[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57269-57279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28662]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. RSPA-98-3783; Notice 1]
RIN 2137-AB38
Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require pipeline operators to develop
and maintain a written qualification program for individuals performing
covered tasks on pipeline facilities. The intent of this qualification
rule is to ensure a qualified workforce and to reduce the probability
and consequence of incidents caused by human error. This NPRM proposes
to create new subparts in the gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety
regulations. These would establish qualification requirements for
individuals performing covered tasks, and would also amend certain
training requirements in the hazardous liquid regulations. This
proposed rule was developed through a negotiation process.
DATES: RSPA must receive written comments to this proposed rule by
December 28, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Dockets Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments may also be filed electronically by
e-mail at ops.comments@rspa.dot.gov. Comments should identify the
docket number (RSPA-98-3783). Persons should submit the original
document and one (1) copy. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of
receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. The Dockets Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Comments can also be viewed
over the Internet on http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366-0918, or by
e-mail at eben.wyman@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the subject matter of this
notice; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-4453, for copies of this notice
or other material in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Introduction.
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory History.
III. Negotiated Rulemaking.
A. Members of the RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.
B. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Groundrules.
C. Committee Meetings.
IV. Scope.
A. Persons Covered by the Proposed Rule.
B. Operators are Responsible for Identifying Covered Tasks.
C. Identification of Covered Tasks.
1. Tasks Performed on a Pipeline Facility.
2. Operation or Maintenance Tasks.
3. Tasks Performed Pursuant to a Requirement in 49 CFR part 192
or 195.
4. Tasks Affecting the Operation or Integrity of the Pipeline.
[[Page 57270]]
D. Amendments to Sec. 195.403.
V. Definitions.
VI. Qualification program.
VII. Recordkeeping.
VIII. General.
I. Introduction
Although no regulatory program is capable of completely eliminating
human error, the objective of this proposed rule is to reduce the risk
of accidents on pipeline facilities attributable to human error. This
proposed rule for the qualification of individuals is intended to
provide an additional level of safety. This proposed rule does not
replace existing qualification requirements in 49 CFR part 192.
However, it does remove the operations and maintenance training
requirements of Sec. 195.403. The proposed rule does not diminish the
importance of the safety requirements already in the pipeline safety
regulations. These include requirements for safety design features,
such as relief valves and over-pressure protection devices, to provide
protection against human error and other causes of incidents and
accidents.
The proposed rule would require operators of pipelines to develop a
qualification program to evaluate an individual's ability to perform
covered tasks, and to recognize and react to abnormal operating
conditions that may occur while performing covered tasks.
The proposed rule would also set recordkeeping requirements that
operators must follow to successfully demonstrate compliance, and the
information that must be maintained on each individual who has been
evaluated and deemed qualified to work on a pipeline facility. Finally,
the proposed rule would specify the deadlines by which operators must
develop and implement their qualification programs.
This proposed rule allows operators with existing programs to
modify those programs if necessary to ensure compliance with the
minimum requirements of this proposed rule. The proposed rule would
also require operators without a qualification program to establish a
program to evaluate the qualifications of individuals performing
certain operation and maintenance activities on those pipeline
facilities that could affect pipeline operation or integrity.
This proposed rule would establish a new subpart N in 49 CFR part
192 and a new subpart G in 49 CFR part 195. The proposal would amend
the training regulations in 49 CFR 195.403. The emergency response
training requirements remain as they appear in 49 CFR 195.403.
II. Statutory Authority and Regulatory History
Sections 106 and 205 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L.
102-508) required the Department of Transportation to establish
regulations requiring that ``all individuals responsible for the
operation and maintenance of pipeline facilities be tested for
qualifications and certified to operate and maintain those
facilities.''
On August 3, 1994, RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
to establish specific training requirements for the qualification of
pipeline workers (59 FR 39506). This proposal would have introduced
qualification standards for personnel that perform, or supervise
persons performing, regulated operations, maintenance, and emergency
response functions. The purpose of the proposal was to improve pipeline
safety by requiring operators to ensure the competency of pipeline
personnel through training, testing, and periodic refresher training.
In response to this notice, RSPA received 131 comments that
expressed a wide variety of interests and concerns. Most commenters
asserted that the proposal should have taken a more general approach to
qualification with broad requirements for persons performing ``safety
related'' functions. Commenters stated that the proposal was too
prescriptive and that the many references to training requirements
should be modified to focus the proposal on actual qualification,
rather than on the methods(s) of achieving qualification.
OPS' technical advisory committees, the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, disapproved of the proposal. These Committees
passed several motions for amendments to the proposal. These motions
were generally consistent with the written comments.
Subsequently, the pipeline safety law was amended to require that
``all individuals who operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be
qualified to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities'' (49 U.S.C.
60102(a)). This law also requires that the ``qualifications applicable
to an individual who operates and maintains a pipeline facility shall
address the ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal
operating conditions that may indicate a dangerous situation or a
condition exceeding design limits'' (49 U.S.C. 60102(a)).
Following review of the comments to the 1994 proposed rulemaking,
as well as recommendations by the Technical Advisory Committees, and a
petition for withdrawal and alternative proposal submitted collectively
by the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association,
and the Southern Gas Association, RSPA decided that a regulatory
process other than traditional rulemaking would better address the
issues surrounding operator qualifications. Consequently, RSPA issued a
Notice of Withdrawal of the 1994 proposed rulemaking (61 FR 34413, July
22, 1996) and simultaneously issued a Notice of Intent to form a
negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a proposed rule on the
qualification of pipeline personnel (61 FR 34410, July 22, 1996).
III. Negotiated Rulemaking
RSPA understands that effective regulatory solutions to certain
issues can be difficult for an agency to craft. In the typical
rulemaking process, the participants often develop adversarial
relationships that prevent effective communication and creative
solutions. Exchange of ideas that may lead to solutions that are
acceptable to all interested groups does not often occur in the
traditional notice and comment rulemaking procedure.
Negotiated rulemaking is conducted under authority of the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Federal Advisory Committee
Act. The process involves assembling representatives of the affected
interests assemble to discuss a particular issue and all potential
solutions. The goal is to reach consensus and prepare a proposed rule
for consideration by the agency. After public comment on the proposed
rule, the group may reconvene to review the comments and make
recommendations for a final rule. This inclusive process is intended to
make the proposed rule more acceptable to all affected interests and
minimize the likelihood of petitions for reconsideration and
litigation.
RSPA believed that the negotiated rulemaking process would provide
ample opportunity for all affected parties to present their views and
to reach a consensus on a proposed qualification rule. Negotiated
rulemakings have been used successfully by the Department of
Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the
United States Coast Guard, the Federal Highway Administration, and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal
Railroad Administration. In addition, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have
successfully used the process.
[[Page 57271]]
A. Members of the RSPA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) served as the
convenor and facilitator for the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. FMCS
chaired the negotiations, offered suggestions in attempting to reach
the desired consensus, and helped determine the feasibility of
negotiating particular issues. From the beginning of this process, RSPA
met with FMCS on several occasions to discuss the issues that needed to
be addressed and the interests that needed to be represented on a
negotiated rulemaking committee. After a comprehensive search, (RSPA
selected the following organizations, representing broad interests, to
serve on the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee:
1. American Gas Association (A.G.A.): Represents a large number of
gas distribution and a few transmission companies in the pipeline
industry. A.G.A. members consist of both large and small operators.
2. American Petroleum Institute (API): Represents the interests of
the hazardous liquid pipeline companies. API is the major trade
association in the petroleum industry, and also represents the
interests of operators of other hazardous liquid pipelines.
3. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA):
Represents the interests of the larger interstate gas transmission
pipeline companies in the natural gas transportation industry. INGAA
consists mainly of the larger interstate gas transmission pipelines.
4. American Public Gas Association (APGA): Represents publicly-
owned and municipal gas companies. Although these public companies are
generally small, they operate a large number of the distribution
pipelines in American cities and suburbs.
5. National Propane Gas Association (NPGA): Represents the
interests of propane marketing and distribution at the local level .
NPGA is made up of both large and small companies.
6. Association of Texas Intrastate Natural Gas Pipelines:
Represents the interests of intrastate natural gas transmission
pipelines.
7. Midwest Gas Association (MGA): Represents over 300 investor-
owned utilities, municipal utilities, contractors and manufacturers.
MGA brought considerable expertise in pipeline personnel training
issues.
8. NACE International, The Corrosion Society (NACE): An
organization of corrosion experts. NACE works primarily on issues of
corrosion and corrosion control systems.
9. National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR):
Represents state pipeline safety programs. Many of these organizations
will incorporate the final rule on operator qualifications into their
pipeline safety program.
10. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC): Represents the interests of the state utility commissioners,
who regulate gas rates and terms of service in most of the fifty
states.
11. National Association of State Fire Marshals: Represents the
interests of state fire officials in state safety programs and the
issue of qualification for emergency response.
12. International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE): Represents
the interests of a substantial number of pipeline construction and
maintenance workers.
13. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW):
Represents over 21,000 gas industry workers.
14. Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS): Served as the representative
of RSPA, and the Designated Federal Official on the Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee.
B. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Groundrules.
Most of the procedures and protocols followed in the negotiation
were established by the Committee. A set of Committee ``groundrules''
was developed by participants at the initial meeting. Issues discussed
and agreed upon by the Committee included: how discussions would be
conducted, possibility of subgroups to work on particular issues,
expectations of Committee members, the Committee's role throughout the
rulemaking process, audience participation, and other topics. The
following are some of the more significant critical groundrules
established by the Committee:
1. Membership: All organizations were allowed one seat at the
table, and permitted to name one alternate to serve in their absence.
2. Good faith: All participants were expected to act in good faith
on behalf of their organization. OPS agreed to issue the Committee's
proposed rule as long as it was not in conflict with any other legal
requirements. In turn, the Committee agreed to support the proposal
following publication in the Federal Register. It was agreed that the
Committee would be actively involved through publication of the final
rule.
3. Conduct of meetings: Committee members reserved the right to
bring constituents to the table to address the Committee, and could
quietly consult with constituents during the course of the negotiation.
All meetings were open to the public. The Committee agreed that there
would be time scheduled on every meeting agenda for comment by the
audience.
4. Public Record: RSPA kept a record of all Committee meetings.
This record was placed in the public docket (Docket No. PS 94) and is
publicly available.
5. Consensus: The goal of the negotiating process is consensus. The
Committee developed its own definition of consensus for the purposes of
this rulemaking, which was as follows: ``A decision which all members
or designated alternates present at the meeting can agree upon. The
decision may not be everyone's first choice, but they have heard it and
everyone can live with it.''
C. Committee Meetings.
The Committee convened a total of seven times between May, 1997,
and January, 1998. Each negotiating session lasted a minimum of two
days, with two sessions convening for two and a half days. The
Committee reached final consensus on the NPRM in its last meeting in
January, 1998.
IV. Scope
The Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996
required RSPA to adopt regulations requiring that ``all individuals who
operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be qualified to operate
and maintain the pipeline facilities'' and ``shall address the ability
to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal operating conditions
that may indicate a dangerous situation or a condition exceeding design
limits'' (49 U.S.C. 60102(a)). The Committee determined that a national
qualification program conducted by RSPA, another federal agency, or a
state agency, would not be an appropriate or practical response to this
mandate. Such a system offers the advantages of national consistency,
including the ability of contractor employees to work for different
operators under a single qualification regime. However, it was
determined that the complexity and cost of administering such a system,
coupled with the difficulty of devising a system appropriate for the
wide variations in the operations and maintenance procedures and
facilities of individual operators, precluded this from being an
effective option.
The Committee determined the mandate would best be met by a non-
prescriptive, performance based regulation requiring each operator to
develop, or have developed, a written program for the qualification of
individuals. This would allow each program to be tailored to the unique
operations and practices of each operator.
[[Page 57272]]
A. Persons Covered by the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule applies to operators subject to the requirements
of 49 CFR parts 192 or 195. The rule applies to all individuals who
perform covered tasks, regardless of whether they are employed by the
operator, a contractor, a sub-contractor, or any other entity
performing covered tasks on behalf of the operator.
B. Operators are Responsible for Identifying Covered Tasks
Under this proposed rule, the operator would be responsible for
identifying which activities performed on the pipeline facility are
covered tasks. The process for identifying covered tasks is set forth
in 49 CFR 192.801 and 195.501 (``Scope'') of this proposed rule.
The Committee discussed whether the regulator or the operator
should be responsible for identifying covered tasks. Because of large
differences between operations of pipelines across the country, a
uniform list of tasks would not be useful, and could result in overall
increased costs. For example, some operators do not have transmission
lines in their systems, others operate only distribution lines, and
others do not have compressors, pump stations, or storage facilities.
Some operators perform a large number of covered tasks, while other,
smaller, operators may have only a limited number of tasks that would
be classified as covered tasks.
Identification of covered tasks is a key component of the
qualification requirements under this proposed rule. The Committee
proposed that it would be more effective and practical to let each
operator determine the covered tasks requiring qualification.
However, some Committee members were concerned that if operators
are allowed to determine the covered tasks, the proposed rule should
also ensure that the regulators retain the authority to review each
operator's determinations. Some Committee members objected to allowing
each operator to identify covered tasks requiring individuals to be
qualified. These members objected to the use of the words ``determined
by,'' which could be interpreted to preclude regulators from
questioning the operator's identification of covered tasks. The
Committee decided to use the words ``identified by'' to mean the
selection of covered tasks by the operator. The Committee concluded
that the authority to allow pipeline safety regulators to require
modifications to programs that fail to meet regulatory requirements was
already within the scope of federal and state jurisdiction, as was the
authority to question particular activities included as covered tasks
by the operator. The Committee concluded that covered tasks would be
activities identified by the operator.
Therefore, under this proposed rule, the operator of a pipeline
facility would be responsible for identifying which activities
performed on that facility are covered tasks. The criteria for
identifying such tasks on gas and hazardous liquid pipelines is set
forth in 49 CFR 192.801 and 195.501, respectively.
Although operators are responsible for identifying covered tasks
for which individuals must be qualified, regulators remain responsible
for reviewing operator qualification programs and ensuring that federal
regulatory standards are applied and met nationwide. Regulators may
question an operator's inclusion and exclusion of particular activities
as covered tasks. Regulators may require modifications to programs that
fail to meet the requirements of the rule.
C. Identification of Covered Tasks
The proposed rule includes a four-part test that each operator must
use to determine whether an activity constitutes a covered task. A
covered task is: (1) Performed on a pipeline facility; (2) an
operations or maintenance task; (3) performed pursuant to a requirement
in 49 CFR part 192 or 195; and (4) affects the operation or integrity
of the pipeline.
1. Tasks performed on a pipeline facility.
The phrase ``performed on a pipeline facility'' means an activity
that is performed by an individual whose performance directly impacts
the pipeline facility. An individual who works on a pipeline component
that is physically connected to the pipeline system is performing work
``on a pipeline facility'' and may be subject to the proposed rules,
regardless of whether or not product is flowing through the pipeline.
However, a person who repairs a pipeline system or appurtenance, that
has been removed from the system, would not be performing work on the
pipeline, and therefore would not be performing a covered task.
2. Operations or maintenance tasks. The Federal pipeline safety law
requires that all individuals who operate and maintain pipeline
facilities be qualified to operate and maintain those facilities (49
U.S.C. 60102(a)(1)(C)).
Most of the operations and maintenance activities on pipeline
facilities are found in 49 CFR part 192, subparts L and M, or in 49 CFR
part 195, subpart F. In addition, the regulations contain other
subparts that include requirements for conducting operations and
maintenance activities. For example, part 192, subpart I, establishes
requirements for protecting metallic pipelines from external, internal,
and atmospheric corrosion. The requirements to monitor corrosion
control systems are operations activities. The requirements to take
corrective action when deficiencies are found in a corrosion control
program are maintenance activities. Therefore, the task of repairing
pipelines affected by corrosion is also a maintenance activity.
Certain tasks performed on pipeline facilities may be covered tasks
when performed in the course of operation and maintenance activities,
but not be covered tasks in the course of other activities. For
example, the task of ``welding'' could be a covered task when performed
as an operations and maintenance activity on a pipeline, such as when
installing a weld-over sleeve to repair an anomaly. However, the task
of ``welding'' is not a covered task under this subpart when performed
during the fabrication of new installations, because this would not be
an operations and maintenance task.
However, welders are currently subject to qualification
requirements in 49 CFR part 192, subpart E, and 195, subpart D. To
comply with the proposed rule, welders would have to be additionally
qualified to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions when
welding as a covered task. This also applies to other tasks such as
``plastic pipe joining'', for which the regulations contain specific
requirements.
3. Tasks Performed Pursuant to a Requirement in 49 CFR part 192 or
195. Covered tasks include only those operations and maintenance
activities required by 49 CFR part 192 or 195.
Examples of covered tasks might include:
Purging a pipeline because it is specifically required by
49 CFR 192.629;
Leakage surveys of distribution lines, required by 49 CFR
192.723;
Starting, operating, and shutting down gas compressor
units, because 49 CFR 192.605(b)(7) specifically requires written
procedures on these tasks, to provide safety during maintenance and
operations;
Inspection of navigable water crossings under 49 CFR
195.412; and
Inspection of breakout tanks required by 49 CFR 195.432.
Operators of pipeline facilities may voluntarily conduct operations
and maintenance activities that are not
[[Page 57273]]
required by a specific provision in 49 CFR part 192 or 195. However, an
activity does not necessarily become a covered task simply because an
operator develops procedures for conducting the activity, and includes
those procedures in its Operations and Maintenance Plan. For example,
an operator may voluntarily choose to maintain a customer's buried
piping, and include procedures for this activity in its Operations and
Maintenance Plan. Because such maintenance is not specifically required
by 49 CFR part 192 or 195, the associated maintenance activities are
not covered tasks.
It is possible for a task to be ``performed pursuant to a
requirement in part 192 or 195'' even if the task is not specifically
addressed by a particular section. The task need only be performed
pursuant to the requirement contained in a particular section. For
example, 49 CFR 195.428 states that each operator shall inspect
overpressure protection devices and ensure these devices are operating
adequately. Section 195.428 does not explicitly discuss calibrations
that may be necessary to address low pressure shutdowns; yet such
calibrations may be required to comply with the regulation. Therefore,
the task of calibrating the overpressure protection devices to address
low pressure shutdowns would be performed as a result of a requirement
contained in part 195.
4. Tasks affecting the operation or integrity of the pipeline.
Under the proposed rule, covered tasks include only those
activities that could affect the operation or integrity of the
pipeline.
The main purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of
pipelines through qualification of individuals. Initial discussions
centered around safety-related tasks and the need to categorize covered
tasks as only those tasks as having safety implications. Some Committee
members argued that most of the provisions in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195
regulate safety-related activities. It would therefore be redundant to
include the word ``safe'' on pipeline operations addressed under this
criteria. Therefore, it was decided to use the phrase, ``operation or
integrity,'' because some tasks do not adversely affect the operation
or integrity of the pipeline, even though they meet the other three
criteria. The Committee decided to include a fourth criteria that must
be satisfied for a task to be a covered task, namely that the task
affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.
The Committee discussed the term ``operation'' as used here in the
safety context of normal versus abnormal operation, where the latter
could result in an unsafe condition. For example, the control of flow
and pressure in pipelines could result in abnormal operation, if the
pressure is allowed to rise above an acceptable limit. Therefore, in
this example, activities that include controlling flow and pressure on
a pipeline system would be considered covered tasks if the other three
criteria for covered tasks were met.
An additional example of a task affecting the integrity of the
pipeline would be coating or jacketing of aboveground pipeline
components. In the event atmospheric corrosion is present, coating or
jacketing the component could affect the integrity of the pipeline.
However, painting a pipeline for aesthetic reasons would not affect the
integrity of the pipeline.
The ``integrity'' of the pipeline refers to the pipeline's ability
to operate safely and to withstand stresses imposed during operations.
An example of a short-term effect on integrity would be exceeding the
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) for gas pipelines and
Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) for liquid pipelines. An example of a
long-term effect would be failure from corrosion due to improper
coating after repair of a welded joint.
Because the term ``pipeline facility'' was used in the first
criteria, the Committee also considered whether it would be appropriate
to use the term ``pipeline facility,'' in the fourth criteria instead
of the term ``pipeline''. Although some argued that consistency should
be maintained, others stated that the primary goal of the proposed rule
is to ensure the safe operation and integrity of the pipeline itself.
Furthermore, the term ``pipeline'' as defined in 49 CFR parts 192 and
195 already encompasses the ``facilities'' targeted by the proposed
rule. The Committee therefore agreed that this criterion should remain
unchanged.
If a task fails to meet any one of the four criteria, the task
would not be considered a covered task under this proposed rule. The
following are hypothetical examples of how the four-part test can be
used to identify a covered task:
Example 1: Leakage surveys on gas transmission pipelines.
(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, because leakage
surveys are performed immediately above the pipeline and on the
pipeline right-of-way.
(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, leakage surveys
are conducted in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance
activities.
(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, leakage
surveys are required by 49 CFR 192.706 and 192.723.
(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes, if
a leakage survey is not properly conducted, a leak might not be
detected resulting in a potentially hazardous situation.
Since all four criteria are met, the leakage survey is a covered
task.
Example 2: Measuring pipe-to-soil potentials.
(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, pipe-to-soil
potentials are measured at cathodic test stations attached directly
to the pipeline.
(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, as pipe-to-soil
potentials are read in the course of pipeline operations and
maintenance activities.
(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, pipe-to-
soil potential measurements are required by 49 CFR 192.465 and
195.416.
(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes,
pipe-to -soil potential measurements, if taken improperly will, not
accurately reflect the level of cathodic protection being provided.
While not affecting the immediate operation of the pipeline, the
future integrity of the pipeline might be jeopardized (i.e.
corrosion might develop), if inadequate cathodic protection is
applied to the pipeline over a period of time.
Since all four criteria are met, the measurement of pipe-to-soil
potentials is a covered task.
Example 3: Meter reading.
(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, a meter is a part of
a pipeline facility.
(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, meters are read
in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance activities.
(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? No, meter
reading is not a requirement of 49 CFR part 192 or part 195.
(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? No,
meter reading has no impact on pipeline operation or integrity.
Because the task of meter reading fails at least one of the four
criteria, meter reading is not considered a covered task.
In identifying covered tasks, operators must consider specific
tasks and not necessarily the job classification of individuals
performing the tasks, because each job classification may incorporate
several tasks. For example, an individual with the job classification,
``meter reader,'' may be assigned tasks other than reading a meter,
such as distribution line patrolling under 49 CFR Part Sec. 192.721,
that could be covered tasks.
D. Amendments to Sec. 195.403 (Training)
Section 195.403 currently prescribes the training requirements for
operations, maintenance, and emergencies for operators of hazardous
liquid pipelines. Because the proposed rule includes a qualification
process for operations and maintenance activities, but does not
[[Page 57274]]
address emergency response qualification, 49 CFR 195.403 would be
amended to retain emergency response training requirements. This rule
proposes to remove the specific operations and maintenance training
requirements addressed in 49 CFR 195.403. Persons performing operations
and maintenance tasks would need to be qualified in accordance with the
proposed rule.
V. Definitions
The definitions section of this proposed rule was developed to
facilitate common understanding of key terms. The Committee began using
a number of terms that were not commonly defined by all members. To
facilitate communication, these terms were defined and are provided in
the proposed rule.
Abnormal Operating Condition
An abnormal operating condition, as defined in this proposed rule,
is ``a condition identified by the operator that may indicate a
malfunction of a component or deviation from normal operations that may
indicate a condition exceeding design limits or result in a hazard(s)
to persons, property, or the environment.'' This definition is derived
from Federal pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. 60102), and 49 CFR 192.605
(c)(1)(v) and 49 CFR 195.402(d)(1)(v).
``Abnormal operating conditions'' is also referenced in the
definition of the term ``qualified''. To be qualified, an individual
needs to be able to properly perform assigned covered tasks and be able
to recognize and react to an abnormal operating condition that may be
encountered while performing the covered task. For example, this may
include notifying the responsible parties or taking corrective action
to mitigate the condition.
As an example, an individual that has been qualified to perform
leak surveys should be able to recognize and react to an abnormal
operating condition such as blowing gas. Likewise, an individual who is
qualified to perform control of gas pressure and flow should be able to
recognize and react to an abnormal operating pressure in a pipeline
segment.
Not all atypical operating conditions are abnormal. An example of
an atypical operating condition that is not abnormal is a pipeline
which can (not to exceed MAOP or MOP) operate up to 200 pounds per
square inch (psig), but which typically operates at 50 psig. Operating
this pipeline at 150 psig could be atypical, but not abnormal. If
however the atypical operating condition would cause the pressure in
the pipeline to exceed its allowable limits or cause a hazard to
persons, property or the environment, an abnormal operating condition
would result. A qualified individual performing control of gas pressure
and flow who observes an unanticipated pressure increase in such a
pipeline segment should know to investigate the cause of the change
before it reaches the MAOP/MOP of the line.
Evaluation
An evaluation of an individual's ability to perform a covered task
is the process that assesses and documents the individual's
qualifications to perform the covered task. Although the definition
lists several acceptable methods for evaluation, the list is not all-
inclusive.
The evaluation of an individual's qualifications should be an
objective, consistent process that documents an individual's ability to
perform the covered task. This includes the individual's ability to
recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that the operator
could reasonably anticipate the qualified individual will encounter
while performing the covered task. The operator should establish the
acceptance criteria for the evaluation method used (for example, for
on-the-job training spell out the performance criteria; for a written
exam establish the cutoff score). The following table was developed in
Committee discussion and shows acceptable evaluation methods for
`transitional', `initial' and `subsequent' qualification:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Transitional' `Initial' qualification `Subsequent'
Evaluation method qualification \1\ \2\ qualification \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written exam..................... YES...................... YES..................... YES
Oral exam........................ YES...................... YES..................... YES
Work performance history review.. YES...................... May not be used as the May not be used as the
sole evaluation method. sole evaluation method
after the three-year
compliance date.
Performance on-the-job........... YES...................... YES..................... YES
On-the-Job Training.............. YES...................... YES..................... YES
Simulation....................... YES...................... YES..................... YES
Other............................ YES...................... YES..................... YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ `Transitional' qualification means qualification completed during the period between the effective date of
the rule and the three-year compliance date, of individuals who have been performing a covered task on a
regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule.
\2\ `Initial' qualification means qualification, at any time, of individuals who were not performing a covered
task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule.
\3\ `Subsequent' qualification means evaluation of an individual's qualification, after `transitional' or
`initial' qualification, at the interval established by the operator.
Under 49 CFR 192.809(c) and 195.509(c), a work performance history
review may not be used as a sole evaluation method after {INSERT 38
MONTHS FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE} `Transitional'
qualification may rely on a work performance history review as the sole
evaluation method. `Initial' qualification may not rely on only a work
performance history review. `Subsequent' qualifications may rely on
work performance history review if used in conjunction with at least
one other evaluation method.
The operator must establish the parameters for the work performance
history review. For example, a work performance history review may
include: a search of existing records for documentation of an
individual's past satisfactory performance of a covered task(s);
verification that the individual's work performance history contains no
indications of substandard work or involvement in an incident (part
192) or accident (part 195), caused by an error in performing a covered
task; and, verification that the individual has successfully performed
the covered task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the
rule.
[[Page 57275]]
Qualified
Qualified, means that an individual has been evaluated and is able
to properly perform a covered task(s), and recognize and react to
abnormal operating conditions that may be encountered during the
performance of the covered task(s). An individual may be qualified
using any of the evaluation methods specified in the operator's written
qualification program.
VI. Qualification Program
The Committee identified the following seven elements as
requirementsd in the operator's qualification program:
Paragraph (a) of 49 CFR 192.805 and 195.505 require operators to
identify the covered tasks to be included in the qualification program.
Whether an activity is a covered task would be determined using the
four criteria in 49 CFR 192.801(b) or 195.501(b). Because operators are
responsible for identifying covered tasks, variations among
qualification programs are expected.
A concern of the Committee was whether periodic review of covered
tasks should be required. Although a periodic review requirement was
not included in the proposed rule, an operator may consider a periodic
review to ensure the accuracy of its covered task list.
Paragraph (b) requires that the qualification program include
provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing
covered tasks are qualified. This would set forth the evaluation
methods to determine if an individual is qualified. The Committee
discussed contractor personnel and who is responsible for their
qualification and compliance under this rule. Some members believed
contractors should not be subject to this proposed rule and that OPS
should be responsible for ensuring the qualification of contractor
personnel. OPS does not have the authority to directly enforce
compliance by contractors with this rule. The pipeline operator is
responsible for all individuals working on their pipeline systems. This
includes operator and contractor personnel.
The Committee discussed the role of those performing evaluations.
Members agreed not to include a provision in the rule requiring
evaluators be ``qualified'' to evaluate. However, persons performing
evaluations should possess the required knowledge (1) to ascertain an
individuals ability to perform covered tasks and (2) to substantiate an
individuals ability to recognize and react to abnormal operating
conditions that might surface while performing those tasks. This does
not necessarily mean that the persons performing evaluations should be
physically able to perform the covered tasks themselves.
The Committee discussed the concerns and options available to the
operator regarding who should evaluate the individuals performing
covered tasks. Because the operator is responsible for the development
and implementation of the evaluation methods, the Committee thought
that the operator should also be responsible for selecting
appropriately knowledgeable individuals to perform evaluations. The
proposed rule requires a qualification program that focuses on ensuring
an individual can properly perform a covered task(s) rather than the
credentials of persons conducting evaluations.
Paragraph (c) allows for performance of covered tasks by
individuals who are not qualified as long as a qualified individual
directly observes the non-qualified individual(s), and is able to take
immediate corrective actions when necessary. For example, a
distribution company may use a three-person crew to repair gas leaks.
Two of the crew members could be non-qualified. The crew excavates and
repairs leaking gas mains and services under the direct and close
observation of the qualified member of the crew. The intent of this
provision is to ensure that non-qualified individuals performing
covered tasks are subject to close observation by a qualified
individual. Ultimately, the qualified member of the crew is responsible
for the repair. The ratio of non-qualified individuals to a
``qualified'' individual, should be kept to a minimum.
Paragraph (d) requires the operator to evaluate an individual if
the operator has reason to believe that the individual's performance of
a covered task could have contributed to an incident as defined in 49
CFR part 191 or accident as defined in 49 CFR part 195. If so, the
individual's qualification should be evaluated to determine if the
individual continues to be qualified to perform the covered task.
Paragraph (e) requires the operator to evaluate an individual if
there is reason to believe that the individual is no longer qualified
to perform a covered task. This could occur if the individual displays
unsatisfactory performance of the task, or if there is reason to
believe the individual no longer can perform the task. The operator's
qualification program must include provisions for evaluating an
individual's qualification if the circumstances warrant.
Paragraph (f) recognizes that changes may occur that impact how a
covered task is performed. Changes that may need to be communicated to
individuals performing covered tasks may include:
Modifications to company policies or procedures.
Changes in state or Federal regulations.
Utilization of new equipment and/or technology.
New information from equipment or product manufacturers.
The proposed rule requires that the qualification program include
provisions for communicating information on substantive changes to the
individuals performing the affected covered tasks. When significant
changes occur, the operator should consider whether additional
qualification requirements are necessary and whether individuals
performing the covered task should be evaluated again.
Paragraph (g) addresses whether an individual's qualification to
perform a covered task should be subject to evaluation at appropriate
intervals. The appropriate interval may vary depending on the task. It
was therefore left to the operator to determine which tasks and the
interval at which subsequent qualification of an individual performing
a covered task will occur. The Committee felt that the evaluation
intervals could be specified in units of time, frequency of task
performance or other appropriate units. The Committee recognized that
subsequent evaluation methods may differ from initial qualification
methods.
This rule does not require that the written qualification program
be incorporated into an operator's Operations and Maintenance Plan. The
operator may expand any of the seven required elements and add
additional elements to their program but will only be held accountable
to meet the requirements of this Subpart.
VII. Recordkeeping
Under the proposed rule, each operator is required to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance. The Committee had considerable
discussion regarding records content, records to be retained, and
length of retention.
The records that support an individual's qualifications must
include the identity of each qualified individual (for example name,
social security number, or employee number, etc. may be used),
identification of each covered task for which qualified, date(s) of
current qualification and qualification method(s). Records of an
individual's current qualifications must be maintained while the
individual is
[[Page 57276]]
performing the covered tasks for which qualified. When an individual is
evaluated for subsequent qualification, the prior qualification records
must be maintained for a period of five years. Also, when an individual
stops performing a covered task (i.e., the individual retires, is
promoted, etc.) the individual's qualification records that were
current at that time must be retained for a period of five years. The
Committee selected five years to be consistent with other regulatory
time periods. The records may be kept in paper, electronic, or any
other appropriate format. The records may be kept at a central location
or at multiple locations.
The proposed rule does not address whether a certification or other
record of qualification need be issued to each qualified individual.
This matter is solely within the discretion of the operator.
VIII. General
Development and implementation of a qualification program will take
some operators longer than others. Many operators currently have
adequate processes or programs to ensure the qualification of
individuals working on their pipeline systems. However, to ensure that
this proposed rule is enforceable, definitive time frames must be
specified. The Committee decided that 18 months would be sufficient
time to develop a written qualification program.
An operator will have three years from the effective date of the
final rule to complete the qualification of all individuals performing
covered tasks on its system. This will allow operators with more
limited resources and differing budget cycles adequate time to complete
the qualification process. Those operators who are able to comply
before the mandatory compliance date are encouraged to do so. The rule
does not intend to penalize early compliance. Therefore, the starting
time for subsequent evaluation intervals determined by the operator is
not required to begin until the compliance date.
Finally, work performance history review will only be allowed as
the sole method of evaluation during the three-year time period prior
to mandatory compliance with the rule. After this time, work
performance history review will be an acceptable method of evaluating
individuals only in combination with another evaluation method.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The proposal is
considered significant under the Department of Transportation Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 1103, February 26, 1979) because of the
substantial interest expressed by the pipeline industry, state and
Federal agencies, and Congress. This section summarizes the conclusions
of the draft regulatory evaluation. Copies of the draft regulatory
evaluation are available for review and copying. Several groups,
including the Congress, the National Transportation Safety Board, and
the National Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives, have
called repeatedly for a pipeline personnel qualification rule.
This proposal is the product of a negotiated rulemaking in which
all major interested parties to the rule participated, including trade
associations, pipeline operators both large and small, organized labor,
state pipeline representatives, and the Federal government. Members of
the negotiated rulemaking committee all agreed that this process
ensured that a cost-effective alternative for pipeline qualification
was adopted. The American Gas Association (AGA) and other participants
in the negotiated rulemaking contributed to estimations of the cost of
this proposal. RSPA adjusted the cost estimates to provide an
annualized cost estimate for the entire industry. Based on an estimated
175,000 covered pipeline employees (AGA estimate), including both
operator employees and contractors, AGA provided three distinct cost
categories for compliance with the proposed rule by gas and hazardous
liquid pipeline operators:
1. Cost for qualification program set-up, $210 million
2. Cost of transitional evaluation and qualification, $140 million
3. Cost of subsequent evaluation and qualification, $87.5 million
RSPA estimated that a qualification program would be effective for
a minimum of 10 years. Therefore, RSPA amortized the set-up costs over
10 years using a 7% interest rate for an annualized cost of $29.3
million for program development and initial qualification.
The transitional qualification was amortized over a six year period
(three years before the effective date of the regulation that requires
initial qualification, and an estimated three years before subsequent
qualification) at 7% for an annualized transitional qualification of
$28.6 million.
On average, qualification for various covered tasks would be
reviewed approximately every three years. Therefore, the next
qualification (and each subsequent qualification) is amortized over
three years at 7% or an annual subsequent qualification cost of $32.4
million.
The result of these calculations is a cost of $57.9 million per
year for the years 1-6 ($29.3 million + $28.6 million)and a cost of
$61.7 million per year for years 7-10 ($29.3 million + 32.4 million).
The average annual cost for compliance with the proposed rule is
approximately $59 million.
The preamble to this proposed rule notes that the intent of the
qualification rule is to ensure a qualified workforce and to reduce the
probability and consequences of accidents caused by human error.
Investigations of pipeline incidents/accidents clearly attributable to
human error often indicate a deficiency of knowledge or skill (i.e.,
lack of qualification) on the part of pipeline personnel. However, the
impact of inadequate qualification of pipeline personnel is not always
apparent. For example, incidents/accidents that operators attribute to
equipment failure or corrosion may actually have been set in motion by
poorly performed operation or maintenance procedures. Although many
state pipeline safety representatives have stated that this proposal
will reduce incidents/accidents by ensuring a qualified workforce, they
concede that the task of quantifying that reduction is very difficult.
In 1997, there were a total of 363 reportable pipeline incidents/
accidents. Of these, 105 were directly attributable to human error.
This data shows that human error played a direct role in 29% of
reportable pipeline failures in 1997. These incidents/accidents
resulted in six fatalities (cost-approximated at $16 million), 37
injuries (cost-approximated at $18 million), and $15 million in
property damage, resulting in a total estimated monetized loss of $49
million. In fact, human error frequently is not cited as a contributing
factor in incident/accident investigations, even though it is
recognized that human error underlies nearly all pipeline failures to
some degree. Although the quantifiable benefits directly attributable
to operator personnel error do not exceed the annualized cost of the
rule, we believe the nonquantifiable benefits (as explained below) will
exceed the cost.
[[Page 57277]]
Perhaps the most important factor to consider when assessing the
benefits of this proposal is that very few pipeline failures occur
without some degree of human error. However, as stated above, available
data does not always capture the contribution of human error. For
example, in 1997, there were 88 reportable incidents attributed to
outside force damage in the natural gas pipeline industry. Although the
data reflects outside force damage as the cause of the incidents, human
error is inherently present in most outside force damage. For instance,
the outside force damage may have resulted from a pipeline worker not
following local one-call system procedures or from improper marking of
the pipeline prior to excavation. These scenarios show the difficulty
in quantifying the benefits of this proposed rule, because the pipeline
incident data does not always accurately describe the role of human
error. (Of course, some outside force damage extends outside the scope
of this proposed rule, as when a third party disregards one-call
procedures.)
Although quantifying all the benefits of an operator qualification
rule is impossible, RSPA believes that the overall benefits exceed the
costs of the rule. Although relatively few fatalities and injuries
occur each year from pipeline failures, the potential exists for
significant, and very costly, disasters.
For example, on March 23, 1994, a natural gas pipeline explosion
destroyed eight apartment buildings in Edison, New Jersey. Although
deaths and injuries were limited, total damages exceeded $25 million.
The investigation did not cite operator personnel qualification as a
direct contributing factor, but this incident demonstrates the extent
of loss that can result from a pipeline incident/accident. This
proposed rule will help reduce the likelihood of such large-scale
disasters.
Other nonquantifiable benefits of this proposed rule include
improved worker productivity and reduced down-time for pipeline
operators because of improved worker performance. This should directly
translate into reduced operating expenses. Finally, documentation of a
qualified workforce should improve operator public relations and lead
to reduced litigation costs because pipeline operators will be able to
demonstrate that their employees and contractors possess the required
skills to safely perform operations and maintenance activities. RSPA
provides further analysis for its conclusion that this proposed rule
will have a positive benefit/cost in its ``Regulatory Evaluation.''
Comments concerning the costs and benefits of this proposed rule
can be sent to the dockets office, referenced at the beginning of this
notice.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee unanimously agreed that all
operators, regardless of size, should be subject to the proposed rule.
One of the participants in the negotiated rulemaking was a
representative of the American Public Gas Association (APGA). The APGA
represents municipal gas distribution companies, the main group of
small entities in the pipeline industry. Very few small entities can be
found among hazardous liquid and gas transmission companies because
these businesses tend to be large, heavily capitalized firms. In
conversations between RSPA and APGA, APGA indicated that as a trade
association it would make itself available to assist its members in
complying with this proposed rule.
As indicated in the regulatory evaluation, many resources exist to
assist both small and large operators in compliance with this proposal,
including classes from DOT's Transportation Safety Institute, nonprofit
industry associations, as well as for profit companies. Additionally,
while some costs such as the development of the qualification program
is on a per company basis, the actual qualification will be on a per
employee basis. As a result, costs incurred by smaller companies should
be less than those incurred by larger companies.
Further, the Committee considered the flexibility that this
proposed rule allows in terms of permitting each company to tailor its
worker qualification program to its own unique needs, and would allow
small operators to interact with inspectors to evaluate and modify
their qualification programs if necessary. Because of this flexibility,
the availability of assistance in developing qualification plans, the
fact that much of the cost will be proportionate to the number of
employees, and the fact that very few small entities can be found among
hazardous liquid and gas transmission companies, I certify that this
proposal will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains information collection requirements. As required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the
Department of Transportation has submitted a copy of this section to
the Office of Management and Budget for its review.
The public information and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to be 2.2 million hours annually (6.6
million hours/3 years = 2.2 million per year). The total number of
respondents is estimated to be 50,000. The average number of hours per
respondent is 44 (2.2 million hours/50,000 = 44 hours).
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Office for U.S.
Department of Transportation. Comments should be sent within 30 days of
the publication of this NPRM.
The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have a practical
use.
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used.
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information
to be collected: and
Minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this
information collection will be published in the Federal Register after
it is approved by the OMB.
For more details see the Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis available
for copying and review in the public docket.
Executive Order 12612
This proposed rule has been analyzed with the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism'') (52 FR 41685), and
does not have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation
of a federalism assessment.
[[Page 57278]]
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rule.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 192
Natural gas, Pipeline Safety.
49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Hazardous liquids, Petroleum,
Pipeline safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA hereby proposes to amends
49 CFR parts 192 and 195 as follows:
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 10110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Subpart N is proposed to be added to read as follows:
Subpart N--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
Sec.
192.801 Scope.
192.803 Definitions.
192.805 Qualificaiton Program.
192.807 Recordkeeping.
192.809 General.
Subpart N--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
Sec. 192.801 Scope.
(a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator
qualification of individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline
facility.
(b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity,
identified by the operator, that:
(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility;
(2) Is an operations or maintenance task;
(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and
(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.
Sec. 192.803 Definitions.
Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the
operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation
from normal operations that may indicate a condition exceeding design
limits or result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the
environment.
Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the
operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered
task by any of the following: written examination; oral examination;
work performance history review; observation during:
(1) Performance on the job,
(2) On the job training,
(3) Simulations; or other forms of assessment.
Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
(1) Perform assigned covered tasks; and
(2) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.
Sec. 192.805 Qualification Program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification
program. The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered
tasks are qualified;
(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this
subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by an
individual that is qualified;
(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual's performance of a covered task contributed to an
incident as defined in part 191 of this chapter;
(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;
(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals
performing those tasks; and,
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which
evaluation of the individual's qualifications is needed.
Sec. 192.807 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance
with this subpart.
(a) Qualification records shall include:
(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);
(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified
to perform;
(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and
(4) Qualification method(s).
(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall
be maintained while the individual is performing the covered task.
Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer
performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.
Sec. 192.809 General.
(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by {INSERT
DATE 2018 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}.
(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals
performing covered tasks by {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE}.
(c) After {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}
work performance history may not be used as a sole evaluation method.
PART 195--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
4. Section 195.043 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.403 Emergency Response Training.
(a) Each operator shall establish and conduct a continuing training
program to instruct emergency response personnel to:
(1) Carry out the emergency procedures established under
Sec. 195.402 that relate to their assignments;
(2) Know the characteristics and hazards of the hazardous liquids
or carbon dioxide transported, including, in case of flammable HVL,
flammability of mixtures with air, odorless vapors, and water
reactions;
(3) Recognize conditions that are likely to cause emergencies,
predict the consequences of facility malfunctions or failures and
hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide spills, and take appropriate
corrective action;
(4) Take steps necessary to control any accidental release of
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide and to minimize the potential for
fire, explosion, toxicity, or environmental damage.
(5) Learn the proper use of firefighting procedures and equipment,
fire suits, and breathing apparatus by utilizing, where feasible, a
simulated pipeline emergency condition; and,
(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once
each calendar year, each operator shall:
(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the
objectives of the emergency response training program set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) Make appropriate changes to the emergency response training
program as necessary to ensure that it is effective.
(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors
maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of
[[Page 57279]]
the emergency response procedures established under Sec. 195.402 for
which they are responsible to ensure compliance.
5. Subpart G is proposed to be added to read as follows:
Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
Sec.
195.501 Scope.
195.503 Definitions.
195.505 Qualification Program.
195.507 Recordkeeping.
195.509 General.
Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
Sec. 195.501 Scope.
(a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator
qualification of individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline
facility.
(b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity,
identified by the operator, that:
(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility;
(2) Is an operations or maintenance task;
(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and
(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.
Sec. 195.503 Definitions.
Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the
operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation
from normal operations that may indicate a condition exceeding design
limits or result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the
environment.
Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the
operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered
task by any of the following: written examination; oral examination;
work performance history review; observation during:
(1) Performance on the job,
(2) On the job training,
(3) Simulations; or other forms of assessment.
Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
(1) Perform assigned covered tasks; and
(2) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.
Sec. 195.505 Qualification Program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification
program. The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered
tasks are qualified;
(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this
subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by an
individual that is qualified;
(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual's performance of a covered task contributed to an
accident as defined in this part 195;
(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;
(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals
performing those tasks; and
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which
evaluation of the individual's qualifications is needed.
Sec. 195.507 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance
with this subpart.
(a) Qualification records shall include:
(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);
(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified
to perform;
(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and
(4) Qualification method(s).
(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall
be maintained while the individual is performing the covered task.
Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer
performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.
Sec. 195.509 General.
(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by {INSERT
DATE 20 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}.
(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals
performing covered tasks by {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE}.
(c) After {INSERT DATE 38 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE}
work performance history may not be used as a sole evaluation method.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 21, 1998.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 98-28662 Filed 10-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
