[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14645-14651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14646]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. PS-101; Amdt. 192-73 and 195-54]
RIN 2137--AB 47
Excavation Damage Prevention Programs for Gas and Hazardous
Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule extends the existing excavation damage
prevention requirements for gas pipelines in urban areas to gas
pipelines in rural areas; establishes excavation damage prevention
program requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines;
requires, with limited exceptions, line markers for gas transmission
lines in urban areas; and permits smaller lettering on line markers for
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines in heavily developed
urban areas.
This final rule is accompanied by a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(Docket No. PS-101A), which proposes mandatory participation in
qualified one-call systems by pipeline operators. This final rule and
the NPRM are intended to reduce excavation damage, the largest single
cause of reportable pipeline accidents.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule takes effect April 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036, or
Christina M. Sames, (202) 366-4561, regarding the content of this final
rule; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, for copies of this document
or other material in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Related Document
The Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60114, is
required to establish minimum standards for one-call systems. RSPA
implemented those requirements in 49 CFR part 198 and has prepared a
NPRM titled ``Mandatory Participation in Qualified One-Call Systems by
Pipeline Operators'' (Docket No. PS-101A).
The NPRM proposes to amend this final rule by requiring that
operators of interstate and intrastate pipelines participate in
qualified one-call systems. However, the NPRM proposes less stringent
standards for the participation of small entities (including operators
of master meter systems) whose primary activity does not include the
transportation of gas.
Although RSPA anticipates these regulations will be amended by a
final rule addressing mandatory participation in qualified one-call
systems, RSPA sees no reason to delay the regulations developed in this
final rule. In the meantime, RSPA urges pipeline operators to
voluntarily participate in qualified one-call systems that cover the
areas where their pipeline facilities are located.
Excavation Damage
Excavation damage is the largest single cause of reportable gas and
hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. During the period of January 1,
1988 through December 31, 1993, 33 percent or 481 of a total of 1,456
reported gas pipeline incidents were caused by excavation damage by
persons other than the operator or its contractor. These incidents
resulted in 35 deaths, 151 personal injuries, and about $42,570,000 in
property damage. Of these 481 reported excavation damage incidents, 178
incidents or 37 percent occurred in Class 1 and 2 locations (class
locations are described in 49 CFR 192.5) where damage prevention
programs have not been required. These Class 1 and 2 incidents resulted
in 7 deaths, 40 personal injuries, and about $10,912,000 in property
damage.
Similarly, during the 1988-1993 period, 20 percent or 245 of a
total of 1,221 reported hazardous liquid pipeline accidents were caused
by excavation damage by persons other than the pipeline operator or its
contractor. These accidents resulted in 3 deaths, 46 personal injuries,
and about $48,821,000 in property damage. In addition, about 264,500
barrels of hazardous liquids were reported to have been spilled as a
result of these accidents.
The above statistics do not account for all of the gas pipeline
incidents and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents that have occurred
from 1988 to 1993. Sections 191.3 and 195.50 exempt certain gas
pipeline incidents and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents from the
reporting requirements. Thus, the actual number of personal injuries
and the amount of property damage resulting from excavation damage by
persons other than the operator or its contractor can be assumed to be
higher.
Existing Gas Damage Prevention Program
The most widely accepted approach to reducing excavation damage to
underground pipelines and other underground facilities is a formalized
damage prevention program that employs a one-call system. RSPA permits
this approach for gas pipelines under the current Sec. 192.614,
``Damage Prevention Program.'' Section 192.614(a) allows a pipeline
operator to perform any of the duties required by Sec. 192.614(b)
through participation in a one-call system. Such participation does not
relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance with any
requirements of Sec. 192.614 that are not satisfied by the one-call
system.
The current rule requires each gas pipeline operator, with limited
exceptions, to establish and implement a written damage prevention
program for buried gas pipelines in highly populated or urban areas,
specifically Class 3 and 4 locations. Damage prevention programs have
not been required for gas pipelines in Class 1 and 2 locations or for
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines subject to part 195. Also
excluded from this current requirement for a damage prevention program
are permanently marked pipelines in certain Class 3 locations
(described in Sec. 192.5(d)(2)), pipelines to which access is
physically controlled by the operator, petroleum gas pipelines subject
to Sec. 192.11, and master meter systems as defined in Sec. 191.3.
Gas pipeline operators in Class 3 and 4 locations, with certain
exclusions previously discussed, are currently required by Sec. 192.614
to: (1) Identify excavators normally operating in the area where the
pipeline is located; (2) provide notification to the public and actual
notification to excavators of the program's existence and purpose, as
well as how to learn the location of underground pipelines before
excavation activities begin; (3) provide a means for receiving and
recording notification of planned excavations; (4) if an operator has
buried pipelines in the area of planned excavation, provide actual
notification to a person who has given notice of intent to excavate of
the type of temporary markings to be provided and how to identify them;
(5) provide temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of the
excavation in a timely manner; and (6) inspect, as frequently as
necessary, pipelines that the operator has reason to believe could be
damaged by the excavation activities and, in case of blasting, include
leakage surveys. An operator may perform any of these six duties
through participation in a one-call system, but participation does not
relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance with
Sec. 192.614.
[[Page 14647]]
One-Call Systems
A one-call system is a communication system established
individually or jointly by utilities, government agencies, or other
operators of underground facilities to provide a single telephone
number (other methods of communication are also used) for excavators
and the general public to call to notify participating members of their
intent to engage in excavation activities. Notices of intent to
excavate are received by the operational center and transmitted to the
operators of underground pipeline facilities and other underground
facilities that participate in the system. Upon receipt of notices of
intended excavation activities, participating operators that have
underground facilities in that area arrange for the timely
identification and temporary marking of their underground facilities.
Underground operators may inspect the site during the excavation
activities to insure the safety of their underground facilities.
National One-Call Campaign
Presently, there are 74 one-call systems in the United States
operating in 48 states and the District of Columbia. These one-call
systems may not meet all of the qualifications of a ``one-call
notification system,'' as defined in Sec. 198.39. Two states and Puerto
Rico are currently without a one-call system.
Approximately 45 states and the District of Columbia have damage
prevention laws that, to a varying extent, govern the activities
performed by excavators and persons locating and temporarily marking
underground facilities. However, most of the existing state damage
prevention programs do not meet all of the requirements of Sec. 198.37,
``State one-call damage prevention program.''
To address the problem of incomplete national one-call coverage and
the deficiencies in some of the existing one-call systems, RSPA has
launched a national campaign to encourage states to adopt improved one-
call notification systems. The national campaign will target states for
concentrated outreach to assist these states in their efforts to
upgrade their current one-call systems. The national campaign will also
work with selected states where there is a need to strengthen the one-
call legislation or where a state is currently without one-call
legislation.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
To reduce the incidence of excavation damage, RSPA issued a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Damage Prevention Program'' (53 FR 24747, June 30, 1988). The
NPRM proposed to (1) Delete the damage prevention program exemption for
buried onshore gas pipelines in Class 1 and 2 locations, and for gas
pipelines in Class 3 locations that are marked in accordance with
Sec. 192.707; (2) require that hazardous liquid pipeline operators
carry out similar damage prevention programs for their buried onshore
pipelines; and (3) require that gas pipeline operators permanently mark
their mains and transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations, except
where placement of a marker is impractical.
Presentation to Advisory Committees
RSPA presented the three proposals listed above to its two pipeline
advisory committees, the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee (THLPSSC).
On September 13, 1988, the TPSSC discussed and unanimously
supported extending Sec. 192.614 to cover onshore gas pipelines in
Class 1 and 2 locations. However, the TPSSC generally opposed the
proposal requiring line markers over mains and transmission lines in
Class 3 and 4 locations. Some members argued the proposed marking would
be too burdensome and that markers in these class locations might cause
an excavator to rely on the markers for location information instead of
using the one-call system. However, two members stated their large gas
companies occasionally install markers in Class 3 and 4 locations, as
this final rule will now generally require for transmission lines.
On September 14, 1988, the THLPSSC voted 6 to 4 against the
proposed rule to require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to
establish and carry out damage prevention programs over the entire
length of their pipelines. Opposition stemmed from the need to identify
``on a current basis'' the persons who normally engage in excavation
activities in rural areas and the problem of identifying excavators who
might come from some distant location or who recently entered the
excavation business. A committee member also expressed concern over the
exact meaning of ``as often as needed,'' language in the proposed rule
which refers to the frequency of notifying the public of the damage
prevention program, and ``leakage surveys applicable to the liquid
transported,'' language which refers to the type of inspection done on
pipelines that might have been damaged by blasting.
Additional Recommendations
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) proposed extending the
excavation damage prevention program requirements to liquid pipelines.
TRB is a unit of the National Research Council and provides public
comment on scientific and technical questions of national importance.
Their proposal was published in a report titled ``Special Report 219-
Pipelines and Public Safety.'' The report states that although most gas
and liquid transmission pipelines were constructed in undeveloped areas
and buried with 2\1/2\ to 3 feet of cover to prevent disturbance,
development is intruding on these high pressure pipelines and is
increasing the risk of failures from excavation damage. In the section
of the Executive Summary titled ``Damage Prevention and Public
Awareness Programs,'' the report identifies significant gaps in
existing damage prevention measures. TRB's first recommendation for
closing these gaps was to extend the gas pipeline damage prevention
program to liquid pipelines. That recommendation is one of the
principal thrusts of this final rule.
Comments on the NPRM
RSPA received 81 comments on the three proposed rule changes. The
commenters included gas and liquid pipeline operators, governmental
agencies, and industry trade associations.
Comments--Damage Prevention Program, part 192
Of the 41 comments received addressing the proposal to extend the
existing requirement for a damage prevention program in Sec. 192.614 to
Class 1 and 2 locations and to marked pipelines in Class 3 locations,
93 percent, including a gas industry trade association, expressed full
or partial support, and 7 percent were opposed. Among those in support,
a large gas transmission company commented that the proposal would have
no significant impact on its operations because it participates in one-
call systems regardless of class location, or it conducts similar
programs in Class 1 and 2 locations where one-call systems are not yet
operative. A large gas distribution company supported the proposal
because the company voluntarily includes Class 1 and 2 locations in its
current damage prevention program and believes customers and the
general public expect the expenditure.
Among those opposed, a large gas distribution company argued that
because conditions in urban (Class 3 [[Page 14648]] and 4 locations)
and rural (Class 1 and 2) locations are completely different, different
types of damage prevention programs are logical and reasonable and have
evolved to meet these special conditions. The company commented that
requiring the same damage prevention program in both areas defies logic
and cannot be cost-effective. In particular, the company stated that
the temporary marking of pipelines would be more expensive and less
cost-effective in rural areas because of the greater distances to be
traveled.
As indicated above, 37 percent of the gas pipeline excavation
damage reported over the 1988 to 1993 period occurred in Class 1 and 2
locations and resulted in 7 deaths, 40 personal injuries, and millions
of dollars in property damage. Therefore, RSPA rejects the argument
that applying the same damage prevention program to both urban and
rural areas defies logic and cannot be cost-effective. Furthermore, the
overwhelming support expressed for extension of the gas damage
prevention program rule supports RSPA's determination that this action
is warranted to reduce the incidence of excavation damage.
Comments--Line Markers, Part 192
Of the 67 comments received regarding the proposal to require
permanent line markers for gas mains and transmission lines in Class 3
and 4 locations except where placement is impractical, 22 percent
indicated full or partial support and 78 percent were opposed. Those
favoring the proposal included the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB). NTSB is the Federal agency responsible for investigating and
determining the cause of pipeline accidents involving a death,
substantial property damage, or significant safety issues. NTSB stated
that while it may not be practicable to mark pipelines in some Class 3
and 4 locations, line markers should generally be required for gas
transmission lines. Similarly, a gas distribution company commented
that additional line markers may make sense when elevated pressures are
involved, as is often the case with transmission lines, or when
pipelines are installed in unconventional places. A state regulatory
agency commented that prior to adoption of the existing Class 3 and 4
location line marking exception, many operators were required to mark
mains and transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations. The state
agency pointed out that many operators have continued this practice
even though it is no longer required. The agency said that marking
pipelines in these areas is not impractical and provides, in
conjunction with the damage prevention program, an extra line of
defense against excavation damage.
Several of those opposed to requiring line markers argued the
proposed exception for locations ``where placement of a marker is
impractical'' is imprecise and would result in continual differences of
opinion between operators and government inspectors. Many commenters
felt that pipeline markers are useful for indicating the presence of a
buried pipeline within a rural right-of-way but are of little benefit
in urban areas where excavators are generally aware of the presence of
buried utilities and of the need to call before they dig. Many
commenters also felt that excavators in urban areas might get a false
impression of the exact location of buried pipelines from the placement
of line markers and assume they can dig without contacting a one-call
system or the pipeline operator for temporary marking. Several
commenters pointed out that property owners and planning commissions
would resist installation of pipeline markers in Class 3 and 4
locations for aesthetic reasons. Also, a large gas distribution
operator commented that while marker posts at every road crossing in a
rural setting are reasonable, marker posts at every street intersection
in cities and suburbs are unreasonable because of the very large number
of pipeline street crossings.
This final rule has not adopted the proposal to require gas mains
be marked in Class 3 and 4 locations. Because mains generally operate
at lower pressures than transmission lines, they usually pose less of a
threat to public safety in the event of excavation damage. Thus, RSPA
believes there is lesser need for mains to be marked as a backup to
damage prevention programs. Also, RSPA agrees with TPSSC's and the
commenters' view that, because of the vast number of mains to be marked
in Class 3 and 4 locations, compliance would be unduly burdensome and
line markers would likely be more expensive to install and maintain.
This final rule has adopted the line marker requirement for gas
transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations, except where placement
of a marker is impractical. RSPA believes this is a reasonable means of
advancing safety without imposing an undue burden on the operators.
There are relatively few gas transmission lines in Class 3 and 4
locations and some of these gas transmission operators already
voluntarily mark their pipelines. RSPA agrees with these commenters who
indicated that these line markers provide an extra line of defense
against excavation damage.
Further support for requiring gas transmission lines in Class 3 and
4 locations to be marked is found in Sec. 195.410. Section 195.410
requires line markers for hazardous liquid pipelines in urban areas
with specific exceptions for heavily developed urban areas, such as
downtown business centers. Many of the objections to placing line
markers in urban areas have been resolved by permitting adjustment of
the marker's location. RSPA believes that some line markers installed
to mark gas transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations could be
suitably flush mounted on streets, sidewalks, and other appropriate
surfaces to minimize the situations where placement of standing markers
would be objectionable. When considering the design of flush mounted
gas pipeline markers, it may be helpful to note Sec. 192.707(d)(1)
currently permits operators to use less than standard letter size on
line markers in heavily developed urban areas. This final rule amends
Sec. 195.410(a)(2)(i) to provide the same flexibility for the lettering
size on line markers in similar areas for hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipelines.
A few commenters objected to the phrase in Sec. 192.707(b) of
``where placement of a marker is impractical.'' Commenters stated the
phrase is too indefinite and should be clarified. RSPA believes the
phrase is appropriate as it has been applied successfully to allow
operators limited discretion in determining where to install markers
for buried gas main and transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations.
The phrase will continue to allow operators limited discretion when a
marker would be extremely difficult or expensive to install or
maintain, would create a dangerous condition, or would be ineffective
because it would be obscured or otherwise would not serve to reduce the
likelihood of excavation type damage to the pipeline.
RSPA is not persuaded by the commenters' and TPSSC's view that the
presence of markers in Class 3 and 4 areas might cause excavators to
rely on the location of the marker and to dig without notifying the
one-call system. No evidence was offered to support this view and it
has not been true for markers in Class 1 and 2 locations. Pipeline
markers are installed to warn excavators of the presence of buried
pipelines, to provide a telephone number to obtain more accurate
location information, and to allow persons in the area to report
indications of other [[Page 14649]] problems relating to the safety of
the pipeline.
Comments--Damage Prevention Program, part 195
Of the 16 commenters who responded to the proposal to require
hazardous liquid pipelines carry out damage prevention programs, 15
commenters indicated full or partial support and only one commenter was
opposed. Of those expressing support, a large products transmission
company commented it has always advocated practical, cost effective,
damage prevention programs and has made the locations of its facilities
known to landowners, developers, and excavators. Additionally, its
company policy has been to provide inspectors during and after
excavation activities. An industry trade association replied that it
concurs with RSPA that federal regulations for the development of
damage prevention programs should be applied to hazardous liquid
pipeline operators. The one commenter opposed, a hazardous liquid
pipeline company, said it would be impossible to know of every backhoe
operation in the area of its pipelines. This company further stated
that any obligation to prepare an excavator list should be limited to
checking county licenses every 4 to 6 months.
RSPA is not swayed by the THLPSSC's and the commenter's concern
about the difficulty of identifying excavators in rural areas. Although
some excavators may be difficult to identify, operators are only
required to identify excavators by reasonably available means.
Regarding one commenter's suggestion that excavator lists be assembled
only from county licenses, RSPA believes that this procedure could be a
supplementary approach to identifying and notifying excavators of the
damage prevention program, since not all counties or other political
subdivisions require licenses for all excavators in their jurisdiction.
It would generally be more helpful for operators to contact the one-
call centers operating in the area of their pipeline for excavator
information or to look for excavator advertisements in publications
such as the local yellow-pages and newspapers.
One THLPSSC member questioned the meaning of the phrase ``as often
as needed,'' currently in Sec. 192.614(b)(2) and proposed in
Sec. 195.442(b)(2), to describe the frequency of notification to the
public and excavators to make them aware of the damage prevention
program. This phrase, which is retained, is intended to require that
operators provide additional notice when damage appears to be caused by
persons unaware of the damage prevention program. More frequent
advertisement would be expected to have a positive effect on program
results.
In proposed Sec. 195.442(b)(6)(ii), the phrase ``leakage surveys
applicable to the liquid transported'' was intended to indicate the
required leakage surveys must be appropriate for the commodity being
transported. However, in view of the concern expressed by a THLPSSC
member over its meaning, RSPA has deleted the term from
Sec. 195.442(b)(6)(ii) and has replaced it with the comparable
performance-based standard of the gas pipeline damage prevention
program rule.
Amendments
Extending the Damage Prevention Program, Part 192
RSPA is amending Sec. 192.614 to require that operators of gas
pipelines in Class 1 and 2 locations, with limited exception, carry out
damage prevention programs. The existing exception for Class 1 and 2
locations under Sec. 192.614(c)(1) is removed and replaced with an
exception for pipelines located offshore.
The operators affected by this action will be given 6 months to
implement their damage prevention program.
The existing exception under Sec. 192.614(c)(2) for pipelines in
Class 3 locations and marked in accordance with Sec. 192.707 is also
removed. The operators affected by this action will be given 12 months
to mark the location of their pipelines. Pipelines to which access is
physically controlled by the operator and pipelines that are part of a
petroleum gas system subject to Sec. 192.11 or part of a distribution
system operated by a person in connection with that person's leasing of
real property or by a condominium or cooperative association would
still be exempt. RSPA is taking this action after considering the high
incidence of excavation-related accidents in Class 1 and 2 locations,
the generally recognized efficacy of damage prevention programs, and
the favorable comments received in response to the NPRM.
Extending Line Markers, Part 192
Because of the continuing incidence of excavation damage in Class 3
and 4 locations and the extra risk posed by damage to transmission
lines in these areas, RSPA is amending Sec. 192.707 to require that gas
operators place and maintain line markers, as close as practical, over
buried transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations except where
placement is impractical. Accordingly, the exception under
Sec. 192.707(b)(2) for line markers over buried pipelines in Class 3
and 4 locations where a Sec. 192.614 damage prevention program is in
effect is revised to limit the exception to mains and to transmission
lines where placement of a marker is impractical.
Providing Flexibility in Lettering Requirements and Placement of Line
Markers, Part 195
RSPA has provided flexibility in the lettering requirements listed
under Sec. 195.410(a)(2) by excepting the lettering on line markers for
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines in heavily developed
urban areas from the minimum height and stroke requirements. RSPA has
also provided flexibility in the placement of markers by changing the
word ``impracticable'' to ``impractical'' under Sec. 195.410(b)(2)(i).
These exceptions were not proposed in the NPRM but will provide
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide operators the same flexibility as
is currently afforded natural gas pipeline operators in
Sec. 192.707(b)(2)(i) and (d)(1). These revisions to the current
regulations will provide uniform lettering requirements and uniform
marker placement for operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and
carbon dioxide pipelines.
Establishing Damage Prevention Programs, Part 195
RSPA is amending part 195 by adding Sec. 195.442 to require that
operators of buried hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines carry
out a written damage prevention program similar to the current
Sec. 192.614 requirements for natural gas pipelines. The operators
affected by this action will be given 6 months to implement their
damage prevention program. This action is warranted due to the
excavation damage accident rate for hazardous liquid pipelines and the
demonstrated effectiveness of damage prevention programs. Commenters
overwhelmingly supported this proposal. TRB's ``Special Report 219-
Pipelines and Public Safety,'' (referenced above), also supported
amending the regulations to require damage prevention programs for
liquid pipelines.
Rulemaking Analyses
E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not
subject to review by the Office of Management and
[[Page 14650]] Budget. The final rule is also not considered
significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
RSPA has prepared a regulatory evaluation to assess the costs and
associated benefits that are expected to result from this final rule.
The regulatory evaluation shows net benefits resulting from this final
rule of between $1,375,000 and $1,991,000 per year. A copy of the
regulatory evaluation is available in this docket.
Federalism Assessment
This rulemaking action will not have substantial direct effects on
states, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 12612
(52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this
rulemaking action, I certify pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605) that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
i.e. gas pipeline operators, small hazardous liquid pipeline operators,
or small carbon dioxide pipeline operators. This determination is based
on the following: (1) RSPA is not aware of any small gas, hazardous
liquid, or carbon dioxide transmission companies; (2) small operators
of pipelines that are part of a petroleum gas system subject to
Sec. 192.11 or are a part of a distribution system operated in
connection with the leasing of real property, including master meter
operators, are not affected by this regulatory action, (3) while there
are many small gas distribution operators, they are currently required
to have excavation damage prevention programs in the urban areas where
the majority of their customers are located.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains information collection requirements for
written damage prevention programs for gas pipelines in rural areas
under the revised Sec. 192.614 and for hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipelines in urban and rural areas under the new Sec. 195.442.
None of these information collection requirements would be prepared for
the purpose of submittal to RSPA.
The information collection requirements associated with this final
rule are being submitted to OMB for approval in accordance with 44
U.S.C. Chapter 35 under the following:
OMB No: 2137-0049 for the added burden to gas pipelines and under New
for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines;
Administration: DOT, RSPA;
Title: Excavation Damage Prevention Programs for Gas and Hazardous
Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines;
Need for Information: To reduce excavation damage, the largest single
cause of pipeline accidents;
Proposed Use of Information: For preparation of written damage
prevention programs for gas pipelines in rural areas under the revised
Sec. 192.614 and for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines
under the new Sec. 195.442;
Frequency: On occasion;
Burden Estimate: For 2137-0049 (gas pipeline operators): 30,428 hrs
annually will be added to the current burden to industry; under NEW
(hazardous liquid pipeline operators): 19,580 hrs annually;
Respondents: Operators subject to 49 CFR parts 192 and 195;
Form(s): None;
Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 13 hrs (gas pipeline operators);
77 hrs (hazardous liquid pipeline operators).
For further information contact: The Information Management
Division, M-34, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street SW, Washington, DC 20590, Tel. (202) 366-4735. Comments on the
information collection requirements should be submitted to: OMB, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:
Desk officer for DOT, RSPA. It is requested that comments sent to OMB
also be sent to the RSPA rulemaking docket for this final rule.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 are
amended as follows:
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 192 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In Sec. 192.614, paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 192.614 Damage prevention program.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Pipelines located offshore.
(2) Pipelines, other than those located offshore, in Class 1 or 2
locations until September 20, 1995.
* * * * *
3. Section 192.707 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.
* * * * *
(b) Exceptions for buried pipelines. Line markers are not required
for the following pipelines:
(1) Mains and transmission lines located offshore, or at crossings
of or under waterways and other bodies of water.
(2) Mains in Class 3 or Class 4 locations where a damage prevention
program is in effect under Sec. 192.614.
(3) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations until March 20,
1996.
(4) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations where placement of
a line marker is impractical.
* * * * *
PART 195--[AMENDED]
4. The authority citation for part 195 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109; 49 CFR 1.53.
5. Section 195.410 is amended by removing the term
``impracticable'' from paragraph (b)(2)(i) and adding ``impractical''
in its place, and by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 195.410 Line markers.
(a) * * *
(2) The marker must state at least the following on a background of
sharply contrasting color:
(i) The word ``Warning,'' ``Caution,'' or ``Danger'' followed by
the words ``Petroleum (or the name of the hazardous liquid transported)
Pipeline'', or ``Carbon Dioxide Pipeline,'' all of which, except for
markers in heavily developed urban areas, must be in letters at least
one inch high with an approximate stroke of one-quarter inch.
(ii) The name of the operator and a telephone number (including
area code) [[Page 14651]] where the operator can be reached at all
times.
* * * * *
6. Section 195.442 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 195.442 Damage prevention program.
(a) After September 20, 1995, and except for pipelines listed in
paragraph (c) of this section, each operator of a buried pipeline shall
carry out in accordance with this section a written program to prevent
damage to that pipeline by excavation activities. For the purpose of
this section, ``excavation activities'' include excavation, blasting,
boring, tunneling, backfilling, the removal of above ground structures
by either explosive or mechanical means, and other earth moving
operations. An operator may comply with any of the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section through participation in a public service
program, such as a one-call system, but such participation does not
relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance with this
section.
(b) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this
section must, at a minimum:
(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who
normally engage in excavation activities in the area in which the
pipeline is located.
(2) Provide for notification of the public in the vicinity of the
pipeline and actual notification of the persons identified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section of the following, as often as needed to make
them aware of the damage prevention program:
(i) The program's existence and purpose; and
(ii) How to learn the location of underground pipelines before
excavation activities are begun.
(3) Provide a means of receiving and recording notification of
planned excavation activities.
(4) If the operator has buried pipelines in the area of excavation
activity, provide for actual notification of persons who give notice of
their intent to excavate of the type of temporary marking to be
provided and how to identify the markings.
(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area
of excavation activity before, as far as practical, the activity
begins.
(6) Provide as follows for inspection of pipelines that an operator
has reason to believe could be damaged by excavation activities:
(i) The inspection must be done as frequently as necessary during
and after the activities to verify the integrity of the pipeline; and
(ii) In the case of blasting, any inspection must include leakage
surveys.
(c) A damage prevention program under this section is not required
for the following pipelines:
(1) Pipelines located offshore.
(2) Pipelines to which access is physically controlled by the
operator.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 17, 1995.
Ana Sol Gutierrez,
Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-6723 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
