineers (IUOE)

This labor organization represents the

interests of many pipeline workers.

IUOE represents 21,000 gas industry

workers.

13. International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers (IBEW)

This labor organization represents a

substantial number of pipeline

construction and maintenance workers.

14. Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)

OPS will serve as the representative of

RSPA, representing the United States

Government on the issue of operator

personnel qualifications. The OPS

representative will be the Designated

Federal Official at the negotiations.

RSPA coordinated with FMCS

throughout the convening process to

identify and approach an environmental

organization to serve on the committee.

Although many environmental groups

were contacted, none were interested in

participating in the negotiation.

Government agencies that are

environmentally focused also assisted

by soliciting participation through their

mailing lists or on their Internet page.

Some of these groups said that the issue

was too narrowly focused to generate

their interest or said they did not know

enough about the issue to participate.

Environmental groups have had

multiple opportunities to express their

interest. RSPA solicited applications

through the NOI and even named an

environmental group as a likely

participant. FMCS concluded that a

good faith effort was made to include an

environmental organization and, due to

the lack of interest, suggested that the

convening of the committee should

proceed with the existing membership.

Conduct of Meeting

The initial meeting will be held from

8:30 am to 5:00 pm over a two-day

period, and may conclude early on the

second day depending on the progress

of the Committee. Although these

meetings will be open to the public, the

amount of audience participation, if

any, will be determined by the

Committee.

At the initial meeting of the

Committee, considerable explanation

and training in the Negotiated

Rulemaking process will be provided by

FMCS. The Committee will also need to

address and reach consensus on many

procedural issues, such as the

meeting(s) agenda, ground rules for

members to follow when addressing the

Committee, the procedure for keeping a

record or ‘‘minutes’’ of the meeting(s),

and a schedule for distribution of

minutes for correction and concurrence

prior to placing them in the public

docket. Most importantly, the

committee will need to agree on a

timeline for the negotiation and a

schedule of committee meetings.

RSPA believes that the negotiated

rulemaking process will provide ample

opportunity for all affected parties to

present their views and to reach a

consensus on a pipeline personnel

qualifications rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7987

Issued in Washington, D.C., on February

14, 1997.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–4275 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 541

[Docket No. 96–122; Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AG33

Preliminary Theft Data; Motor Vehicle

Theft Prevention Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Publication of preliminary theft

data; request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on data about passenger

motor vehicle thefts that occurred in

calendar year (CY) 1995, including theft

rates for existing passenger motor

vehicle lines manufactured in model

year (MY) 1995. The theft data

preliminarily indicate that the vehicle

theft rate for CY/MY 1995 vehicles (3.61

thefts per thousand vehicles) decreased

by 13.4 percent from the theft rate for

CY/MY 1994 vehicles (4.17 thefts per

thousand vehicles).

Publication of these data fulfills

NHTSA’s statutory obligation to

periodically obtain accurate and timely

theft data, and publish the information

for review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should refer

to the docket number and notice

number cited in the heading of this

document and be submitted, preferably

with ten copies to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Docket hours are from 9:30 am to 4:00

pm, Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA

administers a program for reducing

motor vehicle theft. The central feature

of this program is the Federal Motor

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49

CFR Part 541. The standard specifies

performance requirements for inscribing

or affixing vehicle identification

numbers (VINs) onto certain major

original equipment and replacement

parts of high-theft lines of passenger

motor vehicles.

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C.

33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from

the most reliable source, accurate and

timely theft data, and publish the data

for review and comment. To fulfill the

§ 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document

reports the preliminary theft data for CY

1995, the most recent calendar year for

which data are available.

In calculating the 1995 theft rates,

NHTSA followed the same procedures it

used in calculating the MY 1994 theft

rates. (For 1994 theft data calculations,

see 61 FR 50069, September 24, 1996).

As in all previous reports, NHTSA’s

data were based on information

provided to NHTSA by the National

Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. The

NCIC is a governmental system that

receives vehicle theft information from

nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies

and other law enforcement authorities

throughout the United States. The NCIC

data also include reported thefts of selfinsured and uninsured vehicles, not all

of which are reported to other data

sources.

The 1995 theft rate for each vehicle

line was calculated by dividing the

number of reported thefts of MY 1995

vehicles of that line stolen during

calendar year 1995, by the total number

of vehicles in that line manufactured for

MY 1995, as reported to the

Environmental Protection Agency.

The preliminary 1995 theft data show

a decrease in the vehicle theft rate when

compared to the theft rate experienced

in CY/MY 1994. The preliminary theft

rate for MY 1995 passenger vehicles

stolen in calendar year 1995 decreased

to 3.61 thefts per thousand vehicles

produced, a decrease of 13.4 percent

from the rate of 4.17 thefts per thousand

vehicles experienced by MY 1994

vehicles in CY 1994. For MY 1995

vehicles, out of a total of 207 vehicle

lines, 86 lines had a theft rate higher

than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the

established median theft rate for MYs

1990/1991. (See 59 FR 12400, March 16,

1994). Of the 86 vehicle lines with a

theft rate higher than 3.5826, 71 are

passenger car lines, 12 are multipurpose

passenger vehicle lines, and 3 are lightduty truck lines.

In Table I, NHTSA has tentatively

ranked each of the MY 1995 vehicle

lines in descending order of theft rate.

Public comment is sought on the

accuracy of the data, including the data

for the production volumes of

individual vehicle lines.

Comments must not exceed 15 pages

in length (49 CFR Part 553.21).

Attachments may be appended to these

submissions without regard to the 15

page limit. This limitation is intended to

encourage commenters to detail their

primary arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for this

document will be considered, and will

be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Comments on this document will be

available for inspection in the docket.

NHTSA will continue to file relevant

information as it becomes available for

inspection in the docket after the

closing date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102 and

33104; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.