# Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 64 FR 46853
- **title:** Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 1999-08-27
- **effective on:** 1999-10-26
- **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.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-22208.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-22208.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-22208
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1999/08/27/99-22208/pipeline-safety-qualification-of-pipeline-personnel
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 64 Issue 166 (Friday, August 27, 1999) [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
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 96654