Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34413

the proper amount of skill to be

considered qualified? Are ‘‘refresher’’

courses needed?

(10) Competency reviews. In the event

an incident or accident is attributed to

error, how will the operator reevaluate

and monitor an individual’s

qualification? How long should such a

competency review take?

(11) Recordkeeping. How will

qualification records be maintained?

What sorts of qualification schedules

(i.e.—training/testing results) must be

maintained?

(12) Compliance dates. What time

frame would be required for

implementation of an operator’s

qualification program? When would

personnel evaluation take place? Should

time frames be consistent between large

and small pipeline operators?

IV. Public Participation

RSPA invites comments on all issues,

procedures, guidelines, interests, and

suggested participants embodied in this

NOI.

Issued in Washington, D.C. June 26, 1996.

Kelley S. Coyner,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–16678 Filed 7–01–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. PS–94; Notice 4]

RIN 2137–AB38

Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA); Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document is to inform

the public that RSPA is withdrawing the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

in Docket No. PS–94 titled

‘‘Qualification of Pipeline Personnel.’’

RSPA is required by Congressional

mandate to establish requirements on

the qualification of personnel

conducting certain tasks on a pipeline

facility. The NPRM has been subject to

considerable scrutiny from many

commenters. However, RSPA believes

that an alternative method of

rulemaking can provide a better forum

to establish communications between

the interested parties and that a

consensus may be achieved on a new

rule on the qualification of pipeline

personnel. RSPA is publishing

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register a document titled ‘‘Notice of

Intent to Form a Negotiated Rulemaking

Committee’’ that will provide a

complete description of the regulatory

alternative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366–2036, or

Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366–0918,

regarding the subject matter of this

document; or the Dockets Unit, (202)

366–4453, for copies of this document

or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A NPRM

titled ‘‘Qualification of Pipeline

Personnel’’ was published on August 3,

1994 (Docket No. PS–94, Notice 2; 59 FR

39506). The NPRM proposed

qualification standards for pipeline

personnel who perform, or supervise

persons performing, regulated

operation, maintenance, and emergencyresponse functions. The intended effect

of the NPRM was to improve pipeline

safety by requiring operators to assure

the competency of affected personnel

through training, testing, and periodic

refresher training. Following extensive

interaction with the interested parties,

this Notice withdraws that proposal

from Docket No. PS–94. In light of the

many concerns expressed by these

parties, RSPA believes that an

alternative to traditional rulemaking

would be affective to reach consensus

on an personnel qualifications rule.

RSPA is planning to form a committee

that will represent all affected parties to

negotiate the many aspects of this issue,

and to achieve consensus on a new

NPRM to be published in the Federal

Register. The following discussion of

the written comments to the previous

NPRM should be helpful in

understanding the reasons for this

withdrawal.

Discussion of Comments to NPRM and

Development of Rules

RSPA received 131 comments to

Docket No. PS–94, which expressed a

wide variety of interests and concerns.

Comments were received from 111

pipeline companies, 8 pipeline-related

associations, 4 state and federal

agencies, and 8 other interested parties.

The following provides a summary of

the commenters’ issues.

Definitions

Comments were received on certain

definitions in the NPRM. The

definitions of ‘‘qualified

administratively’’ and ‘‘supervisory

persons’’ needed clarification, according

to many commenters. Commenters

alleged that the ‘‘qualified

administratively’’ provisions would be

redundant, because qualification in any

manner would be sufficient, as long as

the person was found proficient in

performing a covered job function or

supervised by a qualified person. Also,

commenters noted that the word

‘‘supervisor’’ might be inappropriate

because the term can be indicative of a

number of positions, including those

located away from a job site. These

commenters thought the term

‘‘supervisor’’ should be deleted and

alternate terms, such as ‘‘qualified

employee,’’ ‘‘lead person,’’ or another

term should be used to describe

someone who directly oversees

personnel performing job functions

covered in the NPRM.

Personnel to be Qualified

A number of commenters expressed

concern about those who would be

subject to this rule. The role of a

persons’ educational background and

work experience in determining

qualification was also addressed.

Concern was also expressed over

whether small gas systems operated by

mobile home parks should be subject to

a qualification rule. Also, the question

of how the proposed rule would cover

contractor personnel was the subject of

many comments. Most commenters

argued that contractors should be held

accountable for their own qualification

and recordkeeping, because it would be

overly burdensome to require pipeline

operators to maintain qualification

records for contractor personnel. RSPA

never proposed to require operators to

be responsible for qualifying contractor

personnel, only to ensure that they are

in fact qualified. This issue is a prime

example of why RSPA believes an

alternative rulemaking method would

provide a better channel of

communication to resolve the

controversy surrounding this regulatory

initiative.

Evaluation and Scheduling

Another major issue was the

evaluation of personnel and how past

experience, education, and other factors

would be considered in assessing

qualification. Many comments stressed

that the operator or the operator’s

designee would know the capabilities of

their personnel and therefore be in the

best position to evaluate and to ensure

their qualification. RSPA believes the

NPRM’s intent was not far from this

view, and that, with open

communication, consensus can be

reached among interested parties.

Qualification Training

The NPRM listed training that would

be required if an employee was found to

be not qualified. This issue generated

many written comments. The

commenters alleged that the language in
34414 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

this section was too prescriptive. Rather

than list training requirements, many

commenters asserted that RSPA should

broaden the scope of the NPRM to cover

safety related tasks and allow the

operator to decide what those tasks are,

who is presently qualified to perform

them, and how other persons should

obtain that qualification.

Qualification Testing

The comments on this issue were

generally consistent with those on

training. Specifically, commenters said

the situations in which testing is needed

to qualify a person and the methods of

qualification should be left to the

operator’s discretion.

Refresher Training/Competency Reviews

RSPA received many comments

calling for either revision or deletion of

these sections. Commenters stated that

requirements for refresher training

would be unnecessary and overly

burdensome, because many day-to-day

tasks would not require a ‘‘refresher’’ in

order to be safely performed. Moreover,

they said the proposed requirement for

a competency review was too

prescriptive, and that the language in

the NPRM did not indicate the scope of

competency reviews. RSPA believes that

the scope and methods of review, after

an incident occurs due to performance

of covered functions, can be properly

addressed in an alternative rulemaking

process.

Other Issues

Commenters expressed their views on

other aspects of the NPRM, such as the

proposed recordkeeping requirements.

The concept of operator discretion was

again the focus of these comments.

Commenters felt that as long as proper

records are kept and made available

upon request, the methods of

recordkeeping should be left to those

that keep the records. In addition, many

commenters suggested that RSPA

lengthen the dates for compliance with

the NPRM. Finally, a large number of

commenters said the costs to comply

with the NPRM would far exceed the

benefits of the proposal. This was one

of the most prevalent comments

received.

Negotiated Rulemaking

As previously stated, RSPA is

publishing elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register a document titled

Notice of Intent to form a Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee to conduct a

negotiated rulemaking as an alternative

to the traditional rulemaking process for

this regulatory action. RSPA believes

these issues can be expeditiously

resolved in a negotiated setting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25,

1996.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 96–16677 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P