Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14645

5Non- or late filers are facilities that were

treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste

after November 19, 1980, but did not file a Part A

permit by that date and have little or no history of

compliance with RCRA. Pre-HSWA permittees are

facilities that have permits in place that pre-date the

1984 corrective action requirements of HSWA. The

protective filer category includes facilities which

have filed Part A permit applications for treatment,

storage and disposal of hazardous wastes as a

precautionary measure only, and were never

actually engaged in hazardous waste management

activities subject to RCRA Subtitle C corrective

action. Converters are facilities that at one time

were treating or storing RCRA Subtitle C hazardous

waste but have since converted to generator-only

status, or are engaged in no other hazardous waste

activity for which interim status is required (53 FR

22992, June 24, 1988).

and (4) converters.5 In the June 24, 1988,

revision, EPA also recognized that sites

where RCRA corrective action may not

apply to all contamination are eligible

for listing (53 FR 23982).

On August 9, 1988 (53 FR 30002),

EPA proposed additional revisions to

the policy concerning criteria to

determine if an owner or operator is

unable to pay for corrective action. No

final Agency action has been taken on

those proposed revisions.

On August 9, 1988 (53 FR 30005), in

a separate Federal Register notice, EPA

also further revised a portion of the

NPL/RCRA deferral policy relating to

the determination of unwillingness. The

Agency specified that circumstances

under which RCRA sites may be listed

on the NPL if an owner/operator’s

unwillingness to undertake corrective

action is established through

noncompliance with one or more of the

following: (1) A Federal or substantially

equivalent state unilateral

administrative order requiring

corrective action, after the facility

owner/operator has exhausted

administrative due process rights; (2) a

Federal or substantially equivalent State

unilateral administrative order requiring

corrective action, if the facility owner/

operator did not pursue administrative

due process rights within the specified

time; (3) an initial Federal or State

preliminary injunction or other judicial

order requiring corrective action; (4) a

Federal or State RCRA permit condition

requiring corrective action after the

facility owner/operator has exhausted

administrative due process rights; or (5)

a final Federal or State consent decree

or administrative order on consent

requiring corrective action after the

exhaustion of dispute resolution

procedures.

EPA also may depart from the above

criteria on a case-by-case basis where

CERCLA authorities are determined to

be more appropriate than RCRA

authorities for cleaning up a site. (See,

e.g., 56 FR 5602, February 11, 1991).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

materials, Intergovernmental relations,

Natural resources, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605; 42 U.S.C. 9620;

33 U.S.C. 1321(C)(2); E.O. 11735, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; E.O. 12580, 3 CFR,

1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 95–6673 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5174–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of deletion of a site from

the national priorities list.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Kent City Mobile Home Park Site in

Kent City, Michigan from the National

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan (NCP)

which EPA promulgated pursuant to

section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1990

(CERCLA), as amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty G. Lavis, Remedial Project

Manager (HSE–5J); Waste Management

Division; Emergency Response Branch;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5; 77 West Jackson Boulevard;

Chicago, IL 60604–3590. Phone (312)

886–7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA

identifies sites which appear to present

a significant risk to public health,

welfare, or the environment and it

maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Hazardous Substance

Response Trust Fund (Fund) financed

remedial actions. Any site deleted from

the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such action.

Section 300. 66(c)(8) of the NCP states

that Fund-financed actions may be

taken at sites deleted from the NPL.

The site EPA deletes from the NPL is

the Kent City Mobile Home Park Site in

Kent City, Michigan.

An explanation of the criteria for

deleting sites from the NPL was

presented in section II of the November

8, 1994, Notice of Intent to Delete FR

Doc. No. 94–27647. A description of the

site and how it meets the criteria for

deletion was presented in Section IV of

that notice.

The closing date for comments on the

Notice of Intent to Delete was December

7, 1994.

EPA received one comment on the

deletion of the Kent City Mobile Home

Park Site from the NPL.

Comment: Commenter states they are

‘‘concerned by the proposal to abandon

a carbon tetrachloride contaminated

well’’ at the site because ‘‘groundwater

is a valuable resource for present and

future generations and that groundwater

contamination should therefore be

remediated whenever possible.’’

Response: EPA appreciates the

concern and strongly agrees that

groundwater is a valuable resource; it is

EPA’s policy to promote protection of

our groundwater resource and to restore

usable goundwater to beneficial use

whenever possible. However, at the

Kent City site, the level of

contamination is so low and the area of

contamination so localized, that

remediation is not practical.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste.

PART 300—[AMENDED]

40 CFR part 300 is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C.

1321(d); E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243; E.O.

12580, 52 FR 2923; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757.

Appendix B—[AMENDED]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the entry for

Kent City Mobile Home Park Site, Kent

City, Michigan.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA,

Region V.

[FR Doc. 95–6770 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
14646 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 onecall 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 § 192.614, ‘‘Damage

Prevention Program.’’ Section

192.614(a) allows a pipeline operator to

perform any of the duties required by

§ 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 § 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 § 192.5(d)(2)), pipelines to

which access is physically controlled by

the operator, petroleum gas pipelines

subject to § 192.11, and master meter

systems as defined in § 191.3.

Gas pipeline operators in Class 3 and

4 locations, with certain exclusions

previously discussed, are currently

required by § 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

§ 192.614.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 198.39. Two states and

Puerto Rico are currently without a onecall 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

§ 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 onecall 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 § 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 § 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 21⁄2

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 § 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
14648 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 costeffective 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 onecall 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 yellowpages and newspapers.

One THLPSSC member questioned

the meaning of the phrase ‘‘as often as

needed,’’ currently in § 192.614(b)(2)

and proposed in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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

§ 192.614(c)(2) for pipelines in Class 3

locations and marked in accordance

with § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 192.707(b)(2) for

line markers over buried pipelines in

Class 3 and 4 locations where a

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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
14650 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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 § 192.614 and for hazardous

liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines in

urban and rural areas under the new

§ 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

§ 192.614 and for hazardous liquid

and carbon dioxide pipelines under

the new § 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 § 192.614, paragraph (c)(1) and

(c)(2) are revised to read as follows:

§ 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:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 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)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14651

where the operator can be reached at all

times.

* * * * *

6. Section 195.442 is added to subpart

F to read as follows:

§ 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 Gutie ́rrez,

Deputy Administrator, Research and Special

Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6723 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 950106003–5070–02; I.D.

121994A]

RIN 0648–AH01

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch

Sharing Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule and approval of catch

sharing plan.

SUMMARY: NMFS, on behalf of the

International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC), publishes

regulations governing the Pacific halibut

fishery implemented by the IPHC and

approved by the Secretary of State.

NMFS also approves catch limits for

Areas 2A and 2C, approves regulations

implementing a catch sharing plan for

Area 2A, and repeals three regulations

for Area 4. This final rule is intended to

enhance the conservation of the Pacific

halibut stock and to rebuild and sustain

it in the northern Pacific Ocean and

Bering Sea.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: NMFS Alaska Regional

Office, 709 W 9th Street, P.O. Box

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668,

telephone: 907–586–7228; NMFS

Northwest Regional Office, Bldg. 1, 7600

Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA

98115–0070, telephone: 206–586–6140.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Aven Andersen, 907–586–7228, or Joe

Scordino, 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC,

under the Convention between the

United States and Canada for the

Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of

the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering

Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa,

Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended

by a Protocol Amending the Convention

(signed at Washington, DC, on March

29, 1979), has implemented new

regulations governing the Pacific halibut

fishery in 1995. The Secretary of State

of the United States has accepted the

IPHC regulations under section 4 of the

Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut

Act, 16 U.S.C. 773–773k). However, the

IPHC did not adopt 1995 catch limits for

any portion of Area 2. Therefore, the

United States is adopting catch limits

for Areas 2A and 2C, which are

implemented under domestic rule as

described herein.

On behalf of the IPHC, the approved

IPHC regulations are published in the

Federal Register to provide notice of

their effectiveness, and to inform

persons subject to the regulations of the

restrictions and requirements. The IPHC

held its annual meeting on January 23–

26, 1995, in Victoria, British Columbia,

and adopted regulations for 1995. The

substantive changes to the previous

IPHC regulations (59 FR 22522, May 2,

1994) include: (1) New catch limits for

all areas except Areas 2A and 2C; (2) a

commercial fishing season opening on

March 15 and closing November 15 for

all areas except 2A, which has specific

1-day openings; (3) repeal of a

prohibition on automated hook

strippers; (4) elimination of Area 4D–N;

(5) a requirement that halibut be dressed

before offloading; and (6) revisions to

the Area 4 clearance requirements. In

addition, because the non Indian

directed commercial fishery in Area 2A

is likely to exceed the subquota for this

fishery during the first 10-hour opening,

the IPHC announced that it would

impose vessel trip limits. However,

because it was unknown at the time of

the meeting how many vessels might

participate in the Area 2A fishery, the

IPHC staff will determine and announce

the vessel trip limits necessary to avoid

exceeding the subquota prior to the July

5 opening, when better information will

be available on the number of vessels

that may participate in the fishery.

The U.S. and Canadian

Commissioners were unable to agree

upon new catch limits for Area 2, which

includes all waters off Canada (Area

2B), waters off southeast Alaska (Area

2C), and waters off Washington, Oregon,

and California (Area 2A). However, the

U.S. and Canadian Commissioners

expressed a joint commitment to adopt

domestic catch limits for their

respective portions of Area 2 to ensure

conservation of the halibut stock.

Without domestic action, the Area 2