Excavation Damage Prevention Programs for Gas and Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

[[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