{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-88-004","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1988-09-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-88-004 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.614.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-88-004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-88-004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-88-004","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1988/PI88004.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nDate: September 14, 1988\nSubject: ACTION: Request for Clarification of Section 192.614(b)(4)\nFrom: Richard L. Beam\nAssociate Director for Pipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30\nTo: Robert L. Paullin\nAssociate Director for Operations & Enforcement, DMT-10\nThis responds to your memorandum of July 1, the letter dated June 17, 1983, from Mr. Michael J.\nKidd to Mr. Edward Ondak, and the telephone conversation between Mr. Kidd, Mr. James\nThomas, and me concerning the damage prevention rule.\nThe regulation in §192.614(b)(4) states in performance language that the damage prevention\nprogram of the operator must:\n\"(4) Provide for actual notification of persons who give notice of their intent to excavate\nof whether there are buried pipelines in the area of excavation activity and, if so, the type\nof temporary marking to be provided and how to identify to markings.\"\nThis regulation was based on to successful experience of a large number of one-call systems who\nutilized grid maps of appropriate scale to identify the particular operators who had underground\nlines in the general area of a planned excavation. The performance of many one-call systems over\nseveral years, the thinking and recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board,\nand comment to the NPRM convinced us that is was essential that the calling excavator receive\nback definite word that there is or is not an underground gas pipeline in the excavation area so\nthat he is not \"flying blind.\"\nMTB covered this is the preamble to the Final rule stating:\n\"However, since comments on this section opposed basically the time at which\ninformation is given to excavators and not the giving of information, MTB still believes\nthat persons planning to engage in excavation activities should be told before such\nactivities begin whether there are pipelines in the area and if so, the type of temporary\nmarking that is to be provided and when the marking will be completed. Giving out this\ninformation early in the process should deter excavators from forging ahead with the work\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\614\\88-09-14\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nshould they feel a 'one-call' system has not been responsive to their calls. Therefore, MTB\nhas incorporated in the new §192.614(b)(4) these notification provisions of paragraph\n(b)(4) of the NPRM, but revised them to permit the information to be given at some time\nafter notice of excavation is received.\"\nand further in the preamble:\n\". . . a main purpose of the damage prevention program is to facilitate preconstruction\ncooperation and planning between the operator and excavators. MTB believes that a well\nplanned and operated damage prevention program will facilitate preconstruction\ncommunication between parties, thereby reducing the chance the excavation activities will\ncommence before the pipelines in the area of the proposed activities are properly located\nand marked or that marking of pipelines would be too far in advance of excavation.\"\nIt appears that from the large numbers of planned excavation calls being received by operators in\nthe Miss Dig system mentioned in the Michigan correspondence that there is a need for reducing\nthe geographic area covered in each identification grid. Such reduction of grid sizes should\nprovide a better definition of operators' affected and fewer notification calls required by the gas\nsystem operators to advise an excavator when the particular operator has no lines at the\nexcavation site. An operator subject to Part 192 should work with other participants in his one-\ncall system to make it more efficient for all by designing a more appropriate scaled geographic\ngrid. One-call systems could also facilitate compliance by advising the calling excavator what\noperators are being notified or possibly in some areas actually make the negative responses to the\ncalling excavator.\nMTB recognizes the leading role that the State of Michigan has taken with its statute and the\ncooperative Miss Dig system, which was one of the first and most active one-call systems in the\ncountry. However, the point in the Kidd letter that if one operator calls an excavator telling him\nthat this gas operator has no lines at the site should not give an excavator the impression that\nother gas operators do not have lines there. Such situations are exactly the reason why all gas\noperators must respond to the excavator so he is not given that mistaken impression by \"silence.\"\nThe excavator should know which operators have been notified by the one-call system and who\nhas responded to him one way or the other.\nOPSR believes the rule meets the intent of Congress and the recommendations of NTSB\ndeveloped over several years of investigations. We do not believe the \"actual notification\"\nrequirement of §192.614(b)(4) should re removed \"when no facilities are present\" as Michael\nKidd suggests. Nor, do we believe that a State should be able to continue with a program which\ndoes not require the notification in §192.614(b)(4) because such omission would adversely\nconflict with essential criterion in §192.614.\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\614\\88-09-14\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nWe believe the State agency or OOE region personnel are in the best position to make reasonable\ncompliance judgments in those unusual circumstances involving enforcement actions against\noperators who do not make all notifications to excavators where a very large number of calls are\ninvolved.\nIf OPSR can be of assistance in developing guidelines for enforcement within the performance\nstandard stated in §192.614, we are ready to respond.\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\614\\88-09-14\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":5595}