[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34413-34414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16677]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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 emergency-response 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

[[Page 34414]]

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