[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 166 (Friday, August 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46853-46867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22208]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. RSPA-98-3783; Amendment 192-86; 195-67]
RIN 2137-AB38


Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); Office of 
Pipeline Safety (OPS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule requires 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 work force and to reduce the probability 
and consequence of incidents caused by human error. This final rule 
creates new subparts in the gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety 
regulations. It establishes qualification requirements for individuals 
performing covered tasks, and amends certain training requirements in 
the hazardous liquid regulations. This final rule was developed through 
a negotiation process.

DATES: This final rule will be effective on October 26, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366-0918, or by 
e-mail at [email protected], regarding the subject matter of this 
final rule; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-4453, for copies of this 
final rule or other material in the docket. All materials in this 
docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. General 
information about the RSPA Office of Pipeline Safety can be obtained by 
accessing OPS's Internet home page at http://ops.dot.gov.

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. Discussion of Comments Received on Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
V. Scope.
    A. Persons Covered by the Final 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.
    D. Amendments to Section 195.403.
VI. Definitions.
VII. Qualification program.
VIII. Recordkeeping.
IX. General.

I. Introduction

    Although no regulatory program is capable of completely eliminating 
human error, the objective of this final rule is to reduce the risk of 
accidents on pipeline facilities attributable to human error. This 
final rule for the qualification of individuals is intended to provide 
an additional level of safety. This final rule does not replace 
existing qualification requirements in 49 CFR Part 192. However, it 
does remove the operations and maintenance training requirements of 
195.403. The final 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 final rule requires 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 final rule also sets 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 final 
rule specifies the deadlines by which operators must develop and 
implement their qualification programs.
    This final rule allows operators with existing programs to modify 
those programs if necessary to ensure compliance with the minimum 
requirements of this final rule. The final rule also requires 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 final rule establishes a new Subpart N in 49 CFR Part 192 and 
a new Subpart G in 49 CFR part 195. The final rule amends the training 
regulations in

[[Page 46854]]

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. 
No. 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 method(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 Act 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 Act 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 final 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 to discuss a particular issue and all potential solutions. 
The goal was to reach consensus and prepare a proposed rule for 
consideration by the agency. On February 22-23, 1999, the group 
reconvened to review received comments and make recommendations for the 
final rule. This inclusive process was intended to make the 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, 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.

A. Members of the RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

    The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) served as the 
convenor and facilitator for the RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 
(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 Committee. After a comprehensive search, RSPA selected 
the following organizations, representing broad interests, to serve on 
the 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 Energy Association (MEA): represents over 300 investor-
owned utilities, municipal utilities, contractors and manufacturers. 
MEA brought considerable expertise in pipeline personnel training 
issues.
    8. NACE International, The Corrosion Society (NACE): an 
organization of corrosion experts. NACE works

[[Page 46855]]

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 (NASFM): 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 Committee.

B. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Ground Rules

    Most of the procedures and protocols followed in the negotiation 
were established by the Committee. A set of Committee ``ground rules'' 
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 ground rules 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 eight times between May 1997, and 
February 1999. Each negotiating session lasted a minimum of two days, 
with two sessions convening for two and a half days. These meetings 
resulted in an NPRM which was published in the Federal Register on 
October 27, 1998, (63 FR 57269). The Committee reached final consensus 
on the final rule in its last meeting in February 1999.

IV. Discussion of Comments in Response to NPRM

General Comments

    RSPA received 41 comments to the NPRM. Comments were received from 
nine pipeline-related trade associations, 25 pipeline operators, two 
state government agencies, two union organizations, two independent 
organizations, and the National Transportation Safety Board. Most 
commenters expressed support for the rule.
    Four commenters questioned the need for an operator qualification 
rule. They said there is no evidence in the pipeline industry's safety 
record to demonstrate the need for what they alleged would be a new 
administrative burden. Another commenter expressed that it is 
inappropriate to add a new subpart to the pipeline safety regulations. 
However, RSPA was mandated by Congress to develop qualification 
requirements in several pipeline safety reauthorization actions, most 
recently in 1996. The mandate was supported by several entities, 
including many state government agencies, the National Transportation 
Safety Board, and others.
    In addition, seven out of the 14 members of the Committee that 
developed this rule represented various parts of the gas and hazardous 
liquid pipeline industry. The Committee agreed to focus the rule on the 
requirements of the 1996 Act, which called for the establishment of 
``qualification'' requirements rather than ``training and 
certification'' requirements that were mandated in the 1992 Pipeline 
Reauthorization Act. RSPA believes the proposed rule addresses the 
intent of the 1996 Act.
    One commenter said that the goal of the rule could be better served 
by implementing general language into the pipeline safety regulations, 
such as ``all tasks required by Part 192 will be carried out by 
qualified individuals.'' RSPA disagrees that this language would be 
sufficient to ensure a qualified work force. This ambiguous language 
would not satisfy the requirements called for in the 1996 Act.
    A pipeline industry trade association recommended that RSPA conduct 
a formal cost-benefit analysis as described in the 1996 Act. A cost-
benefit analysis was performed and is a part of the public docket. RSPA 
is statutorily required to prepare a cost-benefit analysis, even if a 
rule is developed by a negotiated rulemaking committee. RSPA worked 
closely with the Committee on the regulatory analysis section of the 
rule.
    Another commenter said that RSPA did not adequately consider the 
burdens imposed on the operator resulting from responsibility for 
contractor qualification, and asked that RSPA exempt operators from 
qualifying contractors. Another commenter noted that pipeline 
contractors with in-house safety training will suffer because different 
pipeline companies will have different qualification plans. As is the 
case with all pipeline safety regulations, responsibility for 
compliance lies with the pipeline operator. RSPA does not have 
regulatory jurisdiction over pipeline contractors. However, to ensure 
the qualification of the many contractor personnel that work regularly 
on pipelines, the proposed rule covers all operator employees, 
contractors, sub-contractors, or any other entities working on behalf 
of the operator.
    One commenter suggested that RSPA facilitate the development of a 
``model qualification program,'' to assist small operators, and to 
provide outreach and explanation of the rule to pipeline contractors 
and sub-contractors. Another commenter said that RSPA should not 
require compliance with ``model'' or ``industry standard'' 
qualification programs. RSPA believes the spirit of this rule is to 
allow flexibility for operators to develop

[[Page 46856]]

specific qualification programs for their unique systems, and that a 
compliance ``model'' would be inconsistent with the spirit of the rule. 
However, RSPA will be working with state government agencies, and 
pipeline industry groups to facilitate implementation of the 
qualification rule. RSPA believes cooperative efforts with affected 
parties will provide the necessary guidance for compliance with the 
rule.
    One commenter said there should be provisions for ``transitional 
allowances,'' in situations where merging operators have inconsistent 
qualification programs. RSPA believes the time frames provided allow 
adequate time to resolve inconsistencies between qualification 
programs. Program modifications are inevitable in the case of company 
mergers. RSPA understands the problems that arise in the event of 
company mergers, and will work with operators on a case by case basis 
to ensure compliance with this rule.
    Eleven commenters believed that the references to the existing 
authority of inspectors to evaluate the adequacy of qualification 
programs should be eliminated from the preamble of the final rule, 
because this authority ``already exists.'' They insisted that existing 
procedures provide administrative processes for resolution of 
disagreements. The Committee discussed this issue at length, and agreed 
that the references should be retained to remind all affected parties 
that the increased flexibility provided in this rule does not limit the 
authority of oversight agencies.
    There were several comments regarding the implementation of this 
rule, and on measuring performance. A commenter suggested that RSPA 
provide the following provisions to mitigate the financial impact on 
local government systems that must comply with the rule: (1) A 
federally sponsored and funded training program to be administered on a 
state/local level; and (2) federal funds necessary for local government 
compliance. RSPA provides federal funds in the pipeline safety grant 
program, which provides up to 50% of a state agency's program, if they 
are considered a ``state partner'' to RSPA. Additional training 
programs dealing with compliance with the rule are currently under 
development and will be open to all interested parties, including local 
government entities affected by the regulation. Further, federal 
guidance documents such as the revised version of the ``Guidance Manual 
for Operators of Small Gas Systems'' will help small operators achieve 
compliance. Also, two commenters suggested that RSPA develop a 
mechanism(s) to evaluate the rule's effectiveness. RSPA plans to 
establish a periodic review with stakeholders regarding the 
effectiveness of the qualification rule.
    Finally, eleven commenters said that language should be implemented 
in the preamble describing what process or procedure RSPA would use if 
it became necessary to revise the qualification rule. They suggested 
the following options: (1) Reconvene the Committee; (2) establish an 
industry/government task team; (3) hold public meetings and/or 
workshops; or (4) nominating stakeholders to form a peer review team. 
RSPA cannot predict what changes might be necessary for this rule in 
the future, but will periodically work with stakeholders to evaluate 
the effectiveness of this rule.
    One commenter was concerned with the effect of the proposed rule on 
small operators, and suggested that RSPA provide guidance on compliance 
with the rule to assist small operators, and state pipeline safety 
inspection personnel. Another commenter believed master meter operators 
should be exempt from qualification requirements, because many master 
meter operators are small ``mom and pop'' operations. This commenter 
asked how these small operators would be able to evaluate qualification 
of the many contract personnel that work on their master meter systems.
    The Committee discussed the issue of the effects of the rule on 
small operators and master meter systems, and agreed that special 
provisions would not be appropriate because the qualification of 
workers at both large and small pipeline operators can impact safety. 
Federal guidance documents such as the ``Guidance Manual for Operators 
of Small Gas Systems'' will be revised to help small operators achieve 
compliance. In addition, many training programs are currently under 
development by government organizations and members of the pipeline 
industry.
    A commenter said RSPA should clarify how individuals involved in 
emergency response, who do not perform covered tasks, would be subject 
to the qualification requirements. The Committee agreed not to re-write 
the qualification requirements of emergency response personnel. The 
rule applies only to personnel performing operations and maintenance 
activities.

Comments to Secs. 192.801/195.501--Scope

    One pipeline operator suggested the reference to gas control 
operations on page 57273 of the proposed rule be removed from the rule. 
This operator claimed that monitoring is related to market response and 
customer delivery, not overpressure protection, and would not 
necessarily be a covered task. RSPA believes that controlling gas would 
clearly have to be considered a covered task. Any handling of the noted 
``physical and mechanical devices'' would require qualification. The 
example remains in the final rule.
    Thirty commenters were concerned with a paragraph on page 57273 of 
the proposed rule dealing with tasks ``performed pursuant to 
requirement in part 192 or 195,'' and the example of ``calibrations and 
low-pressure shutdowns.'' These commenters believe this language 
directly conflicts with the rule language, which describes a covered 
task as one that is ``performed as a requirement of this Part.'' The 
commenters noted RSPA added this paragraph to clarify the meaning of a 
covered task, but that it appears to expand the criteria for 
determining a covered task. These commenters also said that any 
references to ``pursuant to'' a requirement in the pipeline safety 
regulations should be revised to ``as required by'' to be consistent 
throughout the preamble and rule language. This paragraph was intended 
to provide further clarification of activities that would be considered 
covered tasks, but apparently caused confusion. RSPA has deleted the 
paragraph in the final rule.
    Two commenters called for better guidance in identifying covered 
tasks. For clarification, they believed the term ``pipeline facility'' 
should be defined in the rule, using the existing definition in the 
pipeline safety regulations. The definition of the term ``pipeline 
facility'' can be found in 192.3 and 195.2. These definitions apply 
generally to those subparts of the pipeline safety regulations. RSPA 
does not see any merit in adding the definition to the rule.
    One commenter said the preamble should include a note of 
clarification to distinguish the term ``task'' from ``covered task,'' 
as there could be some misinterpretation of the meaning of the term. 
RSPA agrees with this comment and has revised any appropriate 
references to ``task'' with ``covered tasks'' or replaced the term 
``task'' with ``activity.''
    Thirteen commenters expressed that under ``Tasks affecting the 
operation or integrity of the pipeline,'' the term ``could'' should be 
deleted where used in the generic sense in column 1 of page 57273 of 
the proposed rule to match the language in the rule. RSPA agrees and 
has made this change in the final rule.

[[Page 46857]]

    Fourteen commenters wanted clarification of the ``examples'' in the 
proposed rule used to describe the four-part test. These commenters 
said that the spirit of the rule is to provide operators with 
opportunity to identify covered tasks unique to their systems, but the 
discussion of ``examples'' imply that these examples would always be 
covered tasks under the rule. These commenters said the preamble should 
be revised to express that the ``hypothetical examples,'' are not to 
imply that they would necessarily be covered for all operators. RSPA 
believes the term ``hypothetical'' speaks for itself. We believe no 
change is necessary.
    One pipeline operator had many problems with various provisions and 
examples throughout the preamble. This operator incorrectly believed 
that the example dealing with leak surveys on page 57273 of the NPRM 
was inappropriate, because leak surveys do not affect the operation or 
integrity of the pipeline. The commenter also incorrectly said use of 
the term ``covered task'' is unnecessary because a covered task is 
simply an operations and maintenance task. Activities such as painting 
a pipeline for appearance reasons would not require qualification. This 
operator also stated that the concept of a task not being covered when 
performed on an unattached pipeline component was confusing, and asked 
for clarification. The Committee decided that when pipeline facilities 
are not physically attached to the pipeline, work on these facilities 
should not be ``covered,'' such as a manufacturers repair work off 
site.
    This operator also alleged that the preamble does not explain that 
the term ``integrity'' includes the potential long-term effects of an 
activity. Also, this operator did not believe the example dealing with 
the coating and jacketing of pipelines was appropriate to illustrate 
the significance of tasks affecting the operation or integrity of a 
pipeline. RSPA disagrees with this commenter in all of these areas. The 
Committee discussed pipeline integrity considerably, and agreed that 
the examples used were appropriate. Therefore RSPA does not believe any 
changes are necessary.

Comments to 192.803/195.503--Definitions

Abnormal Operating Condition
    Fourteen commenters suggested that the preamble should state that 
the Committee determined that the current definition for ``Abnormal 
Operation'' in part 192 would not satisfy the provisions in the 1996 
Act. These commenters also claimed that this definition could be read 
to require individuals to recognize and react to an abnormal operating 
condition that is unrelated to their expertise. RSPA believes that all 
persons performing covered tasks should be able to reasonably recognize 
and react to abnormal operating conditions while performing their work. 
The current definition of ``Abnormal Operation'' in part 192 does not 
meet the requirements of the 1996 Act. Further, the Committee agreed 
that a separate definition would be appropriate for the purposes of 
this subpart.
    One commenter said that the structure of Abnormal Operating 
Condition definition is unclear and inconsistent with the structure of 
other definitions. RSPA agrees and has revised the format of the 
definition to provide clarity.
Evaluation
    Eleven commenters said that Note 1 of the table on page 57274 of 
the NPRM, should be clarified from ``during the period between the 
effective date of the rule and the three-year compliance date'' to 
``October 28, 2002.'' RSPA agrees and has made the appropriate change 
in the final rule.
    Twelve commenters said that RSPA should add the table to the rule 
language because the description in the preamble is not sufficient 
guidance for pipeline operators. RSPA does not believe the change is 
warranted because the rule language provides clear guidance. The table 
was included in the preamble for illustrative purposes only.
    One commenter asked that RSPA clarify how operators should identify 
and document covered tasks during ``transitional'' qualification. The 
commenter said the reference to transitional qualification is confusing 
because no covered tasks are required to be documented for 20 months. 
It is clear that no worker may be qualified under this rule before an 
operator has established a qualification program, including a covered 
task list. Although a qualification program may be established at any 
time, it must be completed and documented no later than 20 months after 
the rule is published in the Federal Register. The use of the term 
``transitional'' in the preamble to the rule merely highlights that 
current workers can be qualified solely through use of a work 
performance history review only during the period ending 38 months 
after the rule is published.
Qualified
    One commenter believed there was no need to define this term 
because it will lead to confusion and inconsistency with other 
regulations. However, the Committee agreed early in the negotiating 
process that this term should be defined for the purposes of this rule, 
so no changes have been made.
    One commenter stated that RSPA may need to define ``Operations and 
Maintenance'' or designate which sections of parts 192 and 195 are 
covered by the proposed rule. The final rule describes covered tasks as 
those identified by the operator using the ``four-part test.'' This 
topic is discussed further in the discussion concerning identification 
of covered tasks, in particular operations and maintenance tasks. 
Therefore, RSPA does not believe that further description is warranted 
in the final rule.

Comments to Secs. 192.805/195.505--Qualification Program

    Two commenters did not agree with the language ``contributed to an 
incident as defined in Part 191 of this chapter,'' because it includes 
LNG facilities in the definition of ``incident.'' These commenters do 
not believe the scope of the rule should include individuals that work 
at or near LNG facilities. The scope section of this rule states that 
the regulation would cover only Parts 192 or 195 of the pipeline safety 
regulations.
    Two commenters believed that there may be situations where a 
covered task is simple or repetitive enough that a required re-
evaluation at any interval is not warranted. The commenters asked that 
this be noted in the preamble. The Committee discussed this issue at 
length, and agreed that simple repetition of a covered task does not 
ensure that the task is performed safely and properly. Appropriate 
intervals (as determined by the operator) will ensure that the person 
performing a covered task is continually qualified. Thus, RSPA does not 
believe a change is needed.
    One commenter noted that the description of 192.805 allows 
operators to add to the seven required elements of their qualification 
program and makes clear that operators will not be held accountable for 
the qualification of personnel performing non-covered tasks. However, 
the commenter was concerned that attempts could be made to treat non-
covered tasks included in a qualification program as if they were 
covered tasks. The commenter suggested that RSPA revise the preamble to 
emphasize that voluntary tasks included

[[Page 46858]]

in a qualification program would not be treated as required covered 
tasks. RSPA believes the rule is clear as written. If a task does not 
meet the ``four-part test'' in Sec. 192.805 and Sec. 195.505, it is not 
covered task, even if voluntarily included in the qualification 
program.

Comments to Secs. 192.807/195.507--Recordkeeping

    No comments were received regarding these sections.

Comments to Secs. 192.809/195.509--General

    Thirteen commenters suggested that ``18 months'' should be changed 
to ``20 months after publication of the final rule.'' They also asked 
that RSPA change the final rule to clarify ``three years'' to ``38 
months from the publication date of the final rule.'' RSPA agrees and 
has made the appropriate change in the final rule.
    Thirteen commenters said that the language stating that a 
``qualification program would be effective for a minimum of 10 years'' 
is confusing. Commenters suggested that RSPA remove the sentence 
because it could be subject to multiple interpretations. RSPA agrees 
and has made the change in the final rule.

Comments to 195.403--Emergency Response Training

    A petroleum trade association supported the proposed revisions in 
195.403, which would remove prescriptive O&M training requirements and 
provide consistency with gas regulations. However, the commenter 
suggested that the preamble clarify that hazardous liquid operators may 
modify or discontinue operations and maintenance training requirements 
only when the qualification rule is fully implemented. RSPA agrees and 
has added language in 195.403 to reflect this change.
    RSPA has implemented several other suggested grammatical 
corrections in the final rule.

Comments to rulemaking analysis and notices

    RSPA worked closely with the Committee, as well as with several 
representatives in the pipeline industry when developing the rulemaking 
analysis. One commenter suggested RSPA should use simple annualized 
costs, rather than amortized costs. However, amortized costs more 
accurately reflect the costs incurred by the pipeline industry.
    RSPA received several comments on the following paragraphs 
regarding Executive Order 12866:

    ``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.'' (63 FR 57276)
    ``In 1997, there were a total of 363 reportable pipeline 
incidents/accidents. Of these, 105 were directly attributable to 
human error.'' (63 FR 57276)
    ``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.'' (63 FR 57276)
    ``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 failure.'' (63 FR 57277)

    Twenty-two commenters contend that the above references are not 
reasonable. They request that RSPA describe its methodology used to 
reach these conclusions, and substantiate these statements with 
sufficient and credible data, or delete them.
    These commenters did not agree that human error is a contributing 
factor to nearly all incidents. Further, human error is not always 
related to lack of qualification. The commenters suggested that RSPA 
remove or substantiate the ``non-quantifiable benefits,'' because they 
questioned the assumption that the rule will improve ``work 
productivity and down-time.''

    ``[I]n 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'' (63 FR 57277).

    Seventeen commenters expressed that this discussion is misleading 
and not supported by facts. They noted that the discussion referring to 
``the difficulty in quantifying the benefits of this proposed rule * * 
*'' were only made to narrow the gap between costs and benefits. They 
believe that these assumptions were not substantiated and should be 
deleted from the preamble. RSPA acknowledges that language was added to 
the NPRM after the final review by the Committee. However, the cost/
benefit section was not part of the negotiated discussion by the entire 
Committee during the development of this rulemaking. RSPA has 
nonetheless considerably revised this discussion to take into 
consideration the comments on this topic.
    Two commenters argued that litigation costs may increase, not 
decrease, as a result of this rule. RSPA has removed the reference to 
litigation costs since it would be difficult to predict the effect of 
this rule on litigation costs.
    Eighteen commenters expressed that DOT's reference to the 1994 gas 
pipeline incident in Edison, NJ is inappropriate. This incident was the 
result of illegal third party activity. They requested that DOT delete 
the paragraph. RSPA agrees with these commenters and has removed the 
reference in this final rule.

Specific Comments on the Proposed Rule Language

    Several comments were received regarding the regulatory language. 
One commenter suggested that 192.801 does not need the phrase ``as 
identified by the operator.'' Several industry representatives on the 
Committee wanted this clarification to highlight that the operator is 
responsible for identifying covered tasks. Therefore, RSPA has not made 
the suggested change to the final rule.
    Ten commenters said that 192.803 should be changed by adding the 
phrase ``that may reasonably be anticipated to be encountered while 
performing the covered task'' to the end of item #2 in the definition 
of ``Qualified'' (63 FR 57278). The commenters believed this would be 
consistent with the language in the preamble and thus does not obligate 
pipeline personnel to know all types of potential abnormal conditions. 
The Committee discussed this issue and concluded that no change to the 
regulatory language is warranted.
    Nine commenters suggested that 191.805(f) should have the word 
``substantive'' between the words ``communicate'' and ``changes''. 
Commenters believed this change would make the rule consistent with the 
preamble (page 57275, 3rd column, 2nd full paragraph) where the term 
``substantive'' is used and makes it clear that not every change must 
be communicated. This issue was discussed by the Committee, and RSPA 
does not believe change to the regulatory language is warranted.
    Ten commenters noted that 192.809(a) should read ``20 months'' 
instead of ``2018 months''. This typographical error was corrected in 
this final rule.
    Eleven commenters said 192.803 should be revised to clarify that 
the reference to ``other forms of assessment'' is distinct from 
``observation during'' in the Evaluation definition. RSPA discussed 
this with the Committee and revised the rule to distinguish the term

[[Page 46859]]

``observation'' from ``other forms of assessment.''
    The term ``integrity'' in the Scope sections is unclear. This issue 
was discussed by the Committee, and RSPA does not believe changes to 
the regulatory language are warranted.
    One commenter suggested that section 192.809 be revised to allow 
extra time for operators to ensure qualification of contractor 
personnel. This issue was discussed by the Committee, and RSPA does not 
believe changes to the regulatory language are warranted.
    One commenter suggested that an additional section be inserted in 
the rule to measure the performance of the qualification rule. RSPA 
plans to establish a periodic review with stakeholders regarding the 
effectiveness of the qualification rule. RSPA does not believe changes 
to the regulatory language are warranted.

V. 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 the 
1996 Act. 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.

A. Persons Covered by the Final Rule

    This final 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 final rule, the operator is 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 final 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 covered 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 must be classified as covered tasks.
    Identification of covered tasks is a key component of the 
qualification requirements under this final 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 final 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 final rule, the operator of a pipeline 
facility is responsible for identifying which activities performed on 
that facility are covered tasks. The criteria for identifying covered 
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.

B. Identification of Covered Tasks

    The final 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 final 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

[[Page 46860]]

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, 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 may not be covered tasks in the course of other activities. For 
example, ``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, 
``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 Part 195, Subpart D. To 
comply with the final 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 activities 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 activities, 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 required by a specific 
provision in 49 CFR parts 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 parts 
192 or 195, the associated maintenance activities are not covered 
tasks.
    4. Tasks Affecting the Operation or Integrity of the Pipeline. 
Under the final rule, covered tasks include only those activities that 
affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline.
    The main purpose of the final rule is to ensure safety of pipelines 
through qualification of individuals. Initial discussions centered 
around safety-related activities and the need to categorize covered 
tasks as only those activities having safety implications. Some 
Committee members argued that most of the provisions in parts 49 CFR 
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 activities 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 an activity to be a covered 
task, namely that the activity 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 an activity 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 
criterion, the Committee also considered whether it would be 
appropriate to use the term ``pipeline facility'' in the fourth 
criterion instead of the term ``pipeline.'' Although some argued that 
consistency should be maintained, others stated that the primary goal 
of the final 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 final rule. The Committee therefore agreed that this criterion 
should remain unchanged.
    If an activity fails to meet any one of the four criteria, the 
activity would not be considered a covered task under this final 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, 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.

[[Page 46861]]

While not affecting the immediate operation of the pipeline, the future 
integrity of the pipeline might be jeopardized (for example, 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 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 
activities and not necessarily the job classification of individuals 
performing the activities, because each job classification may 
incorporate several activities. For example, an individual with the job 
classification, ``meter reader,'' may be assigned activities other than 
reading a meter, such as distribution line patrolling under 49 CFR Part 
192.721, that could be covered tasks.

D. Amendments to Section 195.403 (Training).

    Section 195.403 currently prescribes the training requirements for 
operations, maintenance, and emergencies for operators of hazardous 
liquid pipelines. Because the final rule includes a qualification 
process for operations and maintenance activities, but does not address 
emergency response qualification, 49 CFR Sec. 195.403 is amended to 
retain emergency response training requirements. This rule removes the 
specific operations and maintenance training requirements addressed in 
49 CFR Sec. 195.403. Persons performing operations and maintenance 
tasks need to be qualified in accordance with the final rule. This 
amendment is not effective until October 28, 2002.

VI. Definitions

    The definitions section of this final 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 final rule.

Abnormal operating condition.

    An abnormal operating condition, as defined in this final rule, is 
``a condition identified by the operator that may indicate a 
malfunction of a component or deviation from normal operations that 
may:
    (1) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or
    (2) 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 from the pipeline safety regulations (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 who 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 to illustrate acceptable evaluation methods for 
``transitional'', ``initial'' and ``subsequent'' qualification, 
although these terms do not appear in the rule:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ``Transitional''            ``Initial''             ``Subsequent''
          Evaluation method               qualification\1\          qualification\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.

[[Page 46862]]

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ ``Transitional'' qualification means qualification completed by October 28, 2002, 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 Secs. 192.809(c) and 195.509(c), a work performance 
history review may not be used as a sole evaluation method after 
October 28, 2002. ``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.
    Prior to the three year compliance date operators may use work 
performance history review as the sole method for evaluation when 
qualifying individuals. After the three year compliance date, if work 
performance history review is used, it must be combined with at least 
one other form of assessment. Any of the other forms of assessment 
specified in the definition of evaluation may be used as the sole 
method of evaluation both before and after the three year compliance 
date. When an operator has qualified an individual prior to the three 
year compliance date and used work performance history review as the 
sole method of evaluation, the operator is not required to re-evaluate 
each individual using additional criteria until the next scheduled 
evaluation, which may vary by covered task.
    The operator must establish the parameters for the work performance 
history review. For example, a work performance history review may 
include:
    (1) A search of existing records for documentation of an 
individual's past satisfactory performance of a covered task(s);
    (2) 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,
    (3) verification that the individual has successfully performed the 
covered task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the 
rule.

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.

VII. Qualification program

    The Committee identified the following seven elements as 
requirements in the operator's qualification program:
    Paragraph (a) of 49 CFR 192.805 and 195.505 requires 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 final 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 final 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 to require that 
evaluators be ``qualified'' to evaluate. However, persons performing 
evaluations should possess the required knowledge (1) to ascertain an 
individual's ability to perform covered tasks and (2) to substantiate 
an individual's ability to recognize and react to abnormal operating 
conditions that might surface while performing those activities. 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 
final 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, an operator 
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 ``qualified'' individuals 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

[[Page 46863]]

the task or if there is reason to believe the individual can no longer 
perform the covered 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 final 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 the identification of covered tasks, and 
the frequency of evaluation intervals for each covered task. The 
appropriate interval may vary depending on the covered task. It was 
therefore left to the operator to determine which covered 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 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.

VIII. Recordkeeping

    Under the final 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), identification of each 
covered task for which qualified, date(s) of current qualification and 
qualification methods(s). Records of an individual's current 
qualifications must be maintained while the individual is 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 (for example, the individual retires or is 
promoted) the individual's qualification records 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 final 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.

IX. 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 final 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 38 months 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 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 final 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 final rule 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 regulatory evaluation. Copies of the regulatory evaluation are 
available in the docket. 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 final rule is the product of a negotiated rulemaking in which 
representatives of all interested parties participated, including 
pipeline trade associations, pipeline operators both large and small, 
organized labor, state pipeline safety representatives, and the Federal 
government. The members of the negotiated rulemaking committee agreed 
that this process ensured adoption of a cost-effective standard for 
pipeline personnel qualification. The American Gas Association (AGA) 
and other participants in the negotiated rulemaking contributed to 
estimates of the cost of this proposal. RSPA adjusted the cost 
estimates to provide an annualized cost estimate for the entire 
pipeline industry. Based on an estimated 175,000 covered pipeline 
employees, including both operator employees and contractors, the 
industry and the Committee identified three major cost categories for 
implementation and compliance with the 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 determined that the program set-up costs should be amortized 
over 9 years. Therefore, RSPA amortized the set-up costs over 9 years 
using a 7% interest rate for an annualized cost of $29.3 million for 
program development and initial qualification.

[[Page 46864]]

    The transitional qualification costs were 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) using a 7% interest rate for an annualized 
transitional qualification cost of $28.6 million.
    The Committee estimated that qualification for various covered 
tasks would be reviewed approximately every three years, although the 
length of time between evaluations for a particular covered task and 
pipeline operator might vary widely. 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 7-9 ($29.3 million + $32.4 million). 
The average annual cost for compliance with the rule is approximately 
$59 million.
    The preamble to this final 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 either a deficiency of knowledge or skill 
(for example, lack of qualification) or an error in judgement 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 rule will reduce 
incidents/accidents by ensuring a qualified workforce, they concede 
that the task of quantifying that reduction is very difficult.
    Perhaps the most important factor to consider when assessing the 
benefits of this rule is that human error is frequently not cited as an 
element contributing to an incident/accident. Available data does not 
always capture the contribution of human error to incidents/accidents. 
In 1997, there were 354 reportable pipeline incidents/accidents. Of 
these, 87 gas pipeline incidents and 40 hazardous liquid pipeline 
accidents were attributed to outside force damage. Although most 
outside force damage is caused by persons not covered by this rule--as 
when a third party disregards one-call procedures--damage sometimes 
results when a pipeline worker fails to follow one-call system 
procedures or from improper marking of the pipeline prior to 
excavation. Consequently, while third parties causing damage will not 
be better prepared to prevent pipeline damage, they will potentially 
reap the benefits of this rule by working around pipelines that are 
more clearly marked.
    These scenarios show the difficulty in quantifying the benefits of 
this rule. Nonetheless, it is clear that some incidents/accidents could 
be avoided as a result of implementation of this rule, and that the 
cost of these incidents/accidents is substantial. Total outside force 
incidents/accidents resulted in 7 fatalities ($19 million), 38 injuries 
($18.5 million), and $27 million in property damage. This results in a 
total monetized loss of $ 64.5 million in 1997. Monetization of 
fatalities and injuries employed DOT's ``willingness to pay'' 
estimates. Because the record keeping and reporting system of OPS lacks 
detailed data, it is not possible to accurately quantify the percentage 
of accidents that will be avoided as a result of this rule.
    Although quantifying all the benefits of an operator qualification 
rule is impossible, most of the Committee members agreed that this 
rule, as written, is as cost beneficial as practicable, and RSPA 
believes that the overall benefits justify the costs of the rule. 
Furthermore, although relatively few fatalities and injuries occur each 
year from pipeline failures, the potential exists for significant, and 
very costly, disasters.
    In addition, even a small reduction in overall pipeline expenses 
resulting from a fully-qualified workforce could result in significant 
savings that could offset the costs of this rule. If standardizing 
qualification procedures increases productivity and reduces operating 
expenses by one-half of one percent per year, the annual expenses of 
the major pipeline operators could drop by more than $68 million (FERC 
Form 2, page 116, reports $13.77 billion in total 1996 operating 
expenses for 53 large pipeline operators).
    Other nonquantifiable benefits of this rule may include:
    1. Reducing the likelihood of incorrectly following procedures;
    2. Eliminating and correcting inadequate operating and maintenance 
procedures;
    3. Reducing or eliminating the occurrence of sending inadequately 
prepared individuals into the field to perform covered tasks;
    4. Increasing the formal communications between operator and 
workers;
    5. Increasing the attention and oversight on safety-related 
procedures; and
    6. Improving the documentation that ensures a qualified workforce.
    These nonquantifiable benefits could translate into reduced 
operating expenses. Finally, documentation of a qualified workforce 
could improve operator public relations. RSPA provides further analysis 
for its conclusion that this rule will have a positive benefit/cost in 
its ``Regulatory Evaluation,'' which is included in the docket.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA 
must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on the 
regulatory evaluation, RSPA has determined that the rule will not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
Committee unanimously agreed that all operators, regardless of size, 
should be subject to the final rule because the qualification of 
workers at both large and small pipeline operators can impact safety. 
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. Hazardous liquid and gas 
transmission companies tend to be quite large. As a result, there are 
not a substantial number of small hazardous liquid pipeline entities. 
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 final rule.
    As indicated in the regulatory evaluation, many resources exist to 
assist both small and large operators in compliance with this rule, 
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, 
are on a per company basis, the actual qualification will be on a per-
employee basis. As a result, costs incurred by smaller companies should 
not be significant.
    Further, the Committee considered the flexibility that this final 
rule allows in terms of permitting each company to tailor its worker 
qualification program

[[Page 46865]]

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 final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This Final Rule contains information collection requirements. As 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), 
the information collection requirements in the rule have been submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget for their review and have been 
approved under OMB #2139-0600.

Executive Order 12612

    This final 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final 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 final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Requiring all gas 
and hazardous liquid pipeline operators to adopt the operator personnel 
qualification regulation should result in a reduction of pipeline 
incidents that are caused by human error. This should result in reduced 
fatalities, injuries, property damage, and environmental damage. 
Furthermore, this regulation will not have a detrimental impact on the 
environment. Thus, we have determined that the final rule will not 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An 
environmental assessment document is available for review in the 
docket.

Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems

    Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on 
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900. 
This glitch, the Year 2000 problem, could cause computers to stop 
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem 
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work. 
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 
Federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem 
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that 
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to 
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 
2000 Problem.
    This final rule does not require business process changes or 
require modifications to computer systems. Because this final rule 
should not affect the ability of organizations to respond to the Year 
2000 problem, we do not intend to delay the effectiveness of the rule 
changes.

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 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, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Subpart N is added to read as follows:
Sec.
192.801  Scope.
192.803  Definitions.
192.805  Qualification Program.
192.807  Recordkeeping.
192.809  General.


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:
    (a) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or
    (b) 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:
    (a) Written examination;
    (b) Oral examination;
    (c) Work performance history review;
    (d) Observation during:
    (e) Performance on the job,
    (f) On the job training, or
    (g) Simulations; or
    (h) Other forms of assessment.
    Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
    (a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and
    (b) 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;
    (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 covered 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:

[[Page 46866]]

    (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 April 
27, 2001.
    (b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals 
performing covered tasks by October 28, 2002.
    (c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole 
evaluation method for individuals who were performing a covered task 
prior to August 27, 1999.
    (d) After October 28, 2002, 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 195.403 is revised to read as follows:
    This section becomes effective October 28, 2002.


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 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; and
    (5) Learn the proper use of firefighting procedures and equipment, 
fire suits, and breathing apparatus by utilizing, where feasible, a 
simulated pipeline emergency condition.
    (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 the emergency response 
procedures established under 195.402 for which they are responsible to 
ensure compliance.

Subpart G--[Added]

    5. Subpart G is added to read as follows:

Sec.
195.501  Scope.
195.503  Definitions.
195.505  Qualification Program.
195.507  Recordkeeping.
195.509  General.


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:
    (a) indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or
    (b) 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:
    (a) written examination;
    (b) oral examination;
    (c) work performance history review;
    (d) observation during:
    (e) performance on the job,
    (f) on the job training, or
    (g) simulations; or
    (h) other forms of assessment.
    Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
    (a) perform assigned covered tasks and
    (b) 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 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 covered 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 April 
27, 2001.
    (b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals 
performing covered tasks by October 28, 2002.
    (c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole 
evaluation method for individuals who were performing a covered task 
prior to August 27, 1999.

[[Page 46867]]

    (d) After October 28, 2002, work performance history may not be 
used as a sole evaluation method.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-22208 Filed 8-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P