Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. RSPA-98-3783; Notice 1]

RIN 2137-AB38

Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); Office of

Pipeline Safety (OPS).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require pipeline operators to develop

and maintain a written qualification program for individuals performing

covered tasks on pipeline facilities. The intent of this qualification

rule is to ensure a qualified workforce and to reduce the probability

and consequence of incidents caused by human error. This NPRM proposes

to create new subparts in the gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety

regulations. These would establish qualification requirements for

individuals performing covered tasks, and would also amend certain

training requirements in the hazardous liquid regulations. This

proposed rule was developed through a negotiation process.

DATES: RSPA must receive written comments to this proposed rule by

December 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Dockets Facility, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments may also be filed electronically by

e-mail at [email protected]. Comments should identify the

docket number (RSPA-98-3783). Persons should submit the original

document and one (1) copy. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of

receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped

postcard. The Dockets Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Comments can also be viewed

over the Internet on http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366-0918, or by

e-mail at [email protected], regarding the subject matter of this

notice; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-4453, for copies of this notice

or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Introduction.

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory History.

III. Negotiated Rulemaking.

A. Members of the RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.

B. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Groundrules.

C. Committee Meetings.

IV. Scope.

A. Persons Covered by the Proposed Rule.

B. Operators are Responsible for Identifying Covered Tasks.

C. Identification of Covered Tasks.

1. Tasks Performed on a Pipeline Facility.

2. Operation or Maintenance Tasks.

3. Tasks Performed Pursuant to a Requirement in 49 CFR part 192

or 195.

4. Tasks Affecting the Operation or Integrity of the Pipeline.

[[Page 57270]]

D. Amendments to Sec. 195.403.

V. Definitions.

VI. Qualification program.

VII. Recordkeeping.

VIII. General.

I. Introduction

Although no regulatory program is capable of completely eliminating

human error, the objective of this proposed rule is to reduce the risk

of accidents on pipeline facilities attributable to human error. This

proposed rule for the qualification of individuals is intended to

provide an additional level of safety. This proposed rule does not

replace existing qualification requirements in 49 CFR part 192.

However, it does remove the operations and maintenance training

requirements of Sec. 195.403. The proposed rule does not diminish the

importance of the safety requirements already in the pipeline safety

regulations. These include requirements for safety design features,

such as relief valves and over-pressure protection devices, to provide

protection against human error and other causes of incidents and

accidents.

The proposed rule would require operators of pipelines to develop a

qualification program to evaluate an individual's ability to perform

covered tasks, and to recognize and react to abnormal operating

conditions that may occur while performing covered tasks.

The proposed rule would also set recordkeeping requirements that

operators must follow to successfully demonstrate compliance, and the

information that must be maintained on each individual who has been

evaluated and deemed qualified to work on a pipeline facility. Finally,

the proposed rule would specify the deadlines by which operators must

develop and implement their qualification programs.

This proposed rule allows operators with existing programs to

modify those programs if necessary to ensure compliance with the

minimum requirements of this proposed rule. The proposed rule would

also require operators without a qualification program to establish a

program to evaluate the qualifications of individuals performing

certain operation and maintenance activities on those pipeline

facilities that could affect pipeline operation or integrity.

This proposed rule would establish a new subpart N in 49 CFR part

192 and a new subpart G in 49 CFR part 195. The proposal would amend

the training regulations in 49 CFR 195.403. The emergency response

training requirements remain as they appear in 49 CFR 195.403.

II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory History

Sections 106 and 205 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L.

102-508) required the Department of Transportation to establish

regulations requiring that ``all individuals responsible for the

operation and maintenance of pipeline facilities be tested for

qualifications and certified to operate and maintain those

facilities.''

On August 3, 1994, RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

to establish specific training requirements for the qualification of

pipeline workers (59 FR 39506). This proposal would have introduced

qualification standards for personnel that perform, or supervise

persons performing, regulated operations, maintenance, and emergency

response functions. The purpose of the proposal was to improve pipeline

safety by requiring operators to ensure the competency of pipeline

personnel through training, testing, and periodic refresher training.

In response to this notice, RSPA received 131 comments that

expressed a wide variety of interests and concerns. Most commenters

asserted that the proposal should have taken a more general approach to

qualification with broad requirements for persons performing ``safety

related'' functions. Commenters stated that the proposal was too

prescriptive and that the many references to training requirements

should be modified to focus the proposal on actual qualification,

rather than on the methods(s) of achieving qualification.

OPS' technical advisory committees, the Technical Pipeline Safety

Standards Committee and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety

Standards Committee, disapproved of the proposal. These Committees

passed several motions for amendments to the proposal. These motions

were generally consistent with the written comments.

Subsequently, the pipeline safety law was amended to require that

``all individuals who operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be

qualified to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities'' (49 U.S.C.

60102(a)). This law also requires that the ``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'' (49 U.S.C. 60102(a)).

Following review of the comments to the 1994 proposed rulemaking,

as well as recommendations by the Technical Advisory Committees, and a

petition for withdrawal and alternative proposal submitted collectively

by the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association,

and the Southern Gas Association, RSPA decided that a regulatory

process other than traditional rulemaking would better address the

issues surrounding operator qualifications. Consequently, RSPA issued a

Notice of Withdrawal of the 1994 proposed rulemaking (61 FR 34413, July

22, 1996) and simultaneously issued a Notice of Intent to form a

negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a proposed rule on the

qualification of pipeline personnel (61 FR 34410, July 22, 1996).

III. Negotiated Rulemaking

RSPA understands that effective regulatory solutions to certain

issues can be difficult for an agency to craft. In the typical

rulemaking process, the participants often develop adversarial

relationships that prevent effective communication and creative

solutions. Exchange of ideas that may lead to solutions that are

acceptable to all interested groups does not often occur in the

traditional notice and comment rulemaking procedure.

Negotiated rulemaking is conducted under authority of the

Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Federal Advisory Committee

Act. The process involves assembling representatives of the affected

interests assemble to discuss a particular issue and all potential

solutions. The goal is to reach consensus and prepare a proposed rule

for consideration by the agency. After public comment on the proposed

rule, the group may reconvene to review the comments and make

recommendations for a final rule. This inclusive process is intended to

make the proposed rule more acceptable to all affected interests and

minimize the likelihood of petitions for reconsideration and

litigation.

RSPA believed that the negotiated rulemaking process would provide

ample opportunity for all affected parties to present their views and

to reach a consensus on a proposed qualification rule. Negotiated

rulemakings have been used successfully by the Department of

Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the

United States Coast Guard, the Federal Highway Administration, and the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal

Railroad Administration. In addition, the Environmental Protection

Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have

successfully used the process.

[[Page 57271]]

A. Members of the RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) served as the

convenor and facilitator for the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. FMCS

chaired the negotiations, offered suggestions in attempting to reach

the desired consensus, and helped determine the feasibility of

negotiating particular issues. From the beginning of this process, RSPA

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. After a comprehensive search, (RSPA

selected the following organizations, representing broad interests, to

serve on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee:

1. American Gas Association (A.G.A.): Represents a large number of

gas distribution and a few transmission companies in the pipeline

industry. A.G.A. members consist of both large and small operators.

2. American Petroleum Institute (API): Represents the interests of

the hazardous liquid pipeline companies. API is the major trade

association in the petroleum industry, and also represents the

interests of operators of other hazardous liquid pipelines.

3. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA):

Represents the interests of the larger interstate gas transmission

pipeline companies in the natural gas transportation industry. INGAA

consists mainly of the larger interstate gas transmission pipelines.

4. American Public Gas Association (APGA): Represents publicly-

owned and municipal gas companies. 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): Represents the

interests of propane marketing and distribution at the local level .

NPGA is made up of both large and small companies.

6. Association of Texas Intrastate Natural Gas Pipelines:

Represents the interests of intrastate natural gas transmission

pipelines.

7. Midwest Gas Association (MGA): Represents over 300 investor-

owned utilities, municipal utilities, contractors and manufacturers.

MGA brought considerable expertise in pipeline personnel training

issues.

8. NACE International, The Corrosion Society (NACE): An

organization of corrosion experts. NACE works primarily on issues of

corrosion and corrosion control systems.

9. National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR):

Represents state pipeline safety programs. Many of these organizations

will incorporate the final rule on operator qualifications into their

pipeline safety program.

10. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

(NARUC): Represents the interests of the state utility commissioners,

who regulate gas rates and terms of service in most of the fifty

states.

11. National Association of State Fire Marshals: Represents the

interests of state fire officials in state safety programs and the

issue of qualification for emergency response.

12. International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE): Represents

the interests of a substantial number of pipeline construction and

maintenance workers.

13. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW):

Represents over 21,000 gas industry workers.

14. Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS): Served as the representative

of RSPA, and the Designated Federal Official on the Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee.

B. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Groundrules.

Most of the procedures and protocols followed in the negotiation

were established by the Committee. A set of Committee ``groundrules''

was developed by participants at the initial meeting. Issues discussed

and agreed upon by the Committee included: how discussions would be

conducted, possibility of subgroups to work on particular issues,

expectations of Committee members, the Committee's role throughout the

rulemaking process, audience participation, and other topics. The

following are some of the more significant critical groundrules

established by the Committee:

1. Membership: All organizations were allowed one seat at the

table, and permitted to name one alternate to serve in their absence.

2. Good faith: All participants were expected to act in good faith

on behalf of their organization. OPS agreed to issue the Committee's

proposed rule as long as it was not in conflict with any other legal

requirements. In turn, the Committee agreed to support the proposal

following publication in the Federal Register. It was agreed that the

Committee would be actively involved through publication of the final

rule.

3. Conduct of meetings: Committee members reserved the right to

bring constituents to the table to address the Committee, and could

quietly consult with constituents during the course of the negotiation.

All meetings were open to the public. The Committee agreed that there

would be time scheduled on every meeting agenda for comment by the

audience.

4. Public Record: RSPA kept a record of all Committee meetings.

This record was placed in the public docket (Docket No. PS 94) and is

publicly available.

5. Consensus: The goal of the negotiating process is consensus. The

Committee developed its own definition of consensus for the purposes of

this rulemaking, which was as follows: ``A decision which all members

or designated alternates present at the meeting can agree upon. The

decision may not be everyone's first choice, but they have heard it and

everyone can live with it.''

C. Committee Meetings.

The Committee convened a total of seven times between May, 1997,

and January, 1998. Each negotiating session lasted a minimum of two

days, with two sessions convening for two and a half days. The

Committee reached final consensus on the NPRM in its last meeting in

January, 1998.

IV. Scope

The Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996

required RSPA to adopt regulations requiring that ``all individuals who

operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be qualified to operate

and maintain the pipeline facilities'' and ``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'' (49 U.S.C. 60102(a)). The Committee determined that a national

qualification program conducted by RSPA, another federal agency, or a

state agency, would not be an appropriate or practical response to this

mandate. Such a system offers the advantages of national consistency,

including the ability of contractor employees to work for different

operators under a single qualification regime. However, it was

determined that the complexity and cost of administering such a system,

coupled with the difficulty of devising a system appropriate for the

wide variations in the operations and maintenance procedures and

facilities of individual operators, precluded this from being an

effective option.

The Committee determined the mandate would best be met by a non-

prescriptive, performance based regulation requiring each operator to

develop, or have developed, a written program for the qualification of

individuals. This would allow each program to be tailored to the unique

operations and practices of each operator.

[[Page 57272]]

A. Persons Covered by the Proposed Rule

This proposed rule applies to operators subject to the requirements

of 49 CFR parts 192 or 195. The rule applies to all individuals who

perform covered tasks, regardless of whether they are employed by the

operator, a contractor, a sub-contractor, or any other entity

performing covered tasks on behalf of the operator.

B. Operators are Responsible for Identifying Covered Tasks

Under this proposed rule, the operator would be responsible for

identifying which activities performed on the pipeline facility are

covered tasks. The process for identifying covered tasks is set forth

in 49 CFR 192.801 and 195.501 (``Scope'') of this proposed rule.

The Committee discussed whether the regulator or the operator

should be responsible for identifying covered tasks. Because of large

differences between operations of pipelines across the country, a

uniform list of tasks would not be useful, and could result in overall

increased costs. For example, some operators do not have transmission

lines in their systems, others operate only distribution lines, and

others do not have compressors, pump stations, or storage facilities.

Some operators perform a large number of covered tasks, while other,

smaller, operators may have only a limited number of tasks that would

be classified as covered tasks.

Identification of covered tasks is a key component of the

qualification requirements under this proposed rule. The Committee

proposed that it would be more effective and practical to let each

operator determine the covered tasks requiring qualification.

However, some Committee members were concerned that if operators

are allowed to determine the covered tasks, the proposed rule should

also ensure that the regulators retain the authority to review each

operator's determinations. Some Committee members objected to allowing

each operator to identify covered tasks requiring individuals to be

qualified. These members objected to the use of the words ``determined

by,'' which could be interpreted to preclude regulators from

questioning the operator's identification of covered tasks. The

Committee decided to use the words ``identified by'' to mean the

selection of covered tasks by the operator. The Committee concluded

that the authority to allow pipeline safety regulators to require

modifications to programs that fail to meet regulatory requirements was

already within the scope of federal and state jurisdiction, as was the

authority to question particular activities included as covered tasks

by the operator. The Committee concluded that covered tasks would be

activities identified by the operator.

Therefore, under this proposed rule, the operator of a pipeline

facility would be responsible for identifying which activities

performed on that facility are covered tasks. The criteria for

identifying such tasks on gas and hazardous liquid pipelines is set

forth in 49 CFR 192.801 and 195.501, respectively.

Although operators are responsible for identifying covered tasks

for which individuals must be qualified, regulators remain responsible

for reviewing operator qualification programs and ensuring that federal

regulatory standards are applied and met nationwide. Regulators may

question an operator's inclusion and exclusion of particular activities

as covered tasks. Regulators may require modifications to programs that

fail to meet the requirements of the rule.

C. Identification of Covered Tasks

The proposed rule includes a four-part test that each operator must

use to determine whether an activity constitutes a covered task. A

covered task is: (1) Performed on a pipeline facility; (2) an

operations or maintenance task; (3) performed pursuant to a requirement

in 49 CFR part 192 or 195; and (4) affects the operation or integrity

of the pipeline.

1. Tasks performed on a pipeline facility.

The phrase ``performed on a pipeline facility'' means an activity

that is performed by an individual whose performance directly impacts

the pipeline facility. An individual who works on a pipeline component

that is physically connected to the pipeline system is performing work

``on a pipeline facility'' and may be subject to the proposed rules,

regardless of whether or not product is flowing through the pipeline.

However, a person who repairs a pipeline system or appurtenance, that

has been removed from the system, would not be performing work on the

pipeline, and therefore would not be performing a covered task.

2. Operations or maintenance tasks. The Federal pipeline safety law

requires that all individuals who operate and maintain pipeline

facilities be qualified to operate and maintain those facilities (49

U.S.C. 60102(a)(1)(C)).

Most of the operations and maintenance activities on pipeline

facilities are found in 49 CFR part 192, subparts L and M, or in 49 CFR

part 195, subpart F. In addition, the regulations contain other

subparts that include requirements for conducting operations and

maintenance activities. For example, part 192, subpart I, establishes

requirements for protecting metallic pipelines from external, internal,

and atmospheric corrosion. The requirements to monitor corrosion

control systems are operations activities. The requirements to take

corrective action when deficiencies are found in a corrosion control

program are maintenance activities. Therefore, the task of repairing

pipelines affected by corrosion is also a maintenance activity.

Certain tasks performed on pipeline facilities may be covered tasks

when performed in the course of operation and maintenance activities,

but not be covered tasks in the course of other activities. For

example, the task of ``welding'' could be a covered task when performed

as an operations and maintenance activity on a pipeline, such as when

installing a weld-over sleeve to repair an anomaly. However, the task

of ``welding'' is not a covered task under this subpart when performed

during the fabrication of new installations, because this would not be

an operations and maintenance task.

However, welders are currently subject to qualification

requirements in 49 CFR part 192, subpart E, and 195, subpart D. To

comply with the proposed rule, welders would have to be additionally

qualified to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions when

welding as a covered task. This also applies to other tasks such as

``plastic pipe joining'', for which the regulations contain specific

requirements.

3. Tasks Performed Pursuant to a Requirement in 49 CFR part 192 or

195. Covered tasks include only those operations and maintenance

activities required by 49 CFR part 192 or 195.

Examples of covered tasks might include:

Purging a pipeline because it is specifically required by

49 CFR 192.629;

Leakage surveys of distribution lines, required by 49 CFR

192.723;

Starting, operating, and shutting down gas compressor

units, because 49 CFR 192.605(b)(7) specifically requires written

procedures on these tasks, to provide safety during maintenance and

operations;

Inspection of navigable water crossings under 49 CFR

195.412; and

Inspection of breakout tanks required by 49 CFR 195.432.

Operators of pipeline facilities may voluntarily conduct operations

and maintenance activities that are not

[[Page 57273]]

required by a specific provision in 49 CFR part 192 or 195. However, an

activity does not necessarily become a covered task simply because an

operator develops procedures for conducting the activity, and includes

those procedures in its Operations and Maintenance Plan. For example,

an operator may voluntarily choose to maintain a customer's buried

piping, and include procedures for this activity in its Operations and

Maintenance Plan. Because such maintenance is not specifically required

by 49 CFR part 192 or 195, the associated maintenance activities are

not covered tasks.

It is possible for a task to be ``performed pursuant to a

requirement in part 192 or 195'' even if the task is not specifically

addressed by a particular section. The task need only be performed

pursuant to the requirement contained in a particular section. For

example, 49 CFR 195.428 states that each operator shall inspect

overpressure protection devices and ensure these devices are operating

adequately. Section 195.428 does not explicitly discuss calibrations

that may be necessary to address low pressure shutdowns; yet such

calibrations may be required to comply with the regulation. Therefore,

the task of calibrating the overpressure protection devices to address

low pressure shutdowns would be performed as a result of a requirement

contained in part 195.

4. Tasks affecting the operation or integrity of the pipeline.

Under the proposed rule, covered tasks include only those

activities that could affect the operation or integrity of the

pipeline.

The main purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of

pipelines through qualification of individuals. Initial discussions

centered around safety-related tasks and the need to categorize covered

tasks as only those tasks as having safety implications. Some Committee

members argued that most of the provisions in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195

regulate safety-related activities. It would therefore be redundant to

include the word ``safe'' on pipeline operations addressed under this

criteria. Therefore, it was decided to use the phrase, ``operation or

integrity,'' because some tasks do not adversely affect the operation

or integrity of the pipeline, even though they meet the other three

criteria. The Committee decided to include a fourth criteria that must

be satisfied for a task to be a covered task, namely that the task

affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.

The Committee discussed the term ``operation'' as used here in the

safety context of normal versus abnormal operation, where the latter

could result in an unsafe condition. For example, the control of flow

and pressure in pipelines could result in abnormal operation, if the

pressure is allowed to rise above an acceptable limit. Therefore, in

this example, activities that include controlling flow and pressure on

a pipeline system would be considered covered tasks if the other three

criteria for covered tasks were met.

An additional example of a task affecting the integrity of the

pipeline would be coating or jacketing of aboveground pipeline

components. In the event atmospheric corrosion is present, coating or

jacketing the component could affect the integrity of the pipeline.

However, painting a pipeline for aesthetic reasons would not affect the

integrity of the pipeline.

The ``integrity'' of the pipeline refers to the pipeline's ability

to operate safely and to withstand stresses imposed during operations.

An example of a short-term effect on integrity would be exceeding the

Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) for gas pipelines and

Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) for liquid pipelines. An example of a

long-term effect would be failure from corrosion due to improper

coating after repair of a welded joint.

Because the term ``pipeline facility'' was used in the first

criteria, the Committee also considered whether it would be appropriate

to use the term ``pipeline facility,'' in the fourth criteria instead

of the term ``pipeline''. Although some argued that consistency should

be maintained, others stated that the primary goal of the proposed rule

is to ensure the safe operation and integrity of the pipeline itself.

Furthermore, the term ``pipeline'' as defined in 49 CFR parts 192 and

195 already encompasses the ``facilities'' targeted by the proposed

rule. The Committee therefore agreed that this criterion should remain

unchanged.

If a task fails to meet any one of the four criteria, the task

would not be considered a covered task under this proposed rule. The

following are hypothetical examples of how the four-part test can be

used to identify a covered task:

Example 1: Leakage surveys on gas transmission pipelines.

(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, because leakage

surveys are performed immediately above the pipeline and on the

pipeline right-of-way.

(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, leakage surveys

are conducted in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance

activities.

(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, leakage

surveys are required by 49 CFR 192.706 and 192.723.

(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes, if

a leakage survey is not properly conducted, a leak might not be

detected resulting in a potentially hazardous situation.

Since all four criteria are met, the leakage survey is a covered

task.

Example 2: Measuring pipe-to-soil potentials.

(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, pipe-to-soil

potentials are measured at cathodic test stations attached directly

to the pipeline.

(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, as pipe-to-soil

potentials are read in the course of pipeline operations and

maintenance activities.

(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, pipe-to-

soil potential measurements are required by 49 CFR 192.465 and

195.416.

(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes,

pipe-to -soil potential measurements, if taken improperly will, not

accurately reflect the level of cathodic protection being provided.

While not affecting the immediate operation of the pipeline, the

future integrity of the pipeline might be jeopardized (i.e.

corrosion might develop), if inadequate cathodic protection is

applied to the pipeline over a period of time.

Since all four criteria are met, the measurement of pipe-to-soil

potentials is a covered task.

Example 3: Meter reading.

(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, a meter is a part of

a pipeline facility.

(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, meters are read

in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance activities.

(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? No, meter

reading is not a requirement of 49 CFR part 192 or part 195.

(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? No,

meter reading has no impact on pipeline operation or integrity.

Because the task of meter reading fails at least one of the four

criteria, meter reading is not considered a covered task.

In identifying covered tasks, operators must consider specific

tasks and not necessarily the job classification of individuals

performing the tasks, because each job classification may incorporate

several tasks. For example, an individual with the job classification,

``meter reader,'' may be assigned tasks other than reading a meter,

such as distribution line patrolling under 49 CFR Part Sec. 192.721,

that could be covered tasks.

D. Amendments to Sec. 195.403 (Training)

Section 195.403 currently prescribes the training requirements for

operations, maintenance, and emergencies for operators of hazardous

liquid pipelines. Because the proposed rule includes a qualification

process for operations and maintenance activities, but does not

[[Page 57274]]

address emergency response qualification, 49 CFR 195.403 would be

amended to retain emergency response training requirements. This rule

proposes to remove the specific operations and maintenance training

requirements addressed in 49 CFR 195.403. Persons performing operations

and maintenance tasks would need to be qualified in accordance with the

proposed rule.

V. Definitions

The definitions section of this proposed rule was developed to

facilitate common understanding of key terms. The Committee began using

a number of terms that were not commonly defined by all members. To

facilitate communication, these terms were defined and are provided in

the proposed rule.

Abnormal Operating Condition

An abnormal operating condition, as defined in this proposed rule,

is ``a condition identified by the operator that may indicate a

malfunction of a component or deviation from normal operations that may

indicate a condition exceeding design limits or result in a hazard(s)

to persons, property, or the environment.'' This definition is derived

from Federal pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. 60102), and 49 CFR 192.605

(c)(1)(v) and 49 CFR 195.402(d)(1)(v).

``Abnormal operating conditions'' is also referenced in the

definition of the term ``qualified''. To be qualified, an individual

needs to be able to properly perform assigned covered tasks and be able

to recognize and react to an abnormal operating condition that may be

encountered while performing the covered task. For example, this may

include notifying the responsible parties or taking corrective action

to mitigate the condition.

As an example, an individual that has been qualified to perform

leak surveys should be able to recognize and react to an abnormal

operating condition such as blowing gas. Likewise, an individual who is

qualified to perform control of gas pressure and flow should be able to

recognize and react to an abnormal operating pressure in a pipeline

segment.

Not all atypical operating conditions are abnormal. An example of

an atypical operating condition that is not abnormal is a pipeline

which can (not to exceed MAOP or MOP) operate up to 200 pounds per

square inch (psig), but which typically operates at 50 psig. Operating

this pipeline at 150 psig could be atypical, but not abnormal. If

however the atypical operating condition would cause the pressure in

the pipeline to exceed its allowable limits or cause a hazard to

persons, property or the environment, an abnormal operating condition

would result. A qualified individual performing control of gas pressure

and flow who observes an unanticipated pressure increase in such a

pipeline segment should know to investigate the cause of the change

before it reaches the MAOP/MOP of the line.

Evaluation

An evaluation of an individual's ability to perform a covered task

is the process that assesses and documents the individual's

qualifications to perform the covered task. Although the definition

lists several acceptable methods for evaluation, the list is not all-

inclusive.

The evaluation of an individual's qualifications should be an

objective, consistent process that documents an individual's ability to

perform the covered task. This includes the individual's ability to

recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that the operator

could reasonably anticipate the qualified individual will encounter

while performing the covered task. The operator should establish the

acceptance criteria for the evaluation method used (for example, for

on-the-job training spell out the performance criteria; for a written

exam establish the cutoff score). The following table was developed in

Committee discussion and shows acceptable evaluation methods for

`transitional', `initial' and `subsequent' qualification:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

`Transitional' `Initial' qualification `Subsequent'

Evaluation method qualification \1\ \2\ qualification \3\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written exam..................... YES...................... YES..................... YES

Oral exam........................ YES...................... YES..................... YES

Work performance history review.. YES...................... May not be used as the May not be used as the

sole evaluation method. sole evaluation method

after the three-year

compliance date.

Performance on-the-job........... YES...................... YES..................... YES

On-the-Job Training.............. YES...................... YES..................... YES

Simulation....................... YES...................... YES..................... YES

Other............................ YES...................... YES..................... YES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

\1\ `Transitional' qualification means qualification completed during the period between the effective date of

the rule and the three-year compliance date, of individuals who have been performing a covered task on a

regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule.

\2\ `Initial' qualification means qualification, at any time, of individuals who were not performing a covered

task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule.

\3\ `Subsequent' qualification means evaluation of an individual's qualification, after `transitional' or

`initial' qualification, at the interval established by the operator.

Under 49 CFR 192.809(c) and 195.509(c), a work performance history

review may not be used as a sole evaluation method after {INSERT 38

MONTHS FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE} `Transitional'

qualification may rely on a work performance history review as the sole

evaluation method. `Initial' qualification may not rely on only a work

performance history review. `Subsequent' qualifications may rely on

work performance history review if used in conjunction with at least

one other evaluation method.

The operator must establish the parameters for the work performance

history review. For example, a work performance history review may

include: a search of existing records for documentation of an

individual's past satisfactory performance of a covered task(s);

verification that the individual's work performance history contains no

indications of substandard work or involvement in an incident (part

192) or accident (part 195), caused by an error in performing a covered

task; and, verification that the individual has successfully performed

the covered task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the

rule.

[[Page 57275]]

Qualified

Qualified, means that an individual has been evaluated and is able

to properly perform a covered task(s), and recognize and react to

abnormal operating conditions that may be encountered during the

performance of the covered task(s). An individual may be qualified

using any of the evaluation methods specified in the operator's written

qualification program.

VI. Qualification Program

The Committee identified the following seven elements as

requirementsd in the operator's qualification program:

Paragraph (a) of 49 CFR 192.805 and 195.505 require operators to

identify the covered tasks to be included in the qualification program.

Whether an activity is a covered task would be determined using the

four criteria in 49 CFR 192.801(b) or 195.501(b). Because operators are

responsible for identifying covered tasks, variations among

qualification programs are expected.

A concern of the Committee was whether periodic review of covered

tasks should be required. Although a periodic review requirement was

not included in the proposed rule, an operator may consider a periodic

review to ensure the accuracy of its covered task list.

Paragraph (b) requires that the qualification program include

provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing

covered tasks are qualified. This would set forth the evaluation

methods to determine if an individual is qualified. The Committee

discussed contractor personnel and who is responsible for their

qualification and compliance under this rule. Some members believed

contractors should not be subject to this proposed rule and that OPS

should be responsible for ensuring the qualification of contractor

personnel. OPS does not have the authority to directly enforce

compliance by contractors with this rule. The pipeline operator is

responsible for all individuals working on their pipeline systems. This

includes operator and contractor personnel.

The Committee discussed the role of those performing evaluations.

Members agreed not to include a provision in the rule requiring

evaluators be ``qualified'' to evaluate. However, persons performing

evaluations should possess the required knowledge (1) to ascertain an

individuals ability to perform covered tasks and (2) to substantiate an

individuals ability to recognize and react to abnormal operating

conditions that might surface while performing those tasks. This does

not necessarily mean that the persons performing evaluations should be

physically able to perform the covered tasks themselves.

The Committee discussed the concerns and options available to the

operator regarding who should evaluate the individuals performing

covered tasks. Because the operator is responsible for the development

and implementation of the evaluation methods, the Committee thought

that the operator should also be responsible for selecting

appropriately knowledgeable individuals to perform evaluations. The

proposed rule requires a qualification program that focuses on ensuring

an individual can properly perform a covered task(s) rather than the

credentials of persons conducting evaluations.

Paragraph (c) allows for performance of covered tasks by

individuals who are not qualified as long as a qualified individual

directly observes the non-qualified individual(s), and is able to take

immediate corrective actions when necessary. For example, a

distribution company may use a three-person crew to repair gas leaks.

Two of the crew members could be non-qualified. The crew excavates and

repairs leaking gas mains and services under the direct and close

observation of the qualified member of the crew. The intent of this

provision is to ensure that non-qualified individuals performing

covered tasks are subject to close observation by a qualified

individual. Ultimately, the qualified member of the crew is responsible

for the repair. The ratio of non-qualified individuals to a

``qualified'' individual, should be kept to a minimum.

Paragraph (d) requires the operator to evaluate an individual if

the operator has reason to believe that the individual's performance of

a covered task could have contributed to an incident as defined in 49

CFR part 191 or accident as defined in 49 CFR part 195. If so, the

individual's qualification should be evaluated to determine if the

individual continues to be qualified to perform the covered task.

Paragraph (e) requires the operator to evaluate an individual if

there is reason to believe that the individual is no longer qualified

to perform a covered task. This could occur if the individual displays

unsatisfactory performance of the task, or if there is reason to

believe the individual no longer can perform the task. The operator's

qualification program must include provisions for evaluating an

individual's qualification if the circumstances warrant.

Paragraph (f) recognizes that changes may occur that impact how a

covered task is performed. Changes that may need to be communicated to

individuals performing covered tasks may include:

Modifications to company policies or procedures.

Changes in state or Federal regulations.

Utilization of new equipment and/or technology.

New information from equipment or product manufacturers.

The proposed rule requires that the qualification program include

provisions for communicating information on substantive changes to the

individuals performing the affected covered tasks. When significant

changes occur, the operator should consider whether additional

qualification requirements are necessary and whether individuals

performing the covered task should be evaluated again.

Paragraph (g) addresses whether an individual's qualification to

perform a covered task should be subject to evaluation at appropriate

intervals. The appropriate interval may vary depending on the task. It

was therefore left to the operator to determine which tasks and the

interval at which subsequent qualification of an individual performing

a covered task will occur. The Committee felt that the evaluation

intervals could be specified in units of time, frequency of task

performance or other appropriate units. The Committee recognized that

subsequent evaluation methods may differ from initial qualification

methods.

This rule does not require that the written qualification program

be incorporated into an operator's Operations and Maintenance Plan. The

operator may expand any of the seven required elements and add

additional elements to their program but will only be held accountable

to meet the requirements of this Subpart.

VII. Recordkeeping

Under the proposed rule, each operator is required to maintain

records that demonstrate compliance. The Committee had considerable

discussion regarding records content, records to be retained, and

length of retention.

The records that support an individual's qualifications must

include the identity of each qualified individual (for example name,

social security number, or employee number, etc. may be used),

identification of each covered task for which qualified, date(s) of

current qualification and qualification method(s). Records of an

individual's current qualifications must be maintained while the

individual is

[[Page 57276]]

performing the covered tasks for which qualified. When an individual is

evaluated for subsequent qualification, the prior qualification records

must be maintained for a period of five years. Also, when an individual

stops performing a covered task (i.e., the individual retires, is

promoted, etc.) the individual's qualification records that were

current at that time must be retained for a period of five years. The

Committee selected five years to be consistent with other regulatory

time periods. The records may be kept in paper, electronic, or any

other appropriate format. The records may be kept at a central location

or at multiple locations.

The proposed rule does not address whether a certification or other

record of qualification need be issued to each qualified individual.

This matter is solely within the discretion of the operator.

VIII. General

Development and implementation of a qualification program will take

some operators longer than others. Many operators currently have

adequate processes or programs to ensure the qualification of

individuals working on their pipeline systems. However, to ensure that

this proposed rule is enforceable, definitive time frames must be

specified. The Committee decided that 18 months would be sufficient

time to develop a written qualification program.

An operator will have three years from the effective date of the

final rule to complete the qualification of all individuals performing

covered tasks on its system. This will allow operators with more

limited resources and differing budget cycles adequate time to complete

the qualification process. Those operators who are able to comply

before the mandatory compliance date are encouraged to do so. The rule

does not intend to penalize early compliance. Therefore, the starting

time for subsequent evaluation intervals determined by the operator is

not required to begin until the compliance date.

Finally, work performance history review will only be allowed as

the sole method of evaluation during the three-year time period prior

to mandatory compliance with the rule. After this time, work

performance history review will be an acceptable method of evaluating

individuals only in combination with another evaluation method.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is subject

to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The proposal is

considered significant under the Department of Transportation Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 1103, February 26, 1979) because of the

substantial interest expressed by the pipeline industry, state and

Federal agencies, and Congress. This section summarizes the conclusions

of the draft regulatory evaluation. Copies of the draft regulatory

evaluation are available for review and copying. Several groups,

including the Congress, the National Transportation Safety Board, and

the National Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives, have

called repeatedly for a pipeline personnel qualification rule.

This proposal is the product of a negotiated rulemaking in which

all major interested parties to the rule participated, including trade

associations, pipeline operators both large and small, organized labor,

state pipeline representatives, and the Federal government. Members of

the negotiated rulemaking committee all agreed that this process

ensured that a cost-effective alternative for pipeline qualification

was adopted. The American Gas Association (AGA) and other participants

in the negotiated rulemaking contributed to estimations of the cost of

this proposal. RSPA adjusted the cost estimates to provide an

annualized cost estimate for the entire industry. Based on an estimated

175,000 covered pipeline employees (AGA estimate), including both

operator employees and contractors, AGA provided three distinct cost

categories for compliance with the proposed rule by gas and hazardous

liquid pipeline operators:

1. Cost for qualification program set-up, $210 million

2. Cost of transitional evaluation and qualification, $140 million

3. Cost of subsequent evaluation and qualification, $87.5 million

RSPA estimated that a qualification program would be effective for

a minimum of 10 years. Therefore, RSPA amortized the set-up costs over

10 years using a 7% interest rate for an annualized cost of $29.3

million for program development and initial qualification.

The transitional qualification was amortized over a six year period

(three years before the effective date of the regulation that requires

initial qualification, and an estimated three years before subsequent

qualification) at 7% for an annualized transitional qualification of

$28.6 million.

On average, qualification for various covered tasks would be

reviewed approximately every three years. Therefore, the next

qualification (and each subsequent qualification) is amortized over

three years at 7% or an annual subsequent qualification cost of $32.4

million.

The result of these calculations is a cost of $57.9 million per

year for the years 1-6 ($29.3 million + $28.6 million)and a cost of

$61.7 million per year for years 7-10 ($29.3 million + 32.4 million).

The average annual cost for compliance with the proposed rule is

approximately $59 million.

The preamble to this proposed rule notes that the intent of the

qualification rule is to ensure a qualified workforce and to reduce the

probability and consequences of accidents caused by human error.

Investigations of pipeline incidents/accidents clearly attributable to

human error often indicate a deficiency of knowledge or skill (i.e.,

lack of qualification) on the part of pipeline personnel. However, the

impact of inadequate qualification of pipeline personnel is not always

apparent. For example, incidents/accidents that operators attribute to

equipment failure or corrosion may actually have been set in motion by

poorly performed operation or maintenance procedures. Although many

state pipeline safety representatives have stated that this proposal

will reduce incidents/accidents by ensuring a qualified workforce, they

concede that the task of quantifying that reduction is very difficult.

In 1997, there were a total of 363 reportable pipeline incidents/

accidents. Of these, 105 were directly attributable to human error.

This data shows that human error played a direct role in 29% of

reportable pipeline failures in 1997. These incidents/accidents

resulted in six fatalities (cost-approximated at $16 million), 37

injuries (cost-approximated at $18 million), and $15 million in

property damage, resulting in a total estimated monetized loss of $49

million. In fact, human error frequently is not cited as a contributing

factor in incident/accident investigations, even though it is

recognized that human error underlies nearly all pipeline failures to

some degree. Although the quantifiable benefits directly attributable

to operator personnel error do not exceed the annualized cost of the

rule, we believe the nonquantifiable benefits (as explained below) will

exceed the cost.

[[Page 57277]]

Perhaps the most important factor to consider when assessing the

benefits of this proposal is that very few pipeline failures occur

without some degree of human error. However, as stated above, available

data does not always capture the contribution of human error. For

example, in 1997, there were 88 reportable incidents attributed to

outside force damage in the natural gas pipeline industry. Although the

data reflects outside force damage as the cause of the incidents, human

error is inherently present in most outside force damage. For instance,

the outside force damage may have resulted from a pipeline worker not

following local one-call system procedures or from improper marking of

the pipeline prior to excavation. These scenarios show the difficulty

in quantifying the benefits of this proposed rule, because the pipeline

incident data does not always accurately describe the role of human

error. (Of course, some outside force damage extends outside the scope

of this proposed rule, as when a third party disregards one-call

procedures.)

Although quantifying all the benefits of an operator qualification

rule is impossible, RSPA believes that the overall benefits exceed the

costs of the rule. Although relatively few fatalities and injuries

occur each year from pipeline failures, the potential exists for

significant, and very costly, disasters.

For example, on March 23, 1994, a natural gas pipeline explosion

destroyed eight apartment buildings in Edison, New Jersey. Although

deaths and injuries were limited, total damages exceeded $25 million.

The investigation did not cite operator personnel qualification as a

direct contributing factor, but this incident demonstrates the extent

of loss that can result from a pipeline incident/accident. This

proposed rule will help reduce the likelihood of such large-scale

disasters.

Other nonquantifiable benefits of this proposed rule include

improved worker productivity and reduced down-time for pipeline

operators because of improved worker performance. This should directly

translate into reduced operating expenses. Finally, documentation of a

qualified workforce should improve operator public relations and lead

to reduced litigation costs because pipeline operators will be able to

demonstrate that their employees and contractors possess the required

skills to safely perform operations and maintenance activities. RSPA

provides further analysis for its conclusion that this proposed rule

will have a positive benefit/cost in its ``Regulatory Evaluation.''

Comments concerning the costs and benefits of this proposed rule

can be sent to the dockets office, referenced at the beginning of this

notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee unanimously agreed that all

operators, regardless of size, should be subject to the proposed rule.

One of the participants in the negotiated rulemaking was a

representative of the American Public Gas Association (APGA). The APGA

represents municipal gas distribution companies, the main group of

small entities in the pipeline industry. Very few small entities can be

found among hazardous liquid and gas transmission companies because

these businesses tend to be large, heavily capitalized firms. In

conversations between RSPA and APGA, APGA indicated that as a trade

association it would make itself available to assist its members in

complying with this proposed rule.

As indicated in the regulatory evaluation, many resources exist to

assist both small and large operators in compliance with this proposal,

including classes from DOT's Transportation Safety Institute, nonprofit

industry associations, as well as for profit companies. Additionally,

while some costs such as the development of the qualification program

is on a per company basis, the actual qualification will be on a per

employee basis. As a result, costs incurred by smaller companies should

be less than those incurred by larger companies.

Further, the Committee considered the flexibility that this

proposed rule allows in terms of permitting each company to tailor its

worker qualification program to its own unique needs, and would allow

small operators to interact with inspectors to evaluate and modify

their qualification programs if necessary. Because of this flexibility,

the availability of assistance in developing qualification plans, the

fact that much of the cost will be proportionate to the number of

employees, and the fact that very few small entities can be found among

hazardous liquid and gas transmission companies, I certify that this

proposal will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains information collection requirements. As required

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the

Department of Transportation has submitted a copy of this section to

the Office of Management and Budget for its review.

The public information and recordkeeping burden for this collection

of information is estimated to be 2.2 million hours annually (6.6

million hours/3 years = 2.2 million per year). The total number of

respondents is estimated to be 50,000. The average number of hours per

respondent is 44 (2.2 million hours/50,000 = 44 hours).

Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the

information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Office for U.S.

Department of Transportation. Comments should be sent within 30 days of

the publication of this NPRM.

The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed

collection of information in:

Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the

Department, including whether the information will have a practical

use.

Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden

of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used.

Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information

to be collected: and

Minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are

to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated

electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are

required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a

valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this

information collection will be published in the Federal Register after

it is approved by the OMB.

For more details see the Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis available

for copying and review in the public docket.

Executive Order 12612

This proposed rule has been analyzed with the principles and

criteria in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism'') (52 FR 41685), and

does not have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation

of a federalism assessment.

[[Page 57278]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rule.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 192

Natural gas, Pipeline Safety.

49 CFR Part 195

Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Hazardous liquids, Petroleum,

Pipeline safety.

In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA hereby proposes to amends

49 CFR parts 192 and 195 as follows:

PART 192--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 10110,

60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

2. Subpart N is proposed to be added to read as follows:

Subpart N--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

Sec.

192.801 Scope.

192.803 Definitions.

192.805 Qualificaiton Program.

192.807 Recordkeeping.

192.809 General.

Subpart N--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

Sec. 192.801 Scope.

(a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator

qualification of individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline

facility.

(b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity,

identified by the operator, that:

(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility;

(2) Is an operations or maintenance task;

(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and

(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.

Sec. 192.803 Definitions.

Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the

operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation

from normal operations that may indicate a condition exceeding design

limits or result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the

environment.

Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the

operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered

task by any of the following: written examination; oral examination;

work performance history review; observation during:

(1) Performance on the job,

(2) On the job training,

(3) Simulations; or other forms of assessment.

Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:

(1) Perform assigned covered tasks; and

(2) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.

Sec. 192.805 Qualification Program.

Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification

program. The program shall include provisions to:

(a) Identify covered tasks;

(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered

tasks are qualified;

(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this

subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by an

individual that is qualified;

(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe

that the individual's performance of a covered task contributed to an

incident as defined in part 191 of this chapter;

(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe

that the individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;

(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals

performing those tasks; and,

(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which

evaluation of the individual's qualifications is needed.

Sec. 192.807 Recordkeeping.

Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance

with this subpart.

(a) Qualification records shall include:

(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);

(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified

to perform;

(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and

(4) Qualification method(s).

(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall

be maintained while the individual is performing the covered task.

Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer

performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.

Sec. 192.809 General.

(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by {INSERT

DATE 2018 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}.

(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals

performing covered tasks by {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF

FINAL RULE}.

(c) After {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}

work performance history may not be used as a sole evaluation method.

PART 195--[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;

and 49 CFR 1.53.

4. Section 195.043 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.403 Emergency Response Training.

(a) Each operator shall establish and conduct a continuing training

program to instruct emergency response personnel to:

(1) Carry out the emergency procedures established under

Sec. 195.402 that relate to their assignments;

(2) Know the characteristics and hazards of the hazardous liquids

or carbon dioxide transported, including, in case of flammable HVL,

flammability of mixtures with air, odorless vapors, and water

reactions;

(3) Recognize conditions that are likely to cause emergencies,

predict the consequences of facility malfunctions or failures and

hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide spills, and take appropriate

corrective action;

(4) Take steps necessary to control any accidental release of

hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide and to minimize the potential for

fire, explosion, toxicity, or environmental damage.

(5) Learn the proper use of firefighting procedures and equipment,

fire suits, and breathing apparatus by utilizing, where feasible, a

simulated pipeline emergency condition; and,

(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once

each calendar year, each operator shall:

(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the

objectives of the emergency response training program set forth in

paragraph (a) of this section; and

(2) Make appropriate changes to the emergency response training

program as necessary to ensure that it is effective.

(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors

maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of

[[Page 57279]]

the emergency response procedures established under Sec. 195.402 for

which they are responsible to ensure compliance.

5. Subpart G is proposed to be added to read as follows:

Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

Sec.

195.501 Scope.

195.503 Definitions.

195.505 Qualification Program.

195.507 Recordkeeping.

195.509 General.

Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

Sec. 195.501 Scope.

(a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator

qualification of individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline

facility.

(b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity,

identified by the operator, that:

(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility;

(2) Is an operations or maintenance task;

(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and

(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.

Sec. 195.503 Definitions.

Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the

operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation

from normal operations that may indicate a condition exceeding design

limits or result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the

environment.

Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the

operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered

task by any of the following: written examination; oral examination;

work performance history review; observation during:

(1) Performance on the job,

(2) On the job training,

(3) Simulations; or other forms of assessment.

Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:

(1) Perform assigned covered tasks; and

(2) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.

Sec. 195.505 Qualification Program.

Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification

program. The program shall include provisions to:

(a) Identify covered tasks;

(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered

tasks are qualified;

(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this

subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by an

individual that is qualified;

(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe

that the individual's performance of a covered task contributed to an

accident as defined in this part 195;

(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe

that the individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;

(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals

performing those tasks; and

(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which

evaluation of the individual's qualifications is needed.

Sec. 195.507 Recordkeeping.

Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance

with this subpart.

(a) Qualification records shall include:

(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);

(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified

to perform;

(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and

(4) Qualification method(s).

(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall

be maintained while the individual is performing the covered task.

Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer

performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.

Sec. 195.509 General.

(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by {INSERT

DATE 20 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}.

(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals

performing covered tasks by {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF

FINAL RULE}.

(c) After {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}

work performance history may not be used as a sole evaluation method.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 21, 1998.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 98-28662 Filed 10-26-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P