[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