[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57269-57279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28662]


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

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